Seit Jahrzehnten warnt der Club of Rome vor ungebremstem Wachstum. Ein neuer Bericht versammelt nun Forderungen zum politischen Umsteuern. Eine davon: Kinderlose Frauen sollen mit 50 eine Prämie von 80.000 Dollar erhalten.
When someone mentions “different dimensions,” we tend to think of things like parallel universes — alternate realities that exist parallel to our own, but where things work or happened differently. However, the reality of dimensions and how they play a role in the ordering of our Universe is really quite different from this popular characterization.
To break it down, dimensions are simply the different facets of what we perceive to be reality. We are immediately aware of the three dimensions that surround us on a daily basis – those that define the length, width, and depth of all objects in our universes (the x, y, and z axes, respectively).
Beyond these three visible dimensions, scientists believe that there may be many more. In fact, the theoretical framework of Superstring Theory posits that the universe exists in ten different dimensions. These different aspects are what govern the universe, the fundamental forces of nature, and all the elementary particles contained within.
A TEAM of scientists have made what may turn out to be the most important discovery in HISTORY – how the universe came into being from nothing.
The colossal question has troubled religions, philosophers and scientists since the dawn of time but now a Canadian team believe they have solved the riddle. And the findings are so conclusive they even challenge the need for religion, or at least an omnipotent creator – the basis of all world religions.
Under Inflation Theory the tiny energies and lifespan of the virtual particle become infinitely magnified, resulting in our 13.8 Billion-year-old universe. Just to make things more complicated Dr Mir says we have been looking at the question ‘how did the universe come from nothing?’ all wrong. According to the extraordinary findings, the question is irrelevant because the universe STILL is nothing. Dr Mir said: “Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.”
Als Religion (ausgesprochen in etwa „Reljon“), oder auch „Kaffeesatz des Denkens“, wird eine Lehre bezeichnet, die viele Menschen in einer bestimmten Glaubensrichtung, der sogenannten Sekte, zusammenhält. Sie bestärkt den Gläubigen in seinem Gefühl, ein besserer Mensch zu sein als Andere, die nicht seiner Religion angehören. Religionen arten daher verhältnismäßig oft in Kriegen zwischen den Anhängern verschiedener Sekten aus, um zu klären, welcher imaginäre Freund der coolere ist.
Der Blogger kereng hat zwei deutschprachige Videos zum Thema Evolution gemacht:
Neuere Aufnahme mit dem Hubble-Weltraumteleskop
Das Spiel des Lebens (engl. Conway’s Game of Life) ist ein vom Mathematiker John Horton Conway 1970 entworfenes Computerprogramm.
Game of Life kann als Simulation eines Mikrokosmos gesehen werden – Game of Life ist wie der Blick in ein Mikroskop. Hier leben einzelne Punkte in kleinen Kästchen. Ob sie die nächste Runde überleben, sterben oder gar neu geboren werden, ist in vier einfachen Regeln festgelegt.
Trotz dieser wenigen und einfach zu verstehenden Regeln ergeben sich eine Vielzahl von unvorhersehbaren „Lebensformen“, die sich sogar selbständig über den Bildschirm bewegen oder andere Lebensformen gebären können. Die Forschung taufte sie unter anderem Blinker, Uhr und Kröte.
Conway’s Spiel des Lebens kann als beeindruckendes Beispiel für Emergenz gesehen werden – wie aus einfachen Regeln Komplexität entsteht.
Lassen Sie sich begeistern von diesem Mikrokosmos in Ihrem Computer:
oben: die Aufspaltung des Christentums, unten: die Aufspaltung des Atheismus
Ockhams Rasiermesser: wenn es zwei vergleichbare Theorien oder Erklärungen gibt, die sich in ihrer Qualität nicht unterscheiden, so ist die einfachere vorzuziehen.
by Jim Walker
originated: 12 June 1997 / additions: 22 Sep. 2007
Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness‘ own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian’s own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.
Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe. It is shown that intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present between nations. We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.
Keywords: Religion; IQ
- 2.1. (1) Negative correlations between intelligence and religious belief
- 2.2. (2) Lower percentages holding religious beliefs among intelligence elites compared with the general population
- 2.3. (3) Decline of religious belief with age among children and adolescents
- 2.4. (4) Decline of religious belief during the course of the twentieth century as the intelligence of the population has increased
Dawkins‘ (2006) recent book The God Delusion suggests that it is not intelligent to believe in the existence of God. In this paper we examine (1) the evidence for this contention, i.e. for whether there is a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief; (2) whether the negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is a difference in Psychometric g; and (3) whether there is negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief between nations.
2. Intelligence and religious belief within nations
We are by no means the first to suggest the existence of a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief within nations. This phenomenon was observed in the 1920s by Howells (1928) and Sinclair (1928), who both reported studies showing negative correlations between intelligence and religious belief among college students of − .27, and − .29 to − .36 (using different measures of religious belief). In the 1950s Argyle (1958) concluded that “intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs, and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes”.
Evidence pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief within nations comes from four sources. These are (1) negative correlations between intelligence and religious belief; (2) lower percentages holding religious beliefs among intelligence elites compared with the general population: (3) a decline of religious belief with age among children and adolescents as their cognitive abilities increase; (4) a decline of religious belief during the course of the twentieth century as the intelligence of populations has increased.
2.1. (1) Negative correlations between intelligence and religious belief
A number of studies find negative correlations between intelligence and religious belief. A review of these carried out by Bell (2002) found 43 studies, of which all but four found a negative correlation. To these can be added a study in the Netherlands of a nationally representative sample (total N = 1538) that reported that agnostics scored 4 IQs higher than believers (Verhage, 1964). In a more recent study Kanazawa (in press) has analysed the data of the American National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a national sample initially tested for intelligence with the PPVT (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) as adolescents and interviewed as young adults in 2001–2 (N = 14,277). At this interview they were asked: “To what extent are you a religious person?” The responses were coded “not religious at all”, “slightly religious”, “moderately religious”, and “very religious”. The results showed that the “not religious at all” group had the highest IQ (103.09), followed in descending order by the other three groups (IQs = 99.34, 98.28, 97.14). The relationship between IQ and religious belief is highly significant (F (3, 14273) = 78.0381, p < .00001).
weiterlesen im Originalartikel:
Die europäische Raumfahrtbehörde ESA hat am Donnerstag zwei Weltraumteleskope ins All geschickt, von denen sich Astronomen Informationen aus der frühesten Zeit des Universums erhoffen. Die zusammen 1,8 Milliarden Euro teuren Instrumente Herschel und Planck starteten pünktlich um 15:12 Uhr an Bord einer Ariane-5-Rakete vom ESA-Weltraumbahnhof Kourou in Französisch-Guyana. „Ich bin sehr glücklich“, sagte ESA-Wissenschaftsdirektor David Southwood. Der Start sei sehr gut verlaufen, aber man stehe erst am Anfang des Projekts. Southwood nannte Herschel/Planck eine der ehrgeizigsten Aufgaben, die sich die ESA je gestellt habe.
Anmerkung: Beim Projekt Herschel hat sich das 1. Physikalische Institut der Universität Köln bei der Instrumentierung beteiligt.