Normally I do not get into "individual needs & problems", especially when I know nothing about the individual.
You say that, and yet you had no problem discussing what kind of idiocy exists here and how closed the minds are here.
The willful [idiocy] one generates fear, closed-mind, irrationality, intolerance, ignorance, uselessness and is un-teachable. It has no audience outside forums such as these where its adherents can IMAGINE to exercise Marxist-like authoritarianism.
I asked why your theory is important, what usefulness does it have. It's a legitimate question. You now have four types of responses when you can't explain yourself, call people idiots, babble on with your endless questions, say you "don't get into that", and demand that people read your links. None of that is welcome behavior here, or anywhere.
No. When I went to biology class in college, the professor didn’t stand in front of the class and challenge us to explain things. The key words here are “they are working on it”. How does this affect me if I am not aware of it? Why do you care what I think about it?
[Noetics]
Sorry, for the mistaken identity. Biology will not help a great deal here; physics, chemistry, philosophy/logic will. It is a physicist/engineer who is trying to pull out monopoles from live cells. Regret bothering you.
Noetics.
Allow me to correct: No. When I went to biology, physics or chemistry class in college, the professor didn't stand in front of the class and challenge us to explain things. The key words here are "they are working on it". How does this affect me if I am not aware of it? Why do you care what I think about it?
Philosophy of course is a completely different animal. I would expect to be challenged with questions in a philosophy class.
So, how does this affect me if I am not aware of it? and Why do you care what I think about it?
[Noetics]
Normally I do not get into "individual needs & problems", especially when I know nothing about the individual. Coupling & decoupling (spin-spin) discussed in the references may be of interest to you. Prospect of being raised to a functional level after "decoupling" by an external energy source is another item of curiosity. "Entanglement" with the lost fermions may be an interesting possibility. Passage of a non-electric doppelganger raised to the minimum threshold of energy (E=mC^2) through any and every material barriers may be worth exploring. Elucidation of many reliably reported anomalous phenomena such as NDE/OBE etc. may be illuminating.
[Noetics]
Gentleman/Gentle Lady:
This is what I read from you: " How does this affect me if I am not aware of it]>
[Noetics]
Gentleman/Gentle Lady:
This is what I read from you: " How does this affect me if I am not aware of it?....."
And #5, playing semantic games. "How does this affect me" is functionally equivalent to "why your theory is important, what usefulness does it have". I rephrased the question for clarification and you turned it into obfuscation. Here's an easier one, why don't you just go away?
Is there any religion other than the “religions of atheism and humanism"
These are NOT religions.
[Noetics]
Though it has NO legal force, In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), Justice Black of the US Supreme Court wrote the following opinion: "...Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others..."
However if anybody manages to bring a suit against the teaching, practice and indoctrination of Humanism and Atheism in all institutions and agencies of US Government on this score, the chances are more than 70% that it will be so decreed by SCOTUS. All religions are belief systems and so are Atheism and Secular Humanism.
[Noetics]
Is there any religion other than the “religions of atheism and humanism"
These are NOT religions.
[Noetics]
Though it has NO legal force, In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), Justice Black of the US Supreme Court wrote the following opinion: "...Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others..."
However if anybody manages to bring a suit against the teaching, practice and indoctrination of Humanism and Atheism in all institutions and agencies of US Government on this score, the chances are more than 70% that it will be so decreed by SCOTUS. All religions are belief systems and so are Atheism and Secular Humanism.
[Noetics]
Atheism is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a religion. Humanism could be seen as a quasi-religion. Atheism cannot be taught, preached or indoctrinated in institutions and agencies of the government. Atheism cannot be taught at all. It is simply a lack of belief in god(s). The most atheists can do on this score is to aver that atheism is an acceptable stance and that atheism and atheists should not be discriminated against for not believing in someone's god--and that is is clearly NOT a religion.
Humanism contains moral precepts, so it's something like a religion. Atheism does not. What is it about Humanism that you object to? Other than that it promotes rational thinking, that is. What about it gets your knickers in a twist?
Lois
Is there any religion other than the “religions of atheism and humanism"
These are NOT religions.
[Noetics]
Though it has NO legal force, In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), Justice Black of the US Supreme Court wrote the following opinion: "...Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others..."
However if anybody manages to bring a suit against the teaching, practice and indoctrination of Humanism and Atheism in all institutions and agencies of US Government on this score, the chances are more than 70% that it will be so decreed by SCOTUS. All religions are belief systems and so are Atheism and Secular Humanism.
[Noetics]
Atheism is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a religion. Humanism could be seen as a quasi-religion. Atheism cannot be taught, preached or indoctrinated in institutions and agencies of the government. Atheism cannot be taught at all. It is simply a lack of belief in god(s). The most atheists can do on this score is to aver that atheism is an acceptable stance and that atheism and atheists should not be discriminated against for not believing in someone's god--and that is is clearly NOT a religion.
Humanism contains moral precepts, so it's something like a religion. Atheism does not. What is it about Humanism that you object to? Other than that it promotes rational thinking, that is. What about it gets your knickers in a twist?
Lois
Premises of Irrationality/Belief system:
1. Out of nothing dead matter arose (Death precedes life).
2. Out of “deadness" mindless life (without any information) arose.
3. Out of mindless life mind arose
4. And out of life death arose.
Premises of Rationality/Belief system:
1. Life arise from LIFE (Life precedes death).
2. Mind arise from MIND
3. All effects have causes
4. An uncaused first cause is not an effect
Is “Caesar’s Messiah" Christianity in a nutshell?
Premises/Bethlehem Born Jesus of Nazareth
1. The Sentence of Death is universal and inevitable
2. Only the Sentencer can cancel that Sentence
3. The Sentencer did so in the Sentencer’s own way.
4. The Sentencer took the Sentence vicariously.
5. Those who accept that cancellation will be with the Risen Sentencer.
6. Those who willfully reject it will be where they always wanted to be - away from the Risen Sentencer.
Is there any religion other than the “religions of atheism and humanism"
These are NOT religions.
[Noetics]
Though it has NO legal force, In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), Justice Black of the US Supreme Court wrote the following opinion: "...Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others..."
However if anybody manages to bring a suit against the teaching, practice and indoctrination of Humanism and Atheism in all institutions and agencies of US Government on this score, the chances are more than 70% that it will be so decreed by SCOTUS. All religions are belief systems and so are Atheism and Secular Humanism.
[Noetics]
Atheism is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a religion. Humanism could be seen as a quasi-religion. Atheism cannot be taught, preached or indoctrinated in institutions and agencies of the government. Atheism cannot be taught at all. It is simply a lack of belief in god(s). The most atheists can do on this score is to aver that atheism is an acceptable stance and that atheism and atheists should not be discriminated against for not believing in someone's god--and that is is clearly NOT a religion.
Humanism contains moral precepts, so it's something like a religion. Atheism does not. What is it about Humanism that you object to? Other than that it promotes rational thinking, that is. What about it gets your knickers in a twist?
Lois
Premises of Irrationality/Belief system:
1. Out of nothing dead matter arose (Death precedes life).
2. Out of “deadness" mindless life (without any information) arose.
3. Out of mindless life mind arose
4. And out of life death arose.
Premises of Rationality/Belief system:
1. Life arise from LIFE (Life precedes death).
2. Mind arise from MIND
3. All effects have causes
4. An uncaused first cause is not an effect
Is “Caesar’s Messiah" Christianity in a nutshell?
Premises/Bethlehem Born Jesus of Nazareth
1. The Sentence of Death is universal and inevitable
2. Only the Sentencer can cancel that Sentence
3. The Sentencer did so in the Sentencer’s own way.
4. The Sentencer took the Sentence vicariously.
5. Those who accept that cancellation will be with the Risen Sentencer.
6. Those who willfully reject it will be where they always wanted to be - away from the Risen Sentencer.
Atheism addresses absolutely none of those points.
Lois
Though it has NO legal force, In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), Justice Black of the US Supreme Court wrote the following opinion: "...Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others..."
However if anybody manages to bring a suit against the teaching, practice and indoctrination of Humanism and Atheism in all institutions and agencies of US Government on this score, the chances are more than 70% that it will be so decreed by SCOTUS. All religions are belief systems and so are Atheism and Secular Humanism.
[Noetics]
This was "obiter dictum," or "said in passing" as part of a case ruling Torcaso was not required to believe in God or gods to be a Notary Public. As you say, it carries no legal force. It would not even be considered if such a hypothetical case as you mention came to the court. I doubt such a ridiculous case would go that far anyway. What you seem to be missing is that the system of governing the US has, one without religion, was designed to be more fair than any system that includes religion. Religion is notoriously difficult to interpret. It depends on authorities claiming to know things that were revealed only to them. It has no built in structure of review or revision or redress.
Atheism or Secular Humanism can only be called a belief system in the broadest sense of the word, meaning it relies on a belief that we exist and can make statements about how to get along. Otherwise, it is completely set apart from systems that make claims about a person's character based on arbitrary rules from unknown authors long since dead.
Though it has NO legal force, In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), Justice Black of the US Supreme Court wrote the following opinion: “...Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others…"
Legal fictions don't make your case. Atheism is not a religion, and the ruminations of Justice Black notwithstanding, neither is humanism.