extent. Matthew 19:20, Luke 12:13-15.
Read your Bible, if you can actually do everything it says, more power to you; you deserve a nobel prize or something. If not, you're only human.
are pretty good examples. Mao's Great Leap Forward, although caused by a secular government, was not in the name of atheism.
In regards to your more recent e-mail: Your answer is dismissive; the people still declare a belief in God, true Christians or not. Plus, a true Christian has basically no material possessions, and, as you have a computer (unless you're a bum at a library), you are not a true Christian. I have yet to meet anyone who follows the virtues and teachings of Jesus Christ to their full
Obviously an organization like str would make such claims. The problem is, people are killed often in the direct or indirect name of a religion more often than someone is killed in the name of atheism. Instead of citing particular instances of genocide, I'm talking about murder, which is the number one cause of death at the hands of another human since the dawn of time, outweighing genocide. But if you wanna get down to deaths directly in the name of religion, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition
If, today, 90% of American adults believe in God, and I think it's safe to assume that a strong majority (at least 66%) of all people that have ever lived believed in a higher power, couldn't one reason that the majority of murders are caused by those with faith? But why should that matter? Because one Christian kills one person, and another Christian kills one million people, why should such a statistic condemn Christianity? Why should it codemn any faith, or lack thereof?
How many people have been killed at the hands of another since the dawn of time? How many of the murderers believed in God or a higher power?
What's wrong with atheism?
Actually, think of it this way. If you are at a baseball game, you can watch a baseball cross home plate without changing it. But what if you're blind? What if you have no way of "visually" observing a baseball? The only way to understand it's movement is to touch it somehow, but by doing so, you would change the path of the baseball. Subatomic particles never "touch" they interact through electromagnetic energies, but the point still holds that "visual" observing would have a different result that
Since these detectors are not "visual" (as far as I can tell, they require electron contact or response for measurment), it is highly probable that the subatomic particles within the detectors cause interference. If we could actually "visually" observe, which is impossible at this point (and will probably remain impossible), then I imagine the result would be much different.
The detectors themselves are made of different material (different molecules, atoms) than the mirror, and it doesn't seem so extraordinary that some kind of change would occur due to electron projection interference. Electrons don't "know" they're being watched, they simply respond to the attractions and repulsions of other subatomic particles.
You still didn't answer my question about DeBroglie wavelengths. Plus it is impossible to observe electrons with the eye. In order for such a thing to occur, the eye would have to shrink to the atomic level; in order for that to occur, the atoms and their subatomic particles would have to shrink. Using the eye to observe electrons is impossible; using a detector is different. Plus, it seems like kind of an old scientific postulate that, at the atomic level, something changes when observed.
SnipinUrElvez's recent comments: