Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News0 min ago
The Video Atheists Don't Want You To See.
58 Answers
This is a lon video on YouTube. I would like you to be entertained by it, and informed. Ditch your faith / belief in atheism and at least CONSIDER the information in it. For your eternal souls sake. God bless you all.
"The Video Atheists Don't Want You To See."
"The Video Atheists Don't Want You To See."
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@jim360 or any mathematics afficionados out there
My lexicon is short of a word:
If "negation" is turning 1 into -1
what is the word for turning 1 into 0?
(am hoping that same word applies to turning -1 into 0).
My view is that atheism is 0, compared to religion(s) being 1.
Religionquote[ists] appear to insist that atheism is a -1. They seem to see it as just as much of a faith, just the diametric opposite of theirs.
However many times we say it; however we choose to reword it, they refuse to listen or refuse to acknowledge our viewpoint.
My lexicon is short of a word:
If "negation" is turning 1 into -1
what is the word for turning 1 into 0?
(am hoping that same word applies to turning -1 into 0).
My view is that atheism is 0, compared to religion(s) being 1.
Religionquote[ists] appear to insist that atheism is a -1. They seem to see it as just as much of a faith, just the diametric opposite of theirs.
However many times we say it; however we choose to reword it, they refuse to listen or refuse to acknowledge our viewpoint.
Thanks, mibs.
I was about to quibble over the use of the word inverse to mean the negative of a number but then realised that I'd been using that word incorrectly for decades and the correct term for (1/X) is "reciprocal".
Brief musings over reciprocating engines and how static steam engines worked vertically, locomotives have them horizontal and petrol engines brought them back to the vertical (mostly) giving various senses of top/bottom reversals and push-pull (negative versus positive) but all off piste.
I was probably expecting something more sophisticated and surprised somebody had to create a term to convey a concept so obvious. Not to mention taken aback that a website had to be made to explain it. (In fact, it is no worse than a wiktionary page defining a word or phrase).
Next maths question has to be, is it possible to add an inverse when the number in question is imaginary?
i + (-i) = 0 ???
------
Suggested alternatives to adding the inverse, when the goal is (=0)
i) Multiply by zero
ii) Divide by infinity
I was about to quibble over the use of the word inverse to mean the negative of a number but then realised that I'd been using that word incorrectly for decades and the correct term for (1/X) is "reciprocal".
Brief musings over reciprocating engines and how static steam engines worked vertically, locomotives have them horizontal and petrol engines brought them back to the vertical (mostly) giving various senses of top/bottom reversals and push-pull (negative versus positive) but all off piste.
I was probably expecting something more sophisticated and surprised somebody had to create a term to convey a concept so obvious. Not to mention taken aback that a website had to be made to explain it. (In fact, it is no worse than a wiktionary page defining a word or phrase).
Next maths question has to be, is it possible to add an inverse when the number in question is imaginary?
i + (-i) = 0 ???
------
Suggested alternatives to adding the inverse, when the goal is (=0)
i) Multiply by zero
ii) Divide by infinity
I skimmed through the video on the day you posted it, Theland. It's quite eclectic in its selection of "experts": I spotted William Lane Craig, Andreas Tzortzis and (scraping the bottom of the barrel, surely?) Eric Hovind (not his daddy Ken, who, presumably, is still banged up for tax evasion). Now let's take the arguments for the master designer and intelligent first cause at face value. For the purpose of this argument I accept your "proofs" and acknowledge this "God" exists. My question now is this: How does this proposition in any way justify such further propositions as, say, (1) God chose the Israelites as His special people, or (2) He became man and died on the cross to save us from our sins, or (3) His last message to mankind was revealed verbally to an illiterate merchant and written down a hundred years later in an unvocalised script? There seems to me to be an enormous (and - given that my eternal soul is at stake - alarming) void between the first proposition and the extraordinary conclusions some of its upholders have derived from it. Does it concern or worry you that many of these derivative propositions are mutually opposed?
Amazing coincidence, we're reading - I say 'we' cos I bought it but she's got it - 'Edmund Burke, The Visionary Who Invented Modern Politics' by (Future PM) Jesse Norman (Known him since he was a slip of a lad).
Temp. debilitating, high 30's week after week, inertia setting in, corned beef salad and cold local beer, c'est tout.
Temp. debilitating, high 30's week after week, inertia setting in, corned beef salad and cold local beer, c'est tout.
The limit of my understanding of the fine tuning is along the lines of: we know the engine is running but we don't know how many failed attempts to start it there were. If the conditions hadn't been just right, stars, planets and all the pre-requisites for life might not have come apart and we would not be having this conversation.
The "anthropic priciple" is a step too far, imho, but I think it was written as a riposte to the above, as in: "That's like saying the universe only exists because we are here, to look at it."
I first encountered that idea when I was a kid and thought it ridiculous. I have, since, gained an appreciation that it was a philosophical point: if the universe really was entirely illusory, we would have no way of determining this to be so because all our (equally illusory) measuring equipment could deceive us into thinking it is all real.
The golden statue of Angela Merkel's bonce has yet to appear in front of any CCTV cameras, Khandro. As illusions go, the universe is frustratingly unbendable.
The "anthropic priciple" is a step too far, imho, but I think it was written as a riposte to the above, as in: "That's like saying the universe only exists because we are here, to look at it."
I first encountered that idea when I was a kid and thought it ridiculous. I have, since, gained an appreciation that it was a philosophical point: if the universe really was entirely illusory, we would have no way of determining this to be so because all our (equally illusory) measuring equipment could deceive us into thinking it is all real.
The golden statue of Angela Merkel's bonce has yet to appear in front of any CCTV cameras, Khandro. As illusions go, the universe is frustratingly unbendable.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.