JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

Not even slightly.
There are people who take advantage of the unintuitiveness of QP, and the poor scientific literacy in America in order to enrich themselves.
Their claims need to be called out at every turn, otherwise they permeate pop culture like this and continue the feedback loop of woo.
If I could ask, what are you referencing, specifically? There's such a tidal wave of BS appropriating the word 'quantum' that it's hard to know where to start with a debunking.

EDIT: Sorry if that came across as brusque. The misuse of scientific jargon and concepts by scammers and charlatans gets my blood boiling; but it's so common here that it too often just becomes part of people's unquestioned background understanding.

 

Seeing as you asked nicely (sarcasm)...

First of all, I've no idea what you're even getting at in your second sentence (I've given up trying to understand what the first sentence refers to). I have many American friends and know many who are scientifically perfectly literate. However, I do understand the sentiment that you think I'm being anti-American or something. This is a common accusation in this context, but as it happens, is entirely false in this instance and therefore not relevant.

In your fourth sentence I'll guess (and it is a guess) that you're referring to my comment on the mind influencing quantum probability. It clearly isn't Noetics but it is not entirely irrelevant IMHO. There's a load of stuff on it. Here's one article for example (it even references the classic double slit experiment which everybody knows about); you can google others at your leisure:

www.secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backwards-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/

Finally, I'm not a scammer or a charlatan, but you keep right on with the insults and I'll put you on ignore. Then I don't have to listen to you any more. To that end, think very carefully about your reply. I'm not going to waste my time reading it if you don't get even close to where I'm coming from on this.

EDIT: I can't get the stupid link to work; you can bloody well find it yourself if you're so clever.

 

My sincerest apologies, that's honestly not what I meant, and I take full responsibility for my cranky morning incoherence. None of those things were directed at you in the slightest, and I didn't make that clear enough.
After work, I'll try to explain what I was attempting to say, and address the common (sadly, even in pop-sci journalism) misrepresentation of the 'observer effect', and why the broader epistemological ramifications make it important.
My ire is entirely reserved for the people who have knowingly and cynically contributed to those misconceptions becoming so widespread and enduring.

 

Noetics = woo woo.

 

That is a frightening read.

 

It was disheartening to read. At one point I realized I was holding my breath and had to exhale.

But this

was strange.

 

There is no way to thoroughly cover the topic, period, so I won't even try to do so in one post, but I hope this can get some good discussion going.
I have some strong disagreements with this website (it wouldn't be philosophy otherwise, and the argument between scientists and philosophers is eternal), but it's some of the most level-headed and thorough non-technical explanations of state-of-the-art information philosophy and quantum physics that I've ever found (truly my favorite is Vincent Icke's The Force of Symmetry, but it's hard to find and getting a little dated).
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/measurement/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/06/11/world/middleeast/ap-ml-iraq-aziz.html

Tariq Aziz Family Says His Body Has Gone Missing in Iraq

The only explanation is that he has been raised from the dead. I'm sure he will appear to his grieving followers shortly and explain his new role as the Messiah.

Tariq Aziz: fully human and fully divine.

 

It reminds me of a line from a recent book, The Gospel Of Loki. "People don't like people who know everything."

 

Oh no, ride and hide everybody!! Run and hide!!

There are people on this planet with different belief structures than you!!!!

Be afraid!!! Run and hide!!! Be afraid!!!!

 

Nice to see pastors are finally going for legal aged boys, get that +18 penis, hypocrite!

 

removing the Ten Commandments in Oklahoma

 

Isn't that where that group of Satanists were going to erect a statue of Baphomet? I was kind of curious to see how that would all play out.

 

Everyone has some core belief/beliefs which they adhere to and for fundamentalists it's the idea that, in a sense, the oldest and most basic is best. Interestingly, you'll find that most fundamentalist branches of Christianity (I think the same is too for other religious beliefs) don't embrace churches that have long traditions or a history of change. They tend to aim for primitivism, viewing themselves as being directly connected to a solid, grounded, singular, point in the "ancient" past and not a stream or tradition that has developed overtime. Often you'll find that there's a belief in some sort golden age where everything was perfect and that society should seek to return to. It's often a return to what is perceived as a more perfect, innocent time (often it seems like fundamentalists see the time period of their own childhoods as that time).

Regarding the disregard for intellectualism, that's rooted in the idea that adding anything or thinking differently about the core beliefs and ancient precepts lessons the truths. Not to get too off topic, but think about how often someone talks about how a film sequel, new album from a band, or some other addition to something kills their enjoyment. We've all heard somebody say that they can't watch such and such a movie anymore (*cough*perhaps Star Wars, *cough*) because more recent additions or changes have killed something for them. I think, in a sense, fundamentalists are the original purists. Intellectualism is about expanding horizons, presenting and embracing new ideas, and questioning older ideas. When you examine something critically, you're view on it changes; sometimes for the better, other times for the worse. Fundamentalists would argue that new ideas often fail, embrace "undesirable" things, or reinterpret and distort the truth. I think from a fundamentalist perspective, the gist of their viewpoint would be "why would you mess with perfection?" Further, the more you mess with the core beliefs, the more in danger they are of being eroded. Fundamentalists see truth as typically an all or nothing deal. You can pick and choose. Thus, the fear of intellectualism is the fear that things will fall away. It's about conservation of ideas and the past, which intellectualism runs counter to.

 

I don't know. The idea of a "bad" afterlife is older than Christianity.

 

How did such a man get ordained? It's pretty well-worn atheist rhetoric, so really the only thing interesting here is the Episcopalians (lack of) judgment.