exchemist

Where does the bible speak of "dynamic energy"?

"Neo"? where do you get that from? "Neo" forms no part of the standard nomenclature for these compounds. It is a prefix meaning "new", e.g. neoprene which was, when it was invented in the 1930s a "new" kind of synthetic rubber. Also "propy" doesn't mean anything. I'm afraid I cannot make sense of your question here. Can you try again and this time uses a few more sentences to explain more clearly what it is you want to understand?

OK here is the web link to the paper I referenced: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/kettell/cloud/faithless.pdf. Hope you can open this. It's quite readable, unlike so many academic papers. (As for all art being propaganda, I think that's baloney, but then I like Bach, whose instrumental music is abstract. But in any case I was talking about the gospels not being agitprop, so unless you are describing them as art I wouldn't think the aphorism applies.)

Indeed, the origin of life cannot be due to evolution, since that already requires replication, the ability of an organism to pass on its traits to descendants. The study of the origin of life on Earth (abiogenesis, as distinct from evolution) is a very interesting topic. A lot of models for various biochemical building blocks have now been identified, though we are still nowhere close to putting them together to create a model for how life first arose. Research continues to make progress but it will be a long road.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. WB Yeats. It was ever thus. Partly because the best can see nuance.

Yes, quite, the gospels are not agitprop. OK so you are referring to evangelical New Atheists on the one hand and fundie Christians (or Muslims or Jews, actually) on the other? Yes, of course they are fighting one another. I also agree it could indeed be seen as a sociopolitical fight, in that both camps want to mould society according to their worldviews. While this is nakedly obvious on the part of the Religious Right in the USA, it is less so for the New Atheists. But I found this article on the topic of the political dimension to New (evangelical) Atheism: I thought it was quite interesting, though it was written in 2013 and my feeling is the New Atheism movement has grown weaker since that time. There is little doubt from reading this that the New Atheists have, or had, political goals. What I wonder now, though, is whether this crusade has gone anywhere. I see a lot less about it than a decade ago. I wonder if this may be linked to the failure of the Intelligent Design movement, which I know exercised people like Dawkins greatly. By the way, and a bit off the subject, I was also struck by the description of how the New Atheists see religion: "Tied to this is a view of religion as propositional, as a set of truth claims about the nature of reality that is to be treated as a scientific hypothesis and duly weighed against the available evidence. As such, new atheists maintain that since no evidence of this kind that can withstand scrutiny has ever been produced, the claims made by religion must therefore be rejected as false." It seems to me this is a bit shallow, ignoring as it does the often profound value of religion in people's lives as a guide, a coping mechanism, a source of tradition, identity, the aesthetic (architectural, visual, musical, literary), shared ritual and community. But that's possibly a different subject.

Oh I didn't intend to single out religious extremism as unique. I simply read your OP as being about extreme religious faith, specifically, so that is what I addressed. There is all manner of extremism at large, certainly, and some of it definitely hijacks religion as a cover story in order to make intolerance seem respectable. But it can work the other way round as well. For example in the USA, and to some degree in Continental Europe, there is the so-called Religious Right, whose objectives seem to be a blend of intolerant social conservatism and old-fashioned religious views. Basically they are trying to advance a social policy agenda, but one inspired largely by their rather antediluvian religious views. I'm not sure I buy your idea of an atheist/theist class struggle, though maybe you can develop it more to help me see what you mean. For the most part, atheist and religious believers get along fine and are thoroughly intermingled, it seems to me, rather than being identifiable classes.

You can speak for yourself of course, but I don't think you can clam to speak for all "physics guys". That would, superficially at least, seem to suggest any physics guy has to be an atheist, which is far from being the case e.g. Born, Abdus Salam, Robert Millikan, Faraday, Lemaitre (obviously!). But perhaps I'm reading you wrong. After all, the qualifier "unfounded" does a lot of work in your statement. None of the people I've listed would accept their religious belief was unfounded, I suspect, though I'm sure they would agree it does not rely on evidence to the standard demanded by science.

What a load of pompous, AI-generated ballocks. 😆

No, I don't think so. (Full disclosure: I'm English, so anything extreme fills me with misgiving😄). Most people with religious faith don't have it by the bucketful, but it still helps them in their lives. There is an obvious danger in extreme faith, in that it can make the believer inflexible. So when something comes along that shakes that faith, there may not be ability to flex, adapt and move forward with a different, modified appreciation. My experience is most well-adjusted people are able to manage a degree of uncertainty or doubt without being unduly troubled by it. I think this is the healthy way to be.

This needs explanation. What are you on about?

And the spittle-flecked ranting continues……. You seem to be furious with everybody and everything here, and you have only just arrived. I’m mystified. I’d better sit back and see if others have more luck getting a coherent argument out of you.

I had assumed it was a mash-up of two characters from Smiley's People: Otto Leipzig and Claus Kretzschmar. But now it occurs to me that it might be Le Carré who disassembled the name of the submariner for his two characters. How very interesting.

Haha your spelling is letting you down again.😁

But I thought he was a cretin? In fact, one might expect a relatively high incidence of iodine deficiency in Tibet, it being inland and mountainous, and this seems likely to be the case, though data is sparse: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31928176/ So maybe some Tibetans are indeed technical cretins, in the original sense.

While I think the parallels can be overdone there are no doubt similarities in the way communism has been expressed, probably because it is an ideology. I used to be amused by the way communists and other far left socialists were always having internal rows and splitting to form new tiny groups, each holding to what they saw as the "true" faith. True Scotsmen everywhere! Very reminiscent of extreme Protestantism. When ideologies are not tempered by pragmatism these manifestation are what you tend to get.

Actually this "Atlantis ring" is sort of amusing. Seems to be a New Agey attempt to cash in on Ancient Egyptian woo. Load of shit about balancing energy fields, harmful frequencies (er, of what?), etc. Nothing about aliens, sadly. Some Canadian woman called Marcia turns them out and flogs them. 🤪

This is raving mad, as well as highly unpleasant.

Well, who rattled your cage!? 😁 All this fulmination against "ideologically fixated science-minded unbelievers" seems a bit paranoid when the responses you have had so far don't seem to indicate such an attitude. What several of us have been saying is that because science concerns itself exclusively with the physical world, as evidenced by reproducible observations of nature, it has nothing to say about metaphysical ideas such as the soul. There may well be some physicalists here, that is, people who take the worldview that the physical world, as amenable in principle to reproducible observation, is all there is. That is a perfectly reasonable worldview and not in itself "ideological". There are others here who do not share such a worldview and think there may be more to existence. Both are perfectly compatible with science. Many scientists are religious believers. You seem to be attacking a particular evangelical atheism, sometimes called the New Atheism, espoused famously by the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Harris): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism. That would be fair enough. I'd go along with you to some extent that Dawkins at least has seemed to waste his time attacking a kind of cardboard cutout of religion that he has constructed himself. Though to be fair to him I think he has moderated his views somewhat in recent years. But I am having to speculate a bit because you are not very clear what your beef is and with whom. It seems to me this thread would benefit from you identifying your target with more precision: exchange your blunderbuss for a rifle.

Yes I think you are right. I was partly suckered by the angle on this taken by the newspaper report. It is indeed mainly about their measurement technique. But I had no idea there are volcanoes in that part of the world, so I found it interesting. Agree too about Pozzuoli and the Phlegraean Fields. I gather Solfatara is now out of bounds. I visited it back in the 1970s.

I saw news of this in the Independent and have looked up the paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL114853 Although not associated with active volcanism, there is in fact a subduction zone under Iran, due to the underthrusting of the colliding Arabian Plate, extending eastwards from the straits of Hormuz. I was intrigued by this, having lived in the Persian Gulf for some years in the 1980s and having always wondered a bit about the geology. It seems the volcano summit is rising, but they attribute this to shallow depth hydrothermal activity, which could presage some kind of phreatic event, though no one is yet suggesting a lava eruption is imminent. According to this paper the last definite eruption was ~700,000 yrs ago, though I notice the Wiki entry on this volcano is rather self-contradictory, at one point suggesting eruptions in recent years but then seeming to say there is no evidence for that after all. It's an intriguing area and not well known to us Westerners. There are even salt glaciers(!) in the Zagros mountains of Iran.

Don't be silly. Think. Don't panic* and write random nonsense. What on earth does "d" mean? First, what is the formula for alkanes? Second, think how many fewer H atoms you have for each double bond in an alkene. For instance propane CH3-CH2-CH3, vs. propene. Tell me what you think about this. *Actually this is tough love: I do sympathise a bit. My son used to panic with chemistry, and with maths. Stay calm and think and you will get it.

OK, it's not "pie", it is "pi", the English for the Greek letter π. The π bond involves one, repeat one, orbital on each carbon atom, and contains one pair of electrons. It is not regarded as two bonds. A double bond consists of one σ bond and one π bond. However the π bond does have 2 lobes of electron density, one above and one below the axis of the σ bond. That is because it formed by the sideways overlap of a dumbell-shaped orbital on each atom, like this: 8-8.

Something wrong: no content.

What, specifically, do you not understand?