'The Wizard' Nikola Tesla on Religion, Morality

Taken from the book "The Tesla Papers" written by Nikola Tesla, edited by David Hatcher Childress.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Nikola
• Tesla
• Religion
• Morality
• Athiest
• Athiesm
• Christianity
• Buddhism
• Philosophy
• Humanity
• Mass
• Reduction
• Energy
• Electricity
• Genius
• Inauguration
• presidential
• God
• ghristian
• buddhist
• buddha
• Jesus
• Christ
• Barrack
• Obama
• Economy
• Meltdown
• Hygiene
• cleanliness
• connectedness
• philosophy
• intelligence
• genius

[RomrotMechanikos]

@DAyomandude yeah that sounds more fantastic than jumping from a 100 story building into a glass of water and surviving the jump

[chylerreckeaolgodhul]

@drrobertoboogie97 You know what I was trying to say, though. And also, PhD in physics makes you more credible than many commenters on here. I prefer the empirical method to the deductive method, though, and that's why I don't like Relativity too much. I feel there are different ways to explain the same observations without resorting to some inexplicable 'bending of space and time' that only complicates things, in my opinion. YouTube isn't a good place for debate, though, unfortunately. ttyl

[drrobertoboogie97]

@chylerreckeaolgodhul Well, that only holds if there actually is a god. If there is no god, then the argument doesn't hold. Also, relativity has been proven numerous times, with very precise measurements. And it's an unavoidable consequence of conservation of energy-momentum. I have a Ph.D. in physics so I know something.

[chylerreckeaolgodhul]

@drrobertoboogie97 I'm technically an atheist, but I just wanted to point out a flaw in your logic here - if a God needed a creator, so does the Universe, ad infinitum. The Universe is impossible in the same sense. So that's not the way to argue over it. In any case, it's an unscientific concept - it is unfalsifiable, and therefore, it does not belong in a science book. Then again, neither does Einstein's relativity. Meh, silly people.

[cenotosa1]

@DAyomandude I know. It's amazing. It gets you thinking how lucky you are. I'm sure if chloroplyll a is an example, but I think it is. Either way there's many cases where that's happened. It's also amazing that cells have a sequence in their DNA that says when they'll die. So actually if it evolved right in the beginning, we'd live forever. Amazing.

[cenotosa1]

@DAyomandude Your biochemistry is a tad off. It's beautiful, undeniably, but the actual forming of life as of now is considerd impossible. Molecules like choloyphyll a need other biologicalenzymes to make it, which need to be made in a plant. So it's kinda like the chicken and egg thing, but its beginning is still a mystery, and as of now, though the compounds can be made, it's considered impractical to hink the came together that way.So i'm not saying you're wrong, I was just saying how amazing

[zperra]

I would much rather be the product of lifeless particals over dirt man and rib woman.

[bzbzbz7779]

@DAyomandude

uhmmm, ... now darwinism "changes", sounds as if the animals share their ancestors as a "tree" or the "trunk of a tree". but still the "tree" ev0lves from electrons and particles which darwinism agrees, therefore you are still an amalgamation of lifeless particles. nice contribution to youtube today :)

[bzbzbz7779]

@drrobertoboogie97

i can prove deviI exists: what you and all atheists and pagans believe is deviI and that is the impetus for these comments.

[bzbzbz7779]

@drrobertoboogie97

too bad you failed to explain why you are alive and can reason. btw, evolution teaches you your ancestor is a chmp and the chmp's ancestor is particles, therefore you are nothing but a bunch of lifeless particles, which i agree :)