Are atheists delusional? - String Theory & Multiple Dimensions
Uploader Comments (Capn0bvious)
Top Comments
-
String theory does not use "dimension" in the bad sci-fi startrek way that you seem to consider it. It's "dimension" like height and width and depth - those 11 potential dimensions are directions, not fully formed alternate universes. As long as you think in those terms, any claim you have to scientific investigation gets lost in your lack of understanding of the meanings of the words.
All Comments (319)
-
Religion is for anti intellectual clowns. I read some of your comments specifically the one about how you like to pick and choose what you believe out of the bible. So you're the single authority that knows that the only part of the bible is true is jesus? That is so ridiculous it's laughable. The real reason you say that is because jesus is the only semi sane part of the bible that you feel you can rationalize to yourself that it's ok to believe in.
-
Nobody will ever prove that heaven or god don't exist, because they are defined by religious people in a way that makes them impossible to disprove. These theories that theoretical physicists come up with can be proven and disproved; if they couldn't nobody would listen to them. What science does is continuously remove God back as the direct cause of things. You can always claim God answers what we currently don't know. This is mostly a response to your video description.
-
they are biased. But over time, the general consensus of scientists will weed out the bullshit. Theoretical physics is way too confused to understand for the average person who only dips into the subject every once in awhile (yes, that includes me, and probably you), so I think that, unless there is a strong consensus between theoretical physicists, nobody should pretend anything is fact.
-
A few things need to be said here. Atheists are not the only ones who accept the claims of theoretical physicists. Many Christians and believers do.
Ok. Rational people form beliefs based on evidence. When this theories are supported by new information, they become easier to believe. When people trade away reason for faith regarding ANY beliefs, it is irrational. If I scientists spends their whole life trying to prove string theory, you could argue they have faith in it and say
-
If you changed your beliefs from Atheism to something else because of how other Atheists acted, then you have a very weak character. I am an Atheist yet I do not lack empathy or understanding of people, in fact I volunteer my time to help others and spend a lot of time trying to garner a better understanding of other people so that I may be more empathetic (I still struggle with having empathy for those whom I consider "bad" people).
-
So what has this got to do with theism? You seem to be attributing the unknown to an assumption that you already have, that no matter what the answers turn out to be you will still equivocate them to some loose verse in the bible, quran or torah. There being extra dimensions has nothing to do with the supernatural. It is an unknown and it will remain an unknown until it is known via a provable scientific method, it has nothing to do with the preconceived ideas of theism.
-
So you're validating a belief in religion because scientists have a mathematic model that invokes other dimensions? And you claim those dimensions might be god, heaven or hell? And you want to know if atheists are delusional? Really?
-
Awesome man. I myself have been through the ringer when it comes to beliefs.I was born and raised as a catholic, then at age 12 I was wiccan, then just agnostic, then i was somewhat of an atheist but quickly left the "movement" because I hate that it lacks empathy and understanding of people who believe in god and wants to degrade them, it's pathetic. I find it extremely interesting that there are so many similarities between Hinduism and M theory. I don't believe in god but I agree with you :)
-
Okay, look. You, take your belife, your god, from a traditional belife witch where thoth up for as far back as 4000 years ago! StringTheory is an advanced mathematical model, witch help us understand the realety in witch we exist. This is what we have came to, WITH STUDY, not listening to a old storyBook and blindly accepting it. IF you do not see the HUGE differance, i can not help you.
Sciense does not in any way support an existance of a intellegance, but an reality made up of NaturalForces
-
@begood20000 well said!
As someone else has said before, these theories can be tested and proven. The math works. You can't test your faith with math. It's a fairy tale.
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago 4
@MrTruthAddict
And as I have said before, please provide a link to the material that shows that string theory has been "proven".
Capn0bvious 1 year ago
Well, in your video you only speak of what a scientific mind you have. Go ahead and bust it down for me why the books of Mary, Peter and Judas, not to mention the other 60 gospels that were thrown out, were considered not worthy of study? Was god talking to Emporer Constantine telling him which books were actually his words?
crazy4carolyn 1 year ago
@crazy4carolyn
I have no idea, as I believe that any work which speaks of Jesus' life and ministry is worthy of study. I don't believe that the Bible, as canonized by the Roman Catholic Church is the final authority on anything, Jesus is.
Capn0bvious 1 year ago
@crazy4carolyn
I have no idea, as I believe that any work which speaks of Jesus' life and ministry is worthy of study. I don't believe that the Bible, as canonized by the Roman Catholic Church is the final authority on anything, Jesus is.
Capn0bvious 1 year ago
I would suggest that you might need to work on your biblical and general history knowledge? You would see more of the problems with taking one of those old books too seriously.
crazy4carolyn 1 year ago
@crazy4carolyn
Actually, I consider my biblical and general history knowledge to be above par. Perhaps you would like to be a little more specific about the "problems with taking one of those old books too seriously and I'll be happy to deconstruct your argument for you.
Capn0bvious 1 year ago