This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

cha99kep's Profile

cha99kep's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by cha99kep

More Discussions by cha99kep

Latest Comments by cha99kep

Go to: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

cha99kep's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by cha99kep

Why does the initial quantum fluctuation that allows the universe to create energy in positive and negative amounts require a law. The laws that govern our universe may very well come into existence as the universe expands and creates new conditions. The main point about the total energy of the universe being zero is not that you can add positive and negative parts to make zero. It is that you have not got something from nothing, no free lunch, Ocham's Razor (the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one). Something exist, or its starts to exist at some point by itself, we may understand how that happens one day or never be able to understand it but can't deny that it does happen.

Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:07:43 UTC | #850575

Go to: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

cha99kep's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by cha99kep

Time and space were non-existent when Krauss was talking about nothing, time and space are the things we talk about when we talk about something. Quantum mechanical phenomena are the weird happenings that occur at the boundary of our known universe and nothingness.

So to some degree even though we are not able to fully understand yet, a quantum fluctuation is something that happens in a 'place' (not space) where there is nothing (no time and space) and creates nothing, (as Krauss says, the negative gravitational energy balances out the positive energy of matter ) the total energy for the universe is nothing.

The universe splits the zero energy into positive and negative energy and uses that to produce time and space, the Universe. Also, the total angular momentum of the Universe is zero from microwave background results and there is no evidence that the Universe posses any overall net electric charge.

The Universe owes nothing, as come from nothing, and will go back to nothing. Which from my perspective is the only logical explanation of where something comes from, something either exists or starts to exists.

Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:34:34 UTC | #850465

Go to: Christians more militant than Muslims, says Government's equalities boss

cha99kep's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by cha99kep

I feel sick having just read this article. I can’t believe what he said, especially from the head of the Government’s equality watchdog.

Mr. Phillips, expressed concern over the rise in Britain of anti-religious voices, such as Richard Dawkins, who are intolerant of people of faith.

Richard Dawkins is typical of an ordinary atheist/agnostic person such as myself “who are intolerant of people of faith”. I get along with people of faith just fine and treat them with respect as I do any other person. This comment is wholly offensive and expresses how the religious and religious apologists try to dampen the voices of reason.

It seems right that the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque.

Anti-discrimination should stop at the church’s door! WHAT! I’m very sure that it does! but for this person to have those views, WELL what can I say, disgusting, distressing, disturbing, I could go on all day!

Mr. Phillips, who recently and fairly got criticized by race organisation’s for calling to an end for the term “institutional racism” is a Salvationist from a strong Christian background so I guess I understand why he says what he does but it is unfortunate that such an intolerant person should hold the position he does and what a waste of the £70 million of public money this organisation receives.

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:27:25 UTC | #640324

Go to: [Update-YouTube] The Big Questions - Series 4 - Is the Bible Still Relevant?

cha99kep's Avatar Jump to comment 233 by cha99kep

I think the idea of the programme is excellent, the title brilliant, a group of people including the public sit down to discuss interesting things about this world. Unfortunately, the BIG QUESTIONS get just 20 minutes of discussion each, a ridiculously small amount of time, also each week there is a religious topic included in the programme and handfuls of religious people there to talk in circles about such nonsense.

How surprised and excited I was this week to see the programme devoting the entire hour to just one topic

all be it a religious one, and further excited that Richard Dawkins was on, not only a voice for the rational people among us that they rarely have on the programme but in my mind the best person to argue against the irrational religious people. Unfortunately I found myself very disappointed with Richard. I do appreciate that it can’t be easy when you are basically the only person there defending rational thought but there was a very important argument in the second part of the programme that Richard failed to mention and for the life of me I cannot understand why. The second part of the programme discussed morals, and after a while the best thing Richard could have pointed out is that ‘human/animal moral behaviour as been developed through evolution long before religion appeared’. This I think was one of the most important facts that could have been brought up about morals and would have further backed up Richards’s argument that we don’t need a bible. Not bringing it up seemed to leave the religious people thinking moral behaviour could only be understood in the context of religion.

Thu, 12 May 2011 17:45:00 UTC | #626257

Go to: [Update-YouTube] The Big Questions - Series 4 - Is the Bible Still Relevant?

cha99kep's Avatar Jump to comment 232 by cha99kep

Comment Removed by Author

Thu, 12 May 2011 17:27:10 UTC | #626253

More Comments by cha99kep