While I am an advocate for government controlled public nuclear utility electrical grid power generation for the US and most major responsible governments; I am think it is absolutely irresponsible for a nuclear powered aircraft be developed or licensed. Flying aircraft is risky, inevitably almost always some of them crash, a crash of a nuclear powered aircraft would almost certainly involve an environmental catastrophe. I’m against nuclear powered aircraft. I think it’s a horrible idea. It was a horrible idea back in the 50s when they researched it, fortunately cooler more intelligent heads prevailed. I hate to see this horrible idea resurrected from the dead.

The Russians flew a nuclear powered Tu95. The crew all died in the following years.

I think you are mistaken. I think it was a different type of aircraft, and it was a prototype nuclear aircraft and I don’t think it ever flew in the nuclear ( hot) configuration. Much like the nuclear version of the B-36 I think it only flew in simulated modes. To the best of my knowledge no country has flown with a live nuclear power plant as a power source. To the best of my knowledge the only nuclear powered aircraft that flew were flown in a simulated nonnuclear powered fashion.

(I seem to stand corrected, it seems the Soviets may have flown a few hot live nuclear powered Tu-95 flights):eek:

One of the reasons I don’t trust nuclear fueled aircraft is I think a mishap might compare to the Palomares hydrogen bombs mishap. It was a major embarrassment, a thorn in the side of and ally, the cleanup took a major effort, cost a fortune, and yet there still seems to be some possibly threatening contamination left.

This is one of the many reasons that I wouldn’t trust a parachute for a nuclear reactor.

NASA Orion Parachute Crash Shuttle Replacement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt3YTXneWVE

Another reason a parachute might not work is if there was a reactor or overheat/meltdown incident, that might disable the parachute. If a reactor is breached in flight the contaminated area could dwarf the Palomares mishap.

I thought it was rare that modern fighter pilots were over 6 feet. After all the taller a person is generally the less well they do under high G. In a tall person the heart has to work a lot harder to pump blood to the brain under high G maneuvers. As a result tall pilots have a tendency not to perform as well in a high G. environment.

these aren’t typically the type of person to reach for a rifle in most circumstances….

I’m not sure but I thought it was typically the other way around.

I thought most of the times that conservatives use their guns was for sport, justified self-defense, justified defense of others, or in the defense of their country.

I thought it was typically liberals that went on unjustified rampage shootings after such things as they can’t handle a girl or boy breaking up with them, or they don’t like someone criticizing them for worshiping the devil, etc…

Wasn’t Lee Harvey Oswald a socialist/liberal/Democrat/communist/marxist?

From my experience it is typically liberals that get violent because they cannot handle a civilized political debate.

I also thought that most gun crimes were committed by liberals. Such as related to robberies or drugs (and gang related activities like drive-by shootings or revenge killings). I was under the impression that generaly conservatives are more responsible with guns. 😉

Obama staffers caught illegally casting votes.

Obama staffers caught illegally casting votes. Votes withdrawn.
http://palestra.net/videos/play/17691

Palestra.net Finds Evidence of Voter Fraud in Ohio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2onRgtgXkc

12 Obama staffers illegally cast votes in Ohio. Some of Obama’s staff are golden parachute executives that bankrupted Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae by cooking the books. Obama associates with organized crime with the likes of Antoin “Tony” Rezko. Or terrorists like the weatherman. Or racists like the Black Panthers. Or racists, secessionist, separatists like La Raza. Or racist anti-American’s like his minister.

If Obama can’t control his staff or himself why do idiots think he is qualified to run a country?

Obama will do to this country what his staff has done to Freddie and Fannie: cook the books, make things look better for while, till the countries economy and morality collapses even farther.

The Democrats vowed to lower fuel prices; then the fuel prices doubled.

That’s the Einstein who said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

You don’t seem to be taking what Einstein said in the proper context. Einstein isn’t saying he doesn’t believe in God; he’s saying he doesn’t believe in a in a personal God. There is a huge difference. You seem to be taking Einstein’s comment very simply and out of context.

What Einstein meant was that Einstein didn’t think that God was self-serving. By self-serving I don’t mean that God serves himself. I mean a God that caters to the believers. Example: I think people that make selfish prayers for themselves believe in a personal God. (I think that is one step toward atheism; to expect God to cater to all our wishes)

Perhaps if you read more of Einstein’s writings instead of paraphrases that are easily taken out of context and spoonfed to you by the cultist atheists.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him:

“Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Einstein didn’t care much to quibble about religion and ethics. Einstein like many of us feel that studying science is like looking at the footprints/tool marks of God. There is a certain beauty and order in nature and the universe which implies a creator/God.

You can be all the things stated in the posts above without having to believe in some sort of god whose existance has yet to be proven.

The existence of God has not been disproven either. As a scientist I feel I must pursue the course that the preponderance of logic and evidence directs me. In my opinion based on logic and facts; I have belief/faith in God.

You need to learn what the word “faith” is. Just because a person believes in God, doesn’t mean there isn’t some doubts in most of them. Allegedly even in the disciples there were several doubters.

Just because a person is religious and believes in God, doesn’t mean they know all the answers and don‘t have any doubts or skepticism.

I have a belief/faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, though it is possible it may not, after all there could be an impact event (or some other cosmic event) that could prevent that. However the preponderance of evidence suggests that the sun will rise tomorrow; so I have faith/belief that it will.

Einstein, myself and most credible real scientists are religious agnostics.

I think some of you need to know the definition of agnostic. I think some of you need to know that the vast majority of people that are labeled Christian, Jewish, or some other mainstream legitimate religion are religious agnostics.

Agnostic definition:

1: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2: A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3 a: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

3 b: One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Agnostic?o=0

What a load of rubbish, atheism is not any kind of religion, Richard Dawkins is ignorant! well yes of course he is, most professors at Oxford university are I suppose.

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that ‘bald’ is a hair colour.

Since atheism is the absolute denial of religion, it cannot logically be a religion itself.

I suggest that you open your mind and look at the facts and get an education. I think that perhaps you should start by casting aside your rhetoric and prejudice; and instead take a look at the real definition of the words that you are using. Then re-examine your position.

Actually it is possible for a person to be religious, agnostic and atheist simultaneously. They are not necessarily contradictions.

A conventional religious person’s “belief” in God, would probably be more accurately described as “faith“: so most people would agree that they fit most of the definitions of religious. Many of those same people that would fit the definition of religious have doubts and are open-minded and have questions; therefore they may fit the definition of agnostic. Many of those same people that have a believe/faith and God don’t necessarily have an opinion or believe or have faith that God is a physical being or entity. (so cast a side you are typecasting, stereotyping, prejudice and ignorance)

By some definitions I may fit in one or more definitions of religious, agnostic and atheist. I think if you closely analyze peoples beliefs deeper that you will find that that is true for a lot more people than you think. Particularly in the scientific/technological community.

(note that these are not all the definitions, but some of the most common and prevalent) (note that the proper use of a word has to just fit one of the definitions to qualify)

Religion definition:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Atheist definition:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheist

Grey Area you’re way off base. Though it may be the talking points and part of the mission statement/agenda of many pushy fascist atheist evangelists.

Science demands proof rather than faith in ones beliefs (or theories) and therein lies the debate.

False. While it might be true that the ultimate goal in science much like religion is to have proof; science like religion starts with faith; a hypothesis, even theories often aren’t ultimate proven.

Remember that in good science and religion it takes a certain amount of faith open-mindedness and objectiveness to practice good science and religion. Remember that to the common man a few centuries ago; science proved the world was flat.

Remember that an early history of the universe was considered a constant. Then science realized the universe is expanding. For some time there was some debate on whether the universe would end in a crunch or a fizzle; now it looks like the universe may end in a rip. As I said: much as with religion is true with science or religion; often we have to understand some of the simpler hypothesis or theories before we can advance our intelligence far enough to have a deeper more realistic understanding that brings us closer to the truth. Our understanding and interpretation of the facts can change drastically as we become more intelligent.

If Einstein or Edison didn’t have faith in science; we would probably have much lower living standards and would likely not be as that technologically advanced.

Cast a side you are typecasting, stereotyping, prejudice and ignorance. I don’t think that most Christians are Bible thumping literalists.

but it wasn’t me.

I did not say or try to imply it was. On the contrary as is even obviously indicated by the quote you made of by me. “This is some excerpts from previous posts at other places; including some other individuals comments…”

It would not be tolerated to say such things about Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists or Jews so why do you think it is acceptable to say it about Atheists?

On the contrary. Is it not typical to stereotype Christians and such as literalists? Perhaps should take a more honest look at some of the replies in this thread. Perhaps you should take an honest look at current events and history.

Maybe they do in Hicksville, Texas but in the real world, absolutely not.

On the contrary. The vast majority of “real world” legitimate scientists that I know of believe in God. Whether they’d be nuclear physicists, cosmologists, or aviation engineers.

Like Einstein said: I have no doubt that God created the universe, I just question whether he had a choice. 😉

This is some excerpts from previous posts at other places; including some other individuals comments and my response.

“Love Your Enemy.” “Turn The Other Cheek.” What Did Jesus Mean?

I think Jesus meant that you should try to be forgiving and passive. (To an extent) I think Jesus was trying to say not to be so vehement and vengeful.

Before Jesus it was commonly preached such things as an “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth”. I think that was meant to encourage law enforcement to discourage the criminal act, however it was often backfiring and escalating, sustaining, and exacerbating; violence and other forms of vigilantism.

I think Jesus largely preached “Love Your Enemy.” and “Turn The Other Cheek.” to counterbalance “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth”.

I think Jesus was saying that the world was becoming a worse place because everyone was running around trying to even the score with vendettas and grudges often based on “perceived” injustices.

Jesus also preached “ye who is without sin cast the first stone” I think that means that a person should not be so eager to run around and settle vendettas with violence, theft or bullying. I think Jesus was saying try to be forgiving especially for minor offenses and make sure that if you to decide to respond with force, make sure you have “just cause” and that is not just an excuse for some delusional “perceived” injustice.

I think Jesus was trying to say whenever reasonably possible “Love Your Enemy.” and “Turn The Other Cheek.” before resorting to “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth”. I think Jesus was saying don’t be so quick and eager act out “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth”. I think Jesus was also saying make sure that you have “just cause” before retaliating.

Jesus was a radical in my opinion. I think that His statements would have been met with a lot of head scratching by a majority of mankind, even now.

Apparently he was crucified in the past. He would probably be crucified figuratively if not literally today.

I think Jesus was a radical also. I don’t think radical or extremist always has a negative connotation. Einstein, Edison, Galileo all were radical extremists. Not all radicals or extremist are wrong or violent.

To me the bible is the greatest story ever written.

It might surprise you but I agree.

The Bible is largely “parables” (fictional or semi fictional stories with a deeper teachings and meanings).

The story is great because not only is it a story but it has teachings on many levels that can be understood on many levels intellectually and morally.

And the modern church is nothing more than a large corporation.

Virtually any organization has to have funds in order to exist, so therefore it is somewhat of a corporation.

There was an ironic misprint/misspelling in our church bulletin one Sunday; the spelling profits and prophets was interchanged. I jokingly accused them of making a Freudian slip.

There is absolutely no proof that anything in the bible is true, but yet several times a year scientists find proof the rebukes many things stated in the bible.

There’s two sides to that. We now know that there were great floods, famines, hellfire, and other cataclysms (that would confirm much of what happened in the Bible). I doubt the whole earth flooded, however the people at that time would have perceived it that way.

Hellfire can easily be understood now as volcanic action and as impact events (comets or meteor strikes). I can’t help but think of the description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was much like an impact event. Recently there has been discoveries of impact events that splattered the region. There is a crater of green glass from an impact event that I think is about 50 miles from where Sodom and Gomorrah was thought to be.

The Bible: Genesis (Creation)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. ” And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

At the time that the Bible was written, how do you think the people would describe the Big Bang and nuclear physics to the people of the time with their understanding?

When you describe something to a young child, do you always give a complete proper technical explanation, or do you sometimes use a simplified metaphor? Usually you cannot get someone to understand everything right away, often you have to use oversimplified metaphors that are not fully technically correct, to help raise a person’s understanding to the point where they can understand the bigger picture and the more technically correct truth.

I think if I translated the start of Genesis into more modern understanding it would go something like: In the beginning there was nothing, God created hydrogen, and initiated atomic reactions which gave us light. The nuclear reactions formed other elements which formed matter as we know it. The atomic reactions triggered an explosion that formed the universe as we know it. The Big Bang also set up the conditions for life to spawn. Before there was matter, there was essentially no time, when God created matter it triggered time.

For example: the dead sea scrolls.

The dead sea scrolls have confirmed that much of the writing in the Bible is as it was originally written. However it also shows that there was some changes in the stories whether it be to translation/context errors or “revisionists through artistic or political license”.

Scientists have carbon-dated fossils back to a time before the earth was supposedly created by God. How do you argue with Science???

The problem is that people confuse the Bible and science. They are two much different things.

The study of the Bible, is the study of God’s moral laws for man. The study of science is the study of God’s physical laws for man’s environment.

The vast majority of hard-core scientist believes in God.

I don’t think the Bible is meant to be taken literally as a historical or scientific document. The Bible is about morality, not about science or history. Unfortunately many people miss understand that. I think most hard-core scientists understand that.

I think of the Bible has a lot of parables that mimic historical and explanations for things that people didn’t understand to “get their attention” to “hook them in” to teach them morality.

Unfortunately it was also used and still is used by people to grab power and abuse power. Religion can be (and is) used for good and evil.

I think many people often start out with good intentions, however many wonder from the path. Like they say, power often corrupts.

To me it seems that most Christians these days feel the need to impose their will on others.

Perhaps it is difference where you are, however I see a trend in the other way.

I think in the past there were extreme trends like what is going on much with the Moslem community today. I think much of the Spanish Inquisition message was roughly to the effect convert, expel or die, much like the radical Moslem community is promoting today.

I see less of a trend of Christian religions insisting that you belong to a particular religion or do a certain ceremony, or rite in order to be “saved”. I think it is somewhat dubious to insist on belonging to a particular group or doing a certain ceremony, or rite in order to be “saved”. To me that can be a warning sign of elitism, prejudice, snobbery, brainwashing, cultism. I like many ceremonies like communion and the message behind it, however I think sometimes people use such ceremonies to mislead, and as a form of elitism.

I think atheists evangelize and preach their form of religion (and are more pushy) more than Christians do.

respectfully disagree on Him being a pacifist.

I don’t think he was entirely a pacifist. Like the time Jesus allegedly essentially through a temper tantrum in a market square and vandalized some merchants merchandise, with some apparent protest over materialism and greed.

There are some parts in the Bible that have a confusing mixed contradictory message. The message may have been butchered in interpretation, transcription or translation.

I think Jesus meant to try to solve things peacefully and to be forgiving. However he wasn’t totally a pacifist. I jokingly say that with some of the corruption in today’s world he might be bearing a 50 caliber instead of a cross. I seriously doubt he would do that, however my point is that I think even he agreed some time it was appropriate to use violence.

This guy didn’t even try to defend Himself when he could have and died an excruciating type of capital punishment for it.

The story goes that he refused the opportunity to try to escape to evade prosecution. He also refused to give a false confession under torture.

Allegedly he gave his life so others could be “saved”. I think it also says that it is not always necessary to fight tyranny directly.

It’s like when someone (mainly verbally) assaults you in public. Sometimes by refusing to fight back you make it clear who is at fault and who is the tyrant. Unfortunately I see this trend reversing, however it used to be quite common if a bully would pick on someone that the crowd would shun or fight the bully. Unfortunately now days I see a trend in the other direction, the mob mentality, where a bully picks on a person and of the person doesn’t fight back the mob joins in with the bully.

Part of the reason that Gandhi won his objectives is he let himself be criticized. Part of the reason that the “Tuskegee airmen” or “red ball express” ect… get so much respect is they did not directly attack the racial issue aggressively, instead they proved that they were equal or better by doing their job as good or better than others. They didn’t get their respect by force, they got their respect by doing their job with excellence.

Not that I’m saying that pacifism is always appropriate or always works.

You can’t always achieve your objective, however sometimes by losing you can achieve another objective. Jesus wanted to live, but by letting himself be persecuted, he showed us that you can fight by being passive. Sometimes being passive can let wounds heal and friendships and understanding develop. The Romans eventually became Christians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

Well those Christian Voice people seem to have a firm grip on reality…

…where do I sign-up? :rolleyes:

IMAO I find Richard Dawkins to be quite hateful, selfish, shallow minded and ignorant.

The Bible is largely parables. I think atheism is another form of religion; though it be illegitimate; it essentially is the worship of oneself. Atheism is selfishness and shallowness. Richard Dawkins, and many atheists are doing exactly what other religious extremists do: take the Bible literally.

God is good. If you believe there is a good and evil. Then in my opinion you believe in God. Whether you choose to do his will or not is whether you choose the path of good or evil.