ydoaPs

Why do you ask?

I don't believe that 1+1=2. I don't believe that if a=b and b=c then a=c.

You're right. We shouldn't teach science anymore. Or math. Or history. Let's just get rid of school.

I caught a partial segment of CNN today and Sarah Palin was speaking at a TEA Party rally. She said "We'll keep our religion and our guns-you keep the change." Who is trying to take away religion and guns?

Atheism has nothing to do with moral relativism. Nor does theism. Atheism is the SAME THING theism is; an response to a metaphysical proposition. Neither offer any more or any less. Theism merely is the belief that one or more deities exist whereas atheism is not theism. Neither offer hope, freedom, love, morality, etc. Neither offer a framework for belief; They only offer a metaphysical proposition that informs a framework that the (a)theist may adopt. Everything else are just add-ons that depend on the person and further clarification of their belief. You can't tell anything about a theist's beliefs, other than that they believe in one or more deities, by only knowing that they are a theist. Similarly, you can't know anything about what an atheist believes, other than that they do not believe that one or more deities exist, by knowing only that they are an atheist. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Since morality is merely how we ought to behave, it isn't hard to come up with an absolute situational morality. I think the problem that some people have with this concept is that they think of morality as a set of rules(like the 10 commandments) when it is really more like a process. We may not be able to derive an ought from an is, but we can derive an "ought, if" from an "is". It is merely a matter of observing the conditions and determining the necessary course to meet the desired outcome. We are social animal, and as such, benefit from peace(at the least within our tribe). If we want an effective society, we ought foster peace. People do respect others more when they are given respect. If you want to be respected, you ought respect others. The process of morality is simply determining what you ought to do to reach the desired outcome while minimizing suffering. Most people will tell you lying is immoral, yet those same people say it would have been immoral to give up Jews to the Nazis even though lying could have saved them.

Then your original answer was correct. It didn't ask for the the regions outside the given range.

Unless, of course, you're on drugs. Stop taking drugs.

why?

Let's ask him:

I like turtles.....especially the ninja kind

Two easy ways: You can draw it. Or you can take the derivative and set it to 0 to find all the turning points(which will break it into sub regions) and test each region to see if it is positive or negative.

Heh, I knew you'd post, bascule.....just mentioning transhumanism or the technological singularity

I use scienceforums.net, gmail.com, and cvn77.navy.mil

Definitely what I've seen.

That's not really how it's used in common context.

I'm in Ignostic Agnostic Weak Atheist. Now, let's break that down a bit. Atheism is an umbrella term that encompasses a gradient of positions. Atheism is just a response to theism. Theists say "One or more deities exist". And atheism is just people saying "I don't believe you." This can take on varying degrees of forcefulness(ranging from Weak Atheism: "I don't believe deities exist" to Strong Atheism:"I believe that no deities exist.") Weak Atheism(the core of atheism) obviously requires no faith and as such is often blatantly ignored by theists. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, requires just as much faith as theism. All that defines an atheist is that they do not answer "yes" when asked "Do you believe in the existence of one or more deities?". "Agnostic" is a term that is misused as nausium. I suspect that it is mostly due to the social stigma(which is thankfully somewhat receding) of the term Atheist. Agnostic is a modifier of the terms Theist and Atheist, and as such cannot stand on it's own. You either believe in the existence of one or more deities, or you don't; there is no middle ground. Atheism and Theism are the only options. Agnosticism is merely one flavour of the choices. "Agnostic" merely means that one believe that one cannot know whether or not deities exist. Thus, one can be an Agnostic Theist(believe one or more deities exist, but it is impossible to know for a fact that this is the truth) or one can be an Agnostic Atheist(lack a belief in deities, but also believe it is impossible to know whether or not deities exist), but one cannot JUST be an Agnostic. There is no middle ground between belief and disbelief; you either believe or you lack belief. Much of the previous, for me at least, hinges on the Ignostic part. Ignosticism basically means that the question of whether or not deities exist is irrelevant until we can come to an agreement on a coherent concept of what a deity is. How can I know if something exists if I don't know what it is supposed to be? I don't think that's necessarily true. The discussion on whether or not deities exist is a discussion about the nature of the universe and should fall into the realm of science. Many religions make claims that can be investigated using science(as it should be). Was there a global flood 4000 years ago? I don't know, let's make predictions and test them. A god whose existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence isn't very godlike at all, imo. And what if science clearly points to the existence of a creator? Science should be atheistic(weak variety) as long as it must; if evidence comes along, it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore it in your model. Science forums isn't just a place talk about science(if it was, we'd send people to GD forums instead of having our own); it's a community. What if people want to discuss religion with these people in this community? For some definitions of Christian, I am one as well.

It's basically an arrangement of thermocouples. They use a difference in temperature to generate a voltage.

Unfortunately for those who hold that position, Jesus explicitly said WHEN He'd fulfill all-the second coming. Even just thinking about it for a minute shows that it couldn't have been the death and resurrection; If all were fulfilled, there'd be no second coming. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, YE SHALL IN NO CASE enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Matthew 5:17-20 I was actually talking about the confrontation in Antioch described in Galations 2(oddly enough, he doesn't describe the outcome, so many scholars think Peter won the debate). Clement also describes conflicts between Peter and Paul. Peter the Rock upon which the Church was meant to be built(who was actually there to hear Jesus's teachings) vs Paul the Pharasee(whose only contact with Jesus was through a vision and who doesn't quote Jesus to support his opinions). When Paul disagrees with Jesus(and, in this case, Peter) who do we believe? That's why it was helpful. Many different groups all claimed apostolic succession.

We're not going to tell you how to make meth.

/me glares at all the people voting for supernova

This word kinda makes me giggle inside as, to me at least, it is synonymous with nonexistent. Natural, imo, is all that exists, something that is outside of the natural realm would not fall into the set of things that exist. 'Paranormal' would seem to be a better word. It's the same thing when people talk about things 'existing' outside of the universe.

How much power could I extract from body heat using a TEC? I don't need much(just powering some LEDs).

Or have an elected representative in a one-on-one debate.

Sounds rather painful.

I thought that he spends a lot of time with debates. Why would he refuse to debate someone here? Doesn't make much sense.