U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-27-2015, 04:46 PM
 
13,476 posts, read 4,986,806 times
Reputation: 1365

Advertisements

let's look at energy. we really don't know what it is. that's a problem. we have to use what we know. so let's look at a joule. a unit for energy. kg(m/s.s)(m). So take a 2.2 lbs object and accelerated it by a meter per second every second. in a meter.

There are a few ways to do this, but let's keep it simple. push it or tap it with something.
how does this support your idea mystic?

sorry if woeding lil screwy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2015, 05:22 PM
 
40,043 posts, read 26,725,598 times
Reputation: 6048
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Oh get a grip! I = Squareroot{S^2 – C^2(T2 - T1)^2 } It is a notational error that has NO impact on my interpretation of the implications of the formulation. You guys aren't even trying to comprehend where I am coming from . . . just nitpicking and sniping. You try to denigrate my knowledge instead of understand my views . . . AS IF ANY of you have ever displayed even one tenth the knowledge I have exposed to your criticisms . . . entirely from memory. Your nit-picking forced me to revisit Minkowski to see the irrelevant transcription error (irrelevant to my purpose of exposing its implications).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Mystic, it isn't a notational error. What you originally wrote, twice, is a meaningless statement. It is as if you tried to support a philosophical argument based on 1+1=3.
It was a simple notational error . . . failing to note the squaring of the t2-t1 term, period. As to the formulation itself . . . I suggest you take its meaninglessness up with Minkowski who produced the equation to reflect the topological constancy of the world interval in his vierdimensionale Welt.
Quote:
The fact that the mathematics mean so little to you that you can make the mistake once, insult and demean those who noticed it, ignore the correction and do it all over again demonstrates that the science here is incidental. it is simply something you have grabbed because you can twist it into service to support your predetermined conclusion. In that sense you are doing exactly what Eusebius does, only with bigger words and slightly nastier insults.
The nasty folk here are those attacking me and attempting to denigrate my knowledge without revealing any of theirs. I have plenty of respect for the math . . . it supported me for 30 years as a Professor of quantitative methods. I wasn't teaching Minkowski's version of relativity theory. I was using one of his signature formulations to make a philosophical point by implication. My memory failed me with regard to the complete notation of the formulation, period. Since it was incidental to what I was trying to get people to infer from it . . . I disregarded the nitpicks. When I copy/pasted the same equation with the same transcription error the repetitious nitpicking about the "huge mistake" forced me to check back with the original material to see what the hell you guys were getting so uptight about. It was a simple transcription error from memory. Do you ever make any of those, NoCapo???
Quote:
If you want to use physics to justify your faith, all we are asking is use the physics correctly! Don't use it if you don't understand it, and if a marginal neophyte like myself can point out the problems with your assumptions, then you don't understand it...
Now if you are interested in actually looking at the physics, we can go back to E=MC^2 and E=hf and talk about it... As I said before in neither equation is E anything but a scalar, it has no frequency (and likewise no mass). In the fist case we are discussing the relation of the energy of a particle to its mass, and in the second the energy of a field to its frequency.
-NoCapo
As long as you focus on what the measures are as measures . . . you will never see what I am using them to represent. Every phenomenon in our reality EXISTS in a state that corresponds to its essence. Energy as reflected in mass/energy equivalence is such a phenomenon. The terms in the equations reflect the existential characteristics of that essence. You see only mathematical terms reflecting measurement events.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2015, 11:27 PM
 
40,043 posts, read 26,725,598 times
Reputation: 6048
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Yes . . . we ARE discussing the particular STATE something called energy EXISTS in. The underlying phenomenon being "measured" with these different "measures" (NOT the measures themselves) is what I am referring to. The "measures" are events revealing the underlying structure of EXISTING field phenomenon under various manipulations . . . the nature of that EXISTENCE is what we are trying to understand. If the phenomenon CAN be represented by a "measured" frequency . . . it is inherently vibratory. If the SAME phenomenon CAN be represented by "measures" representing inertia and the propagation rate of EM radiation . . . surely the vibratory nature is retained in that scalar formulation by the measurement process.

Measurement requires our consciousness and the "quantum time" necessary for our consciousness to form prior to our experience of it as instantaneous awareness. That will be reflected in those measurements. It is why Minkowski's formulation of the topological constancy of the world interval is so intriguing. It illustrates the dependent nature of time . . . as we measure it . . . on the square of the speed of light:

I = Squareroot{S^2 – C^2(T2 - T1)^2 }

where S = spatial distance; T2 - T1 = measured time interval; and C = speed of light. In words, the spatial separation of events is altered by a continuum of C^2 for any "measured" temporal separation.

To grasp the philosophical significance of this formulation . . . it is necessary to reorient your thinking from our "inside-out" perspective to an "outside-in" perspective. The expression actually reflects relativistic events arbitrarily "measured" within the illusion that comprises our internal view of reality in our "v. If a difference between two internally measured events (T2 - T1) in a system has an effect on a third event (S^2) by a specified constant (C^2), that implies that the measurements were made by an entity using that constant (EXISTING in that state) as the ultimate base of reference! That is why it is constant! We assess stimuli that EXIST at less than C^2 against a base of reference that EXISTS at C^2 . . . which is our thoughts. In fact, without such a reference at C^2, "measurement" itself would be impossible . . . which means that differentiation between T2 and T1 would be impossible and any multiplicative relationship with C^2 would be meaningless.

This clearly reveals the dependence of our measurement of time and distance on the formation of our consciousness. I realize that thinking about the measures used as representations of the state that some underlying structure of reality EXISTS IN . . . as measured by the state our consciousness EXISTS IN . . . is NOT the way the mathematics is typically USED. But every measurement event is a slice of the underlying structure of our reality and indirectly reveals the structure of BOTH the measuring AND the measured entities. The mathematical manipulations and formulations also have characteristics that reflect how that underlying structure manifests under various manipulations. That is also why analogy (NOT literalism) is the preferred mode of communication when describing that underlying reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert View Post
Here, Mystic mistakens the "m" in E=mc^2 to mean "matter". He believes the equation is saying that c^2 somehow represents the velocity of the matter. I.e. If you moving/vibrate matter at the speed of light squared, you get energy.
No I do NOT and never did confuse mass and matter. We had a long discussion about mass/energy equivalence (and your precious momentum) during which I provided a detailed explanation of the relationship between inertial (rest) mass and energy. I suggest you revisit that discussion and retract your libel. I will repost some of that discussion shortly to refresh your failing memory.
Quote:
What "m" actually stands for is mass. And it says absolutely nothing about the velocity of the mass, and can even refer to rest mass. In fact, mass can't ever move at the speed of light, never mind the speed of light squared.
Mass is just one property of the field and is not the preferred one . . . energy is. Energy has been my catch-all word for the "same property" (energy/mass equivalence) that best characterizes the unified field. I never said mass could ever move at the speed of light let alone at the square of the speed of light. It EXISTS in a state that reflects a transformation to a high vibratory frequency. I equated frequency to "speed" using "acceleration" as an analogue for the transformation. The equations E =MC^2 and E=hf . . . when viewed as indicators of the underlying substrate for these "measured field manifestations we call energy" . . . should reveal that my reference to C^2 was never meant as a "speed" in the typical sense. It is a parallel measurement of something existing at a specific frequency of internal vibration (analogous to "molecular" vibration) in what we consider the range of high energy (E=hf). This means that whatever can be represented as existing at the square of the speed of light (E=MC^2) can be seen as existing as high vibratory energy (E=hf). Particle physicists refer to the kind of change of states involved as "high energy" versus "low energy" physics.
Quote:
What E=mc^2 says is if you have a system with mass m (in SI units), then it will posses energy E of an amount equal to mc^2 (in SI units). If we use natural units, the equation vecomes even simpler. E = m. If we want to discuss motion explicitly, we must use the more complete energy-momentum relation
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
where p is momentum. This says, quite simply, that the energy of a system can be determined from its mass and momentum.
So, for example, a photon has no mass but it does have momentum. The equation becomes
E^2 = 0 + p^2
which reduces to
E = p
I.e. The amount of energy a photon has (in natural units) is the same as the amount of momentum it has. Similarly, if we have an object with mass that is not moving at all, it will have no momentum, and the equation becomes
E^2 = m^2 + 0
or just
E = m
The amount of energy the object has (in natural units) is the same as the amount of mass it has.
This is what E=mc^2 is communicating. It is a simple relation between the quantity of mass an object has and the quantity of energy it has. (Quantum field theoretic calculations actually involve violations of this relation)
The closest Mystic gets to being correct is alluding to wavelike properties of things, first characterised by De Broglie matter waves. But this lends no support to his wrong statements about E=mc^2.
s^2 in this equation is not a third event. s is the separation between the same two measured events that occur at t1 and t2.
In all your blustering you make no inferences about what the reality IS that underlies the changes of state reflected in the equations. I will now repeat what you claim revealed my ignorance of the physics from my post#86 . . . a discussion we had three years ago in what is now the Philosophy Forum, Morbert. AS I SAID BACK THEN: . . . to understand the philosophical significance of E = mc^2 as regards the nature of reality . . . we need to understand the meaning of the symbols. Unfortunately, these symbols are not used univocally by physicists and philosophers. Nevertheless a relatively unequivocal understanding is that E represents the total energy of a physical system. The symbol (m) represents the relativistic mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with a constant velocity (v) relative to the system. (Note the use of quotes to emphasize the importance of measurement in all these speculations. See my synthesis for a discussion of the implications of such measurements.)

When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest . . . the mass is called the inertial rest mass . . . or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy . . . and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of reality . . . because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears.

The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:

1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?

The relationship between mass-energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:

E = (m − q)c^2 + K,

K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter . . . because it rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can not be “converted” into energy. This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. The view that mass and energy are the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0. Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has any mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%.

What can we take away from this equivalence philosophically about the structure of reality and the nature of matter? Actually Einstein's classical distinction between matter and fields has given way to an ontology entirely comprised of fields. This makes the preferred view of 'particle" physicists that the "same property" is physical mass questionable (Lange, et al. . . . such physical bias is to be expected from physicists I suppose). But Einstein's ontological field view (universal field) requires that energy be the "same property" rest state (basic "substance") . . . NOT mass.

The most recent efforts relying on this "same property" view have shown that the very structure of timespace must be altered to account for any transformations. (See my other analogies in the Synthesis for more simplified explanations of what is going on) Minkowski's topological analysis of timespace is instructive. I deliberately reverse the typical "spacetime" expression to "timespace" because it is increasingly evident that time is the more crucial and "real" aspect of reality and that "energy events" are the true "structural components."

If you have any relevant corrections to my "non-analogy" views and wish to subject them to discussion and further clarification please do so. Otherwise, my assertion that energy is the basic property of timespace stands . . . Einstein's universal field is validated . . . and consciousness as energy is established (since there is nothing else for it to be!)

Still going to claim you didn't think I knew the difference between matter and mass??? Still going to misuse my analogies against me AS IF they were literal???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2015, 06:29 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,936,605 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It was a simple notational error . . . failing to note the squaring of the t2-t1 term, period. As to the formulation itself . . . I suggest you take its meaninglessness up with Minkowski who produced the equation to reflect the topological constancy of the world interval in his vierdimensionale Welt. The nasty folk here are those attacking me and attempting to denigrate my knowledge without revealing any of theirs.
But but but, I'm a PhD. I even say so on the internet. Why do people doubt me?

In any case, despite the whining they have revealed they know the physics better than you do. That's why they've been patient enough to repeatedly try to teach you the actual math that you seem to keep messing up.

Quote:
I have plenty of respect for the math . . . it supported me for 30 years as a Professor of quantitative methods.
So wait, you have no professional experience in physics?

Quote:
I wasn't teaching Minkowski's version of relativity theory. I was using one of his signature formulations to make a philosophical point by implication. My memory failed me with regard to the complete notation of the formulation, period. Since it was incidental to what I was trying to get people to infer from it . . . I disregarded the nitpicks. When I copy/pasted the same equation with the same transcription error the repetitious nitpicking about the "huge mistake" forced me to check back with the original material to see what the hell you guys were getting so uptight about. It was a simple transcription error from memory.
People are welcome to review the thread I linked to and see how people who actually understand the science figured out the error. They used their understanding of what the equation was supposed to model and saw that the mistaken one didn't work. No need to go back and quote-mine until you find something that maybe fits - that's not understanding science, that's cherry picking cool looking equations to try and manufacture something that's not actually there.

Last edited by KCfromNC; 01-28-2015 at 06:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2015, 11:41 AM
 
93 posts, read 66,292 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
No I do NOT and never did confuse mass and matter. We had a long discussion about mass/energy equivalence (and your precious momentum) during which I provided a detailed explanation of the relationship between inertial (rest) mass and energy. I suggest you revisit that discussion and retract your libel. I will repost some of that discussion shortly to refresh your failing memory.Mass is just one property of the field and is not the preferred one . . . energy is. Energy has been my catch-all word for the "same property" (energy/mass equivalence) that best characterizes the unified field. I never said mass could ever move at the speed of light let alone at the square of the speed of light. It EXISTS in a state that reflects a transformation to a high vibratory frequency. I equated frequency to "speed" using "acceleration" as an analogue for the transformation. The equations E =MC^2 and E=hf . . . when viewed as indicators of the underlying substrate for these "measured field manifestations we call energy" . . . should reveal that my reference to C^2 was never meant as a "speed" in the typical sense. It is a parallel measurement of something existing at a specific frequency of internal vibration (analogous to "molecular" vibration) in what we consider the range of high energy (E=hf). This means that whatever can be represented as existing at the square of the speed of light (E=MC^2) can be seen as existing as high vibratory energy (E=hf). Particle physicists refer to the kind of change of states involved as "high energy" versus "low energy" physics. In all your blustering you make no inferences about what the reality IS that underlies the changes of state reflected in the equations. I will now repeat what you claim revealed my ignorance of the physics from my post#86 . . . a discussion we had three years ago in what is now the Philosophy Forum, Morbert. AS I SAID BACK THEN: . . . to understand the philosophical significance of E = mc^2 as regards the nature of reality . . . we need to understand the meaning of the symbols. Unfortunately, these symbols are not used univocally by physicists and philosophers. Nevertheless a relatively unequivocal understanding is that E represents the total energy of a physical system. The symbol (m) represents the relativistic mass of the system as "measured" by an observer moving with a constant velocity (v) relative to the system. (Note the use of quotes to emphasize the importance of measurement in all these speculations. See my synthesis for a discussion of the implications of such measurements.)

When the observer and the system are in a relative state of rest . . . the mass is called the inertial rest mass . . . or the tendency of the system to resist changes in velocity. The value of the energy in the rest state is the rest energy . . . and is a measure of all of the energy (including the potential energy) of the constituents of the system. This is the form of Einstein's equation we are exploring the implications of for the nature of reality . . . because at rest the Lorentz factor is 1 and disappears.

The three main philosophical questions concerning the interpretation of E = mc^2 are:

1. What is mass-energy equivalence and are mass and energy the same property of physical systems?;
2. Are we dealing with conversion or transformation of mass into energy in some physical interactions?;
3. Are there any ontological consequences of Einstein's equation? If so what?

The relationship between mass-energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:

E = (m − q)c^2 + K,

K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter . . . because it rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can not be “converted” into energy. This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. The view that mass and energy are the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0. Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has any mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%.

What can we take away from this equivalence philosophically about the structure of reality and the nature of matter? Actually Einstein's classical distinction between matter and fields has given way to an ontology entirely comprised of fields. This makes the preferred view of 'particle" physicists that the "same property" is physical mass questionable (Lange, et al. . . . such physical bias is to be expected from physicists I suppose). But Einstein's ontological field view (universal field) requires that energy be the "same property" rest state (basic "substance") . . . NOT mass.

The most recent efforts relying on this "same property" view have shown that the very structure of timespace must be altered to account for any transformations. (See my other analogies in the Synthesis for more simplified explanations of what is going on) Minkowski's topological analysis of timespace is instructive. I deliberately reverse the typical "spacetime" expression to "timespace" because it is increasingly evident that time is the more crucial and "real" aspect of reality and that "energy events" are the true "structural components."
The stuff you lift from the SEP article on energy-mass equivalence is not the problem. The problem is your claim that energy is mass accelerated to the speed of light squared. It implies you do not understand the SEP article you are using as a reference.

I.e. You complain that I am not acknowledging the philosophical implications of physics. Yet the problem isn't the philosophical implications. The problem is you do not understand the physics from which you are trying to draw philosophical implications. Energy is not, in any way, literally or analogously, mass accelerated to the speed of light squared.

Quote:
If you have any relevant corrections to my "non-analogy" views and wish to subject them to discussion and further clarification please do so. Otherwise, my assertion that energy is the basic property of timespace stands . . . Einstein's universal field is validated . . . and consciousness as energy is established (since there is nothing else for it to be!)
Energy is not the basic property of spacetime. Spacetime has a variety of properties. I suspect you are trying to identify some basic attribute that determines spacetime. In which case energy is still not the basic property.

The property you are looking for is energy-momentum. Just as space and time are unified into a single framework (spacetime), energy and momentum are unified in energy-momentum. This also motivates a simple interpretation of rest mass as a measure of the difference between a system's energy and momentum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2015, 12:21 PM
 
13,476 posts, read 4,986,806 times
Reputation: 1365
now we throw formulas like bible quotes and we think ourselves so different, so superior than "them".

Ignorance brings chaos. This thread is a good example.
n
obody here knows what energy is. what we do know is physics. e=mc^2 speaks to the interrelationship of everything we perceive to be real. even the "formula literalist" can understand that. E=hf speaks to the possibility that everything is quantized. If you don't know that, you don't know what you don't know. Quarks, leptons, and vacuum energy speak to this "vibratory" nature that mystic is trying to speak too. The words cyclic, waving, and profanity are betters words. I don't agree with him But I understand he trying to do.

Conservation of momentum is both the key and the lock to me. It has opened up so much yet can't close the gap. I think because time is not a "real thing". and Time is not real unity. I don't think 'C' is either.

Mystic you are blocked by yourself, nobody else is doing it. In fact they are really trying to help you. IMO anyway.

Space and time "being unified" is not the way I would say it to those that don't understand what is really going on. Its better to say space-time is manmade framework for us to use. Unless you can tell me what time and energy is. but Just like QM, it works, we don't know why it works. but it works. it always works ... so far.

time is not a thing or even a real "physical dimension". IMNSHO we compare a set of state changes in one region of space to that of another region of space so that the region of space between our ears can make sense of things. "no absolute time" speaks to the notion that space is "warping", or somehow changing in such a way that the same state changes can appear to be happing at different "rates". I think because of how "fields" move through space. If they are even moving and not just oscillating like a buoy on the ocean. See that mystic!!!! no, I am not sure



ps,

profanity is by choice.
It is not forced on you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2015, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Huntsville, AL
2,851 posts, read 915,020 times
Reputation: 5409
A serious question to anyone who calls themselves an Atheist:
(I am a Christian, and I am not going to argue against your thoughts - or opposing views).

If any of you saw 'God's Not Dead' - how do you answer the students question of:

'How can you be mad at something that (to you) doesn't exist?'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2015, 12:41 PM
 
16,088 posts, read 17,884,603 times
Reputation: 15889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumf View Post
A serious question to anyone who calls themselves an Atheist:
(I am a Christian, and I am not going to argue against your thoughts - or opposing views).

If any of you saw 'God's Not Dead' - how do you answer the students question of:

'How can you be mad at something that (to you) doesn't exist?'
I didn't see the film, but that question has been asked numerous times here and elsewhere. The answer is that atheists in general are NOT mad at God at all. We simply do not believe in God. Some atheists are angry at the Church and its attempts to interject its God into the government, but even they are not mad at God.

It would be like being mad at the tooth fairy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2015, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Florida
19,786 posts, read 19,886,317 times
Reputation: 23202
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
I didn't see the film, but that question has been asked numerous times here and elsewhere. The answer is that atheists in general are NOT mad at God at all. We simply do not believe in God. Some atheists are angry at the Church and its attempts to interject its God into the government, but even they are not mad at God.

It would be like being mad at the tooth fairy.
I don't need to add anything to this.^^^

Well, I could, but that should do it for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2015, 01:32 PM
 
13,476 posts, read 4,986,806 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumf View Post
A serious question to anyone who calls themselves an Atheist:
(I am a Christian, and I am not going to argue against your thoughts - or opposing views).

If any of you saw 'God's Not Dead' - how do you answer the students question of:

'How can you be mad at something that (to you) doesn't exist?'

lmao.

I have said it a few times. I can't address what I don't believe in. I can only address the real parts. I wonder how alcohol compares to religion. we can't really do that I guess. That would involve honesty.

I haven't seen many people hate religion that have not been abused by somebody they think religion caused to do it. maybe they can't be mad at daddy or something ... I don't know that stuff. I don't believe in theist god and I don't believe in the imagery beast. I do believe we need to stop people from using religion as a weapon. and allow that that use it for good to go on their merry way. Like fire, cars, and drugs.

I do wish we could render religion power to that of the local soccer club's. In the usa that is, not ureo's soccer's power. they crazy over there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top