God Particle Guy Versus Guy Who Hates God
    By Hank Campbell | December 26th 2012 06:29 PM | 24 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    Comments

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Oh, how disappointing, I thought this article as going to be about Tommaso and Sascha, not Higgs and Dawkins....
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    rholley
    Quite so, Helen.

    Indeed, for next year I think I shall post (D.V.) a sign like this:


    And that means until after our Russian friends have celebrated their Christmas on January 7th.
     
     
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    You're kidding right. Non religious charities have been at the aftermath of every big disaster helping people recover and that is without the funding of a global cult behind it. Also I would rather be remembered as someone who stood against the hate and intolerance spewed by most religions than as someone who theorized a particle. Not that I don't support both and think both are great people but your bias is clear here. Do some fact checking next time.

    Hank
     Non religious charities have been at the aftermath
    You are not responding to what I wrote.  I wrote "When is the last time a group founded on atheism put boots on the ground after a natural disaster" but you are somehow including 'non-religious' as atheists.  That is not correct, any more than if I were to say 'X is not an athlete' and you twisted that to mean 'X hates sports'.
    Non religious is atheist and there are charities who are 'atheist' who do this. You read what you wanted into my comment. Atheist is someone who rejects the evidence of a god so non religious people are atheists.

    Sorry but non-religious does not necessarily mean atheist. My parents are non-religious but they are not atheists. They both believe in God but don't adhere to or claim any religion. And it's also not true that every agnostic is just a closet atheist. All it means is "I don't know." Heck, there are definitely some people calling themselves agnostic who still behave and speak like they believe in a God.

    This article is a mess. The god particle has nothing with religiousity. It's like a particle ruling others (giving them mass), a god-particle.

    Surely, the author is a regilious person who has something against Dawkins. He seems to not know that 99% of the greatest physicists are atheist. Althought, being physicist doesn't mean you carry The Truth. Anyone who knows a little of geology and history can answer some questions about gods.

    It's a joke these people who think atheism must be shut up, like "a good atheist is a dead atheist".

    '99% of the greatest physicists are atheists'? I don't think so! What about Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galilei, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, Einstein. These physicists underpin all our contemporary understandings about physics, who all beleived in God and practiced their faith. Then in today's world there is: Charles Hard Townes, Ian Barbour, Freeman Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, John Polkinghorne, Owen Gingerich, John T. Houghton, R. J. Berry, Michał Heller, Ghillean Prance, Donald Knuth, Eric Priest, Christopher Isham, Henry F. Schaefer, III, Robert T. Bakker, Kenneth R. Miller, Francis Collins, Simon C. Morris, John D. Barrow, Denis Alexander, Stephen Barr, Martin Nowak, John Lennox, and Jennifer Wiseman. All these are well known physicists who have significantly contributed to modern day physics. All beleive in God, practice their faith and profess it publically as something that contributes to their understanding of reality. Unfortunately, the minority of atheist physicists who profess their disdain for religion are given the headlines and people like you unwittingly believe it and make statements like, '99% of the greatest physicists are atheists'. My advice? read some better material and some good science and faith books to better inform your narrow atheist mind! better luck next time!

    Sorry, if I didnt specified it, i forgot those who lived in a world ruled by The Roman Catholic Church. Just to remember you, Einstein was more agnostic than religious, he stated many times about his disbelief in a christian/judaic god.

    Where can I find faith books to inform my narrow atheist mind that believing in gods makes me a better phycisist? My advice? Galilei, Descartes and a bunch of the "thinkers" did believe in their own god, not that one preached by christianism nor judaism.

    Einstein is famous for being misunderstood and as a result of this I could no longer continue reading the reply. Peter maybe you yourself could invest a little more time in the subject yourself?

    "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. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"

    Hank
     The god particle has nothing with religiousity. It's like a particle ruling others (giving them mass), a god-particle.
    The God particle is just in the title because it is the term that made it famous, but I certainly never said it had anything to do with God.  You make the same mistake Dawkins makes - a lack of critical, nuanced thinking, and simplistically declare that anyone critical must be "a religious person who has something against Dawkins" (I corrected your ironic misspelling of religious).  You know who has something against Dawkins? Most biologists.  But not because of his atheism, rather because the media calls him a biologist when there isn't anything in biology he came up with that hasn't been debunked by biologists for 20 years.
    Indeed. I'm not a follower of his atheist church. He is more a militant than a biologist, most of the time. Although, i'm with him agaisnt those who thinks evolution isn't a fact, against who thinks the lack of answers are enough for making superstition more true/real.

    Apart of my errors, have a nice night.

    Atheists who make comments about science disproving God are totally ignorant. If God had been disproved then why are there this who still believe in Him? Christians who make the excuse of disregarding intellectual questions with " Well that's because of God" without looking any further, are also ignorant. These arguments are ridiculous.

    Both Atheists and Religious people help after disasters. Atheism is a cult as much as Christianity is. The reason Religious people help is to delight God or of some believe, work their way to heaven. However, Atheists who help, help because of their pride. It will make them feel better after doing so. It is not for a means of God. Pride is what brought mankind down in the first place and allowed us to sin.

    Many of the greatest scientists were NOT atheists due to the fact that they could not disprove God. Our linear thinking only allows us to have the knowledge of what we can comprehend. If God exists in more dimensions we are not even able to understand them, due to our linear thinking and observation with our senses. There are many colors that exist that we cannot see due to our limited vision. There is more out there than our senses allow. Einstein was agnostic due to the fact that he couldn't see how an all-powerful God could allow suffering and evil. Do your research on both sides everybody, or else your arguments are clearly uneducated and useless.

    Hey there, thank you for correcting me. I should say to you that "sin" is a subjective term. Humanists work for the common good, not for their pride; and at some point, everything we do is to fulfill our egotistical desires (being well-reputed, beloved, etc).

    Everytime you consider there are many unknown universes with differents laws of physics, a supposition about the existence of gods becomes superstition, and it feeds beliefs; it's far from agnosticism. If gods exist, they're not these from terran tales. Assume that you are creating another conception of gods to test the logical non-existence of gods, you are testing our known logic with a transcending logical view, that means you are being illogical. A little bit of history of mankind and inductive logic can beat any belief about gods.

    It does more sense to say we doens't even exist, there's an anti-universe, resulting in a big uni-nothing.

    Gerhard Adam
    When is the last time a group founded on atheism put boots on the ground after a natural disaster, or set out to help starving people? Never, but religious groups do it all of the time and get very little publicity for it.
    Really?
    Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort (S.H.A.R.E.) provides general humanitarian aid, food assistance, and medical relief to disaster and accident victims. They have provided aid to Sri Lankan tsunami victims, hurricane Katrina survivors, families displaced by California wildfires and Tennessee tornadoes, and many others.

    Currently, SHARE is turning all of its attention to aiding Haitian earthquake victims. You can donate to the Haiti Quake Relief through this link. 100% of your donation, with no administrative fees retained, will go to Doctors Without Borders operating in Haiti.

    Atheist Relief Fund
    Atheist Relief Fund is currently raising money to help earthquake victims in Haiti.
    For a more general overview:
    http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities
    Mundus vult decipi
    "You are not responding to what I wrote.  I wrote "When is the last time a group founded on atheism put boots on the ground after a natural disaster" but you are somehow including 'non-religious' as atheists".

    An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a theistic concept of God (that's what the pre-fix "a" means before the word "theist"), and someone who is non-religious also obviously lacks such a belief otherwise they'd be classed as a theist (and therefore religious of some sort). It is possible to be religious and also an atheist (for example, a Hindu believes in multiple gods and is therefore, strictly speaking, atheistic in their religious outlook), but someone who is non-religious rejects all forms of religion and therefore can be described as atheistic even though the term 'atheist' might by itself be too specific an not encompass the entirety of their non-religiousness.

    "Don't physicists see that religion is solely responsible for all of the evils of the world, as Dawkins and his acolytes do?"

    This, accurately, perhaps the only and most moronic argument the atheist always brandish and brag about. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Moa, Saddam, Mussolini, etc.. All of these mass murderers have one thing in common: they were atheists, to some at least privately (Saddam). Pathetic argument demonstrate utter ignorance of atheists, themselves..

    Next.

    um why say he hates god? I thought he hates religion?

    Massive difference

    Hank
    None at all, there is no religion without a god.
    there is no religion without a god...
    What about Buddhism? 

    There are also many people who consider themselves religious while doubting the existence of a god. 
    Don't physicists see that religion is solely responsible for all of the evils of the world, as Dawkins and his acolytes do? 
    That's a bit of an exaggeration regarding Dawkins. There are some good points in God Illusion, but he gets too political in trying to go to bat for what he paints as "Atheists' rights".  The book does nothing towards addressing the main problem that permeates the whole spectrum: intolerance. As the saying goes ( in paraphrased form), people should be free to believe what they want, as long as their beliefs don't infringe upon the freedom and health of others.
    Hank
    What about Buddhism? 
    They don't call it a religion, they call it a philosophy, but we are deviating away from the original comment, which was trying to say that Dawkins thinks God is just fine but religion is the problem. It's a silly assertion.

    Spending any time dissecting how severe Dawkins is regarding religion is kind of pointless - is there anything good he says?  He isn't a good philosopher and if his legacy were built on biology he would be irrelevant. Hating religion and fomenting a culture was is all he has.

    People are certainly welcome to follow him. Any time he wants to write here, he is welcome, and he can bash anyone he wants.  I'm not Peter Higgs and it's only interesting to put it in a link here because so many atheists respect him but few in STEM do. When Marcus du Sautoy took over the seat at Oxford created specifically for Dawkins he said, "My focus is going to be very much on the science and less on religion." Hardly the kind of thing anyone would say if Dawkins were regarded favorably.
    Hitler was catholic, he also stated many times his position against atheism and secular states. Saddam was a muslim. Anyways, you can't measure character using religion as a parameter, there are bad and good people of all types, skin colors, heights, sexual orientation, whatever else.

    Someone who starts calling bad words in a discussion is not up to listen, but only to say; and so, a dialog needs at least two parts.

    Please, be nice. If you think someone say something wrong, attack the words, not the person.

    Using Helen's words: make love, not war.

    Hank
    Anyways, you can't measure character using religion as a parameter, there are bad and good people of all types, skin colors, heights, sexual orientation, whatever else.
    Well, who did?
    The guy called "someone" right above my comment.