[cameo]

All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the "God
particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago, so why
the excitement again?

 

[hamilton]

All TV news programs tonight excitedly reported the finding of the "God
particle." But that was already reported a couple of years ago, so why
the excitement again?

The last time was inconclusive.

This time will be inconclusive as well.

There is no god.

h

 

[Gib Bogle]

The last time was inconclusive.

This time will be inconclusive as well.

There is no god.

h

But there are many gods

 

[hamilton]

But there are many gods

As many gods as man wants to invent.

http://www.godchecker.com/

 

[cameo]

The last time was inconclusive.

This time will be inconclusive as well.

There is no god.

So who started calling it the "God particle" and why? I assume it was a
scientist and they are supposed to be ateists, right?

 

[Gib Bogle]

As many gods as man wants to invent.

http://www.godchecker.com/

 

[George Herold]

It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin
bottle when they hear it.

I think we can blame Leon Ledermen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

Though I think I might have heard him once say that it was the
publisher who picked the name. Still he went alng with it.

Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists.

Nay, I'm a total agnostic, I find certainty ridicules.
(And I know plenty, with a deep religious faith.)

George H.

 At least

 

[rickman]

It was the press, and particle physicists just reach for the aspirin
bottle when they hear it.

Scientists as a class are, indeed, presumed to be atheists. At least
they are supposed to be so by fundamentalist demagogues. Probably
because when you're a physicist, it's hard to believe in a big magic
white guy in the sky who wants us to hate gays.

It seems to be the press who calls it that, but the term was originally
used in a 1993 book by Leon Lederman. The draft title of the book was,
"The Goddamn Particle" to illustrate the frustrations in trying to "nail
the Higgs". The publisher changed that to just "God" for a couple of
reasons...

BTW, the wikipedia article on the Higgs uses the term, "sobriquet" about
this term. WTF? Do contributors always have to show off how smart they
are? Can't they just *explain* things?

This same article includes mention of the recent announcement and yet
still states it is "uncertain" that the new boson matches the
predictions from the Standard Model. Really? That is not what I'm
reading in the press. Do they have that wrong too?

BTW, there is a god, and he has noodly appendages.

 

[Bill Sloman]

It seems to be the press who calls it that, but the term was originally
used in a 1993 book by Leon Lederman.  The draft title of the book was,
"The Goddamn Particle" to illustrate the frustrations in trying to "nail
the Higgs".  The publisher changed that to just "God" for a couple of
reasons...

BTW, the wikipedia article on the Higgs uses the term, "sobriquet" about
this term.  WTF?  Do contributors always have to show off how smart they
are?  Can't they just *explain* things?

This same article includes mention of the recent announcement and yet
still states it is "uncertain" that the new boson matches the
predictions from the Standard Model.  Really?  That is not what I'm
reading in the press.  Do they have that wrong too?

The "New Scientist" article claimed that the latest round of results
had reduced the the list of possible candidates to two, and they still
needed to work out the spin of the particle they were looking at to
eliminate the possibility that it was a graviton (whatever that might
be) rather than the Higgs boson. It sounded as if a lot of people
would be very surprised - and extremely interested - if it turned out
to be a graviton.

There's discussion of this on the web, but nothing I find particularly
informative.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Who believes in that god?

Tea Party Republicans? Chris Mooney has written another book

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Br..._B001IU4QGA_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363398470&sr=1-1

which seems to write up recent research linking cognitive styles and
political affiliation, which suggested that Republicans generally
aren't into evidence-based decision-making.

I'll buy the book when it comes out in paperback (or maybe download it
onto my Kindle sometime - I like the idea of the Kindle, but still
seem to by buying more stuff on paper).

 

[rickman]

So in other words you don't know any either. They don't exist, AFAIK,
except in some fevered imaginations.

Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.

 

[hamilton]

Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.

Lets call a spade a spade:

The Republicans lost because they wanted to lose.

They (Republicans) know that this country can not live under W's tax cuts.

So they had to give the Democrats the election so they (Democrats) can
do what they (Republicans) could not do.

Raise taxes like Regan did, and save face.
(Regan raised taxes by calling it something else)

Blame the Democrat's for raising taxes, a Republican president did not
do that, saves face.

Now the Republicans want to save face again by giving illegal emigrants
a path to citizenship ( or something close) so they can get elected.

Why start now ??

They have the taxes to now reduced the debt and it was not their
(Republicans) fault.

Life is now good and they (Republicans) did not have to do what they
could not do. (Raise taxes)

H

 

[cameo]

Nobody is supposed to be anything. Most scientists are atheists, in my
experience. Interestingly, biologists seem less likely to be theists
than other scientists.

I don't know, but I imagine that even those who are believers in a
supreme being might keep it to themselves to avoid being attacked by
atheists. Like many who do not believe in any significant man-made
global warming, but keep quiet about it for fear of intimidation and
grant denials. In any case, I've read somewhere that even Einstein
believed in a creator. At least toward the end of his life.

 

[cameo]

In the interim, they lost it in the sofa cushions.

But maybe they left a copy in the archived files of the b**ing.general
news group. ;-)

 

[cameo]

Tea Party Republicans? Chris Mooney has written another book

http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Br..._B001IU4QGA_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363398470&sr=1-1

which seems to write up recent research linking cognitive styles and
political affiliation, which suggested that Republicans generally
aren't into evidence-based decision-making.

Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
emotions than to reason.

 

[[email protected]]

Lets call a spade a spade:

OK, you're an idiot. Glad you agree.

<moronic babble snipped>

 

[[email protected]]

Oh well, if there is a book about it, then it must be true. Figures.
My experience finds the arguments of democrats to appeal more to
emotions than to reason.

One word: guns.

 

[hamilton]

OK, you're an idiot. Glad you agree.

<moronic babble snipped>

And when they (Republicans) lose in the next election, how would you
explain that ??

H

 

[Gib Bogle]

I don't know, but I imagine that even those who are believers in a
supreme being might keep it to themselves to avoid being attacked by
atheists. Like many who do not believe in any significant man-made
global warming, but keep quiet about it for fear of intimidation and
grant denials. In any case, I've read somewhere that even Einstein
believed in a creator. At least toward the end of his life.

It's true that there is a significant overlap between the believers in
gods and the disbelievers in man-made global warming. I don't think
it's for the reason you suggest.
All through history the believers have attacked, even murdered
non-believers, and even today no person who admitted to disbelief could
become president. The reason biologists are not religious is that they
know too much about the complexity of life. Obviously they know that
evolution is written in every page of the book of life, so they are not
going to stand with the know-nothing believers who reject it. They also
appreciate the fact that for all the mind-boggling complexity of life,
even in a single cell, the required complexity of a notional creator is
a different order of infinity.
As for Einstein's belief - forget it. This is a wrong construction put
on his use of metaphorical language.

 

[UltimatePatriot]

Who doesn't exist, Tea Party Republicans? If not, that would explain
why the Republicans did so poorly in the last election.

They did poorly because there are so many 100% gullible absolute idiots
of voting age these days.