What's your religion?

[Zoned87]

Originally Posted by Amray

Yes, it really depends on how strongly they respect and belive their religion. I know of a Christian that refuses to watch things such as Death Note, Fullmetal Alchemist...etc and silimar things to them just because they have witchcraft in them, which is 'apparently' offensive to God and the way in which he created us. (Don't ask). But then their are also Christians like my father whom drink, smoke, has had a fair share of fights, has sex before marriage (he has a girlfriend now). I know, these things are not exactly murder or serious crimes, but nontheless a lot of those things go against the bible and Gods teachings.

I'm an athiest, but it is not as though I would go out with a butchers knife when I'm bored and go around mass murdering and decapitating people, just because I know I will not be punished by Gods hand for it. Regardless, I still do sometimes have beliefs about God, I'm not sure if that is because I have grown up around Christians and Catholics on my fathers side of the family, but still..they are there. I have my own beliefs and do not feel the need to follow others.

Alchemy is actually considered a science(not a magic)and it was largely conducted and funded by the churches of midevil europe.

Its based on the theory that any one matter can be transformed into another if exposed to proper elements which can rearrange the molecules. While it has largely been abandoned it still is not impossible, especially as technology advances.

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by 2H-Dragon

I know enough atheist killers. SO it must be fact the atheism causes people to become killers!

Originally Posted by 2H-Dragon

It was sarcasm...

Originally Posted by amirali1985

I think 2H was being sarcastic. He's trying to point out the same thing as you, Liddo-kun, that just because there ae killers in a certain group or belief system, doesn't mean much.....otherwise by that logic, every group/religion would be dangerous.

Well, I believe it's human nature to be dangerous one way or another. Each group has a potential/tendency to become violent.
However some groups are more volatile than others.

I just quoted him because it appears (by my analysis of his post) that he's trying to have the effect that atheism is a major cause of being a murderer and that there are less/no killers in groups who have a religion.

[Amray]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

There are really people like that??

Apparently so...^-^;

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

Don't worry, I won't ask. Would like to comment further but what I would say would almost surely get me into another debate with the catholics here. Would rather watch Shugo Chara than debate. ^^

As I say, I am useless in the 'religion department'. He also said that Death Note was the most horrible anime ever made, as Light Yagami was using witchcraft to abuse Gods power. Again...don't ask. XD

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

Seriuosly now though, that's almost the same path I've taken.
Grown up in a catholic family (father and mother's side), and enrolled in catholic schools. The catholic teachings just didn't get into my being, just saw it as some sort of fandom (I generally view Catholics as admirers of God and Jesus).
I will only feel the need to follow others if it will be a benefit, I see no benefits in following a religion.

Not only me, but no one on this world actually knows and is 100% certain of why and how we are here. It could very well have been a big man living in the clouds with a big white beard that created us in seven days, or their could have been some big explosion then *pop*..nature was created. Even a frikkin' bunch of aliens could have flew past, dropped a crappy and terrible gone-wrong experiment into our ocean and that created us.

All I do know is that many people on this world would also like a realistic and scientific explanation for everything as opposed to just fairy-tales and myths about a naked man and woman, apples and something to do with a snake. If that were the real truth then why are snakes not offering us apples to this day?

Originally Posted by Zoned87

Alchemy is actually considered a science(not a magic)and it was largely conducted and funded by the churches of midevil europe.

Its based on the theory that any one matter can be transformed into another if exposed to proper elements which can rearrange the molecules. While it has largely been abandoned it still is not impossible, especially as technology advances.

Yes, I have done many research on alchemy in the past. Is it is even more so science than cooking is. Science is using natural resourses in which we humans have found and used, therefore their is no whitchcraft or anything out of the ordinary involved.

[2H-Dragon]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

I just quoted him because it appears (by my analysis of his post) that he's trying to have the effect that atheism is a major cause of being a murderer and that there are less/no killers in groups who have a religion.

My posts make more sense if you also read the quote. :O


OT: whoever said alchemy is fake. The Sun shows a reaction that is considered Alchemy no?

[WanderingKnight]

OT: whoever said alchemy is fake. The Sun shows a reaction that is considered Alchemy no?

The idea of turning a material into another one is not amiss, but the point is that you need a crapload of energy to do so (which is what we found out through chemistry). Even more if you want to turn lead into gold, since there is a much bigger difference between the two than between helium and hydrogen. However, there exist several years of scientific investigation and experimenting that give us the possibility of understanding that, which is something alchemy doesn't have (and before you say that it's been practiced for hundreds of years... their method was certainly not scientific). Turning lead into gold is actually possible nowadays, but it requires such a huge amount of energy that doing it for a profit would be completely idiotic.

Besides, alchemy tried to find the mystic Philosopher's stone, which was, besides turning lead into gold, also supposed to grant eternal youth. Which doesn't seem too concordant with modern physics.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Turning lead into gold is actually possible nowadays, but it requires such a huge amount of energy that doing it for a profit would be completely idiotic.

Not only is it possible, its been done too. A nobel prize winner called Seaborg did it.. not that he got the nobel prize for it

Originally Posted by amirali1985

Well, I can't claim to speak for the whole world either, but I can speak of my observations of a third world country, Pakistan. Majority of people are religious (although many are not), even if they do not engage in debates or deep philosophical musings on religion. Does that make their belief habitual, or superficial? I can see why some might think so, but it isn't that straightforward.

It's more that one is brought up to take religion for granted, a constant, something to not be questioned or analyzed too deeply. As long as one knows religion well enough to know what's right and what's wrong......then why spend time fishing further? Like you say, there are other exigencies in life.

Yet people will still identify deeply with Islam. For instance, people will get emotional in the name of Islam and injustices committed against other Muslims worldwide. In times of family crisis, you'll see family members spending more time in prayer and contemplation. When a great disaster strikes, religion and "It was Allah's will" is what people hold on to.

.

This is something i agree with completely as well, something i've seen a lot of. While it may seem superficial, its actually quite the opposite. As amirali pointed out its seen as a constant, something thats a given, something that is not to be questioned. So, it naturally isnt questioned. Religious fanatisicm.. is frightening to say the least, because such a vast number of 'fanatics' are often so ridiculously downtrodden. Having said that, I find that ( and only recently actually discovered so.. ) that non-religious fanatisicm is even worse ( if its at the same level). Although, its not quite as easy to find instances of non-religious related fanatics ( nowadays atleast ). Which again brings us back to the dark side of religion, which has been pursued to death already

[Vexx]

Before you get to science... you have pre-science, pseudo-science, baby steps, whatever. alchemy, astrology, phrenology, blahblahblah were all early broken attempts at thinking about things seriously -- but they were stepping stones to actual scientific endeavor once the crap was sheared away.

[Zoned87]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Before you get to science... you have pre-science, pseudo-science, baby steps, whatever. alchemy, astrology, phrenology, blahblahblah were all early broken attempts at thinking about things seriously -- but they were stepping stones to actual scientific endeavor once the crap was sheared away.

Some of the "crap was sheared away" actually had some truth in it. When scientific belief became largely popular a few hundred years ago they said it was not possible for a stone to fall from the sky. Therefore a meteorite was scientifically impossible.

But was we all very well know, meteorites do on occasion fall from the sky. The point being that we tried to use logic to phase out the possibility of it happening. Many animals that science has determined to be extinct have been found living as well.

While science is great and it has made our lives better over the years there are still some things it cannot explain. Like for instance why 40% of Americans report having some type of paranormal experience in their lives, but due to scientific reason and logic have trained themselves to ignore it or rationalize it.

I believe alchemy is possible, we just don't know how to use it yet.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

I believe alchemy is possible, we just don't know how to use it yet.

Well actually if you look into nanotechnology... Things like this are like alchemy in a way.

[Amray]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

While science is great and it has made our lives better over the years there are still some things it cannot explain. Like for instance why 40% of Americans report having some type of paranormal experience in their lives, but due to scientific reason and logic have trained themselves to ignore it or rationalize it.

Yes. Unforunetly their is no solid data or evidence to prove that their are actually 'ghosts' or what not. Why is this? Is it because they are not actually there? Is it because they are memories that are built into our brains? Is it because spirits are made from some form of matter that us humans have never encountered before? Maybe they are just hallucinations made by the human mind to make it look as though their is a person there when their actually is not. No one knows for certain.

I on the other hand believe in ghosts...probably due to the fact that I have seen one myself. Yes, I was quite tired at the time but what I saw 'was' there. But it would not matter how much I and other people whom have experienced paranormal encounters expressed that we are certain of what we saw, because their is never enough sourses or proof in which a scientist can properly analyse or work from. The paranormal work in mysterious and un-identified ways, or so it would seem.

[Zoned87]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Well actually if you look into nanotechnology... Things like this are like alchemy in a way.

Rearranging particles in matter is not impossible.

Thats what alchemy is in essance.

Originally Posted by Amray

Yes. Unforunetly their is no solid data or evidence to prove that their are actually 'ghosts' or what not. Why is this? Is it because they are not actually there? Is it because they are memories that are built into our brains? Is it because spirits are made from some form of matter that us humans have never encountered before? Maybe they are just hallucinations made by the human mind to make it look as though their is a person there when their actually is not. No one knows for certain.

I on the other hand believe in ghosts...probably due to the fact that I have seen one myself. Yes, I was quite tired at the time but what I saw 'was' there. But it would not matter how much I and other people whom have experienced paranormal encounters expressed that we are certain of what we saw, because their is never enough sourses or proof in which a scientist can properly analyse or work from. The paranormal work in mysterious and un-identified ways, or so it would seem.

There is plunty of proof out there, it is just ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWEXb...eature=related

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

Rearranging particles in matter is not impossible.

Thats what alchemy is in essance.

its certainly not impossible.. and has been done already (Seaborg - lead to gold). if, we define alchemy as rearranging the atoms of a certain element, into another, it has been done before already, and its been technologically possible for quite a while now , not to mention it happening in nature. theres modern alchemy for you. doing it with useable materials in a cost efficient manner is another story altogether

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

There is plunty of proof out there, it is just ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWEXb...eature=related

You're misusing the word "proof" .... what you are presenting is evidence that may not be repeatable or measurable. It may also be falsified. It isn't "ignored" because there are people who do spend time trying to collect information that meets the basic requirements of data.

I suggest a reading of Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" as a starter on how the mind creates a model of reality and how its "internal sketchbook" often creates sensory input to fill in the gaps.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

Rearranging particles in matter is not impossible.

Thats what alchemy is in essance.

You do not rearange particles to create denser elements. Rather, amazing force literally combines two or more atoms together, create a new element (He = 2H). This is Fusion (something mankind has not been able to reproduce...yet).

As it is, this is not what Scientists have done to create gold from another element. Scientists "broke" a platinum atom down into a gold atom (this only lasted some 5 seconds). This is not alchemy at all (unless yo are using the broadest definition of the word that you can use). (btw, Seaborg won the Nobel Prize in Chemisty for finding the Transuranium elements, not "making" gold), i.e. elements with an atomic number greater than 92 (uranium); many of these elements do not exist on Earth.)

Early Alchemy was mere chemistry (the combination of different materials in hopes of create a new better material). Alchemy, though, as it is known in Western society today (based off work collected from Middle Age till the early 19th century) sought to understand the metaphysical, not rearange the physical, world, believing that "organic and inorganic...[were] mere metaphors for spiritual entities, spiritual states and ultimately, spiritual transformations." (It should be noted that the "original" alchemy of the Greeks, Romans, etc. (which was not known as alchemy) was finally disproved by the Islamic nations some 1200 years ago (when they created the basis for modern scientific method), which is partially why the European nations switched over to a metaphysical approach to alchemy.) European Alchemists did not really want to turn iron into gold, they wanted to discover a way to turn an imperfect shell (called man) into their more divine metaphysical selves (a physical form of elightenment, which is blasphmeous no mater how you look at it). This is what made Alchemy so heretical to the various Christian churches.

[Amray]

Originally Posted by Vexx

You're misusing the word "proof" .... what you are presenting is evidence that may not be repeatable or measurable. It isn't "ignored" because there are people who spend time trying to meet the basic requirements of data.

That was what I was going to state. Ofcourse their is evidence, but even that video would not look good as solid proof. If you were to give that clip to a scientist then he would not accept it. By the looks of things the only people there at the time in that room was the audio man, and the camera crew. Who is to say that this man did not edit the audio and sounds? No one can prove if he did or didn't.

There are other ways too, but I don't want to go too into it. A scientist would have to experience it for them to actually take interest. I think that they should get some scientists to go to these haunted places to check them for themselves. Ofcourse their are people that specialise in this kind of thing already, but they should give them a first-hand experience.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by james3wk

You do not rearange particles to create denser elements. Rather, amazing force literally combines two or more atoms together, create a new element (He = 2H). This is Fusion (something mankind has not been able to reproduce...yet).

As it is, this is not what Scientists have done to create gold from another element. Scientists "broke" a platinum atom down into a gold atom (this only lasted some 5 seconds). This is not alchemy at all (unless yo are using the broadest definition of the word that you can use). (btw, Seaborg won the Nobel Prize in Chemisty for finding the Transuranium elements, not "making" gold), i.e. elements with an atomic number greater than 92 (uranium); many of these elements do not exist on Earth.)

.

I did say that he didnt win the nobel prize for manafacturing gold.. Though i was under the impression that he did actually manage to manafacture ( not sure if thats the right word to use.. ) a minute amount of gold using bismuth ( as you said, by removing protons and neutrons ) ?

[Zoned87]

Originally Posted by james3wk

You do not rearange particles to create denser elements. Rather, amazing force literally combines two or more atoms together, create a new element (He = 2H). This is Fusion (something mankind has not been able to reproduce...yet).

As it is, this is not what Scientists have done to create gold from another element. Scientists "broke" a platinum atom down into a gold atom (this only lasted some 5 seconds). This is not alchemy at all (unless yo are using the broadest definition of the word that you can use). (btw, Seaborg won the Nobel Prize in Chemisty for finding the Transuranium elements, not "making" gold), i.e. elements with an atomic number greater than 92 (uranium); many of these elements do not exist on Earth.)

Early Alchemy was mere chemistry (the combination of different materials in hopes of create a new better material). Alchemy, though, as it is known in Western society today (based off work collected from Middle Age till the early 19th century) sought to understand the metaphysical, not rearange the physical, world, believing that "organic and inorganic...[were] mere metaphors for spiritual entities, spiritual states and ultimately, spiritual transformations." (It should be noted that the "original" alchemy of the Greeks, Romans, etc. (which was not known as alchemy) was finally disproved by the Islamic nations some 1200 years ago (when they created the basis for modern scientific method), which is partially why the European nations switched over to a metaphysical approach to alchemy.) European Alchemists did not really want to turn iron into gold, they wanted to discover a way to turn an imperfect shell (called man) into their more divine metaphysical selves (a physical form of elightenment, which is blasphmeous no mater how you look at it). This is what made Alchemy so heretical to the various Christian churches.

I'm refering to Alchemy's pure intention which is to turn one lump of matter into another. It doesn't necessarily matter how this is achieved, may it be spiritual or through science. I'm aware of the supernatural history behind it, but I don't think such nonsense should be applied to a modern Alchemy.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by james3wk

You do not rearange particles to create denser elements. Rather, amazing force literally combines two or more atoms together, create a new element (He = 2H). This is Fusion (something mankind has not been able to reproduce...yet).

What about the H-bomb?

Originally Posted by Zoned87

I'm refering to Alchemy's pure intention which is to turn one lump of matter into another. It doesn't necessarily matter how this is achieved, may it be spiritual or through science. I'm aware of the supernatural history behind it, but I don't think such nonsense should be applied to a modern Alchemy.

What's alchemy? What's not? Is chemistry alchemy? Is cooking? Is particle physics?

Alchemists were also shooting for eternal life. Is medicine alchemy?

IIRC, silver nitrates were discovered by alchemists. Is photography alchemy?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

I did say that he didnt win the nobel prize for manafacturing gold.. Though i was under the impression that he did actually manage to manafacture ( not sure if thats the right word to use.. ) a minute amount of gold using bismuth ( as you said, by removing protons and neutrons ) ?

I am sorry, I must have misread your intial post, becuase I thought you were saying that Seaborg won the Nobel Prize for his 1980 experiment in which he trasmuted a lump of bismuth into gold (using the process you have lsited here). But, to answer your question, yes Seaborg is one of the few scientists to have actually transmuted one element into another (using a ariety of techniques). I known Rutherford (in 1900) did something similiar with thorium converting to radium (I think he also turned nitrogen into oxygen using similar methods to Seaborg).

Added to that, we have even, briefly, been able to make gold from lead. All of these process for transmutation are extrememly cost inefficient, though, so they have never been used more than once or twice.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

What about the H-bomb?

You are talking about the "fusion fuel" used in the Teller-Ulam design (the H-Bomb). I know that the fusion fuel releases excess neutrons when heated and compressed, inducing additional fission. I, as well as most people, am unclear of how this fully happens (the best guess is that there is a plutonium "sparkplug" inside of a fusion fuel (lithium?), and when the fusion fuel starts reacting, it causes the plutonium sparkplug to go through a fission process, which in turn creates a secondary explosion, which starts a fusion reaction which creats an even larger explosion). Anything beyond that is currently unreleased to the public.

But, you are correct, I mispoke when I said fusion was currently impossible for mankind. I meant that fusion as a means of energy source was currently impossible.

[Amray]

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

Sorry, but I could hardly stop myself from laughing. ^^

Don't worry, many others were finding it quite hysterical...including myself. I kept explaining to him that it was just simply a means of Japanese entertainment. Then he started going on about how they should all be christian and believe in the same God as him. The guy was a complete na-na head.

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

When I tried to explain things like what you said to a nun, she said an evil spirit might possess me someday.

I have only ever had one encounter with a nun..in fact it was not actually an encounter. She was just driving by in her car. XD I bet not many other people can say that they have seen Nuns driving cars.

Originally Posted by Liddo-kun

The religion topic community here on AS is a nice one, open to logical debates. Unlike some fanatics that I've argued with in real life.

Yes. Chances are that if I told me grandfather some of my quotes from this he would probably have my head down a toilet or something. I have yet to experience a full-on row with a religious being in real life. It will probably never happen though. Oh well. ^^