ydoaPs

ghstofmaxwll, from their numbers, I've come up with at least 20.14% worldwide atheists. Keep in mind the term "atheist" means merely that one lacks a belief in any deities. It is just the lack of theism. Someone asks you if you believe in the existence of one or more deities. If you answer "yes", then you are a theist. If you don't answer "yes", you are an atheist. Summing up the "Irreligious", "Atheist", and "Buddhist" gives 21.14%. I don't know how many other religions lack a deity, so I can't add any more.

If current trends continue, then it very well might(at least in America). The basis for the book UnChristian is that more and more of America's teens are rejecting Christianity. My old minister was fond of saying America's churches are aging. From what I've seen, he was right. Churches are mostly retaining their older followers, but losing the young ones. Christianity could literally die out eventually. The last statistics I saw said atheists make up 14% of Americans and that number is growing. The social stigma that is still associated with the word(and people like the author of this video don't help) cause many people to use other labels or hide their lack of theism entirely, so the actual number is most likely quite greater. I don't know much about the numbers in Europe, but, IIRC, USA is far more religious than Europe.

This is homework help forum, so what is the problem in question?

Do you know what the terms in the equation mean?

The thing is, you can't group atheists together as a group based on their common wants and beliefs because they don't necessarily have any! The only thing that groups atheists is the lack of the belief in the existence of any deities. It is people like the person in the video that add to the social stigma associated with the word "atheist" that leads people to use the word "agnostic" as though it were some sort of middle ground between having a belief in the existence of one or more deities and lacking said belief. This social stigma also causes many atheists to hide their lack of theism.

The idea of a movement against religion is ridiculous and doomed to fail, imo. This video is full of hate. It is some fool lashing out at some imaginary foe named religion bent of taking over the world. It just re-enforces the public's misconceptions about atheism and adds to the social stigma associated with the word. If atheists want a movement, it should be a movement for their rights, not against religion. Things like getting the Texas constitution amended such that atheists are able to run for office should be part of this movement, not attacking people for being religious. Then again, we don't need an atheist movement; we need a human movement. You don't have to be an atheist to see that religion and government need to be separate. You don't have to be a homosexual to see that love between two people is between them and none of your business. You don't have to be a minority to see that all races are people. We need to stop bickering among groups and start coming together as one group of people. We don't need to fight for the rights of this group or that; we need to fight for the rights of all people. Well, that's my thought on the subject, anyway.

Add the molten phosphor after you melt the iron?

You didn't ask anyone to prove massless particles exist. You asked how a massless particle could have energy. I not only did what you asked, but in the process derived the standard equation for the energy of a photon(which is one kind of massless particle). Please refrain from the shifting of goalposts. If you stick around, I'm sure you'll find that your hypothesis is much more likely to be taken seriously if you have math to back it up. I've shown you a bit of my math, now let's see yours. There is a difference between criticizing the behaviour of a person and flaming. Kinetic energy is just one kind of energy. For instance, what about the gravitational potential energy of a book on a shelf? Did you know the mass of an atom is different than the mass of the sum of its constituent nucleons? In a perfectly elastic collision where the objects colliding are of equivalent mass, then yes, the sum of the speeds of the objects before the collision would equal the sum of the speeds of the objects after the collision. However, the real world isn't an ideal scenario. Some of the energy in a collision is given off as sound, some is given off as heat, some energy is used to deform or break the objects colliding. The energy of the system is conserved, but not the speed or even the momentum.

I don't think that was the entire problem. As I have said before, I think there is another part to the problem we had and this part is often overlooked. The problem with this site's religion forum was not just the "politically correct, accepted majority here at SFN, which clearly believes that religion is a bad influence on society, and that it must be attacked"(as Pangloss would say) but also people who get too emotional any time anything even close to what could be perceived as challenging religion comes up(almost bordering a martyr complex). Both sides are the problem; not just the religion bashers. It is almost as if each side is a parasitic meme using the other as one of their hosts; the more the religion bashers bash religion, the more the martyrs cry persecution and the more the martyrs cry persecution, the more the bashers think the martyrs are messed up in the head. Both extremes are present here and neither, imo, are mature enough to post about religion. That is why religion on SFN has yet to succeed. If we are to bring it back, the list of users unable to access the religion forum due to a lack of maturity would most likely take out the majority of the users interested in the forum, so it may be best for those wanting to post about religion to find a separate religion forum. But, then again, I may just be crazy.

Where did you come up with that? I can think of a handful of ways of converting mass into energy and none of them involve accelerating something to the speed of light. I think you mean [math]\vec{a}=\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}[/math] which means acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity, NOT velocity divided by time. How does an object initially at rest go from being at rest to moving without acceleration?

Don't most people? Religion involves dismissal of established science?

ATOMIKPSYCHO He is a god; he pwns you LOLOLOLOLOL

He hurt your feelings, so it's okay for you to hurt his? Don't you think that's somewhat immature?

Naughty naughty, Phi......ad homs aren't a very good way to argue.

Because it is electromagnetic waves radiated by some object?

The direction of torque is really just to say if rotation is clockwise or counterclockwise. You can get a feel for torque by turning a tight bolt to make it tighter. Torque is how much force is making the rotation. A torque wrench is just a socket set with a gauge that tells you how much torque you are applying.

The torque is actually perpendicular to the plane of the force and the rotation.

She said She wanted to feel the force.

oops oops I thought it was a cross product. [math]\vec{\tau}={\vec{F}}X{\vec{r}}[/math] It's been a while since I've done the math, but that doesn't mean I can't use a torque wrench.

Torque can be thought of as how hard something is twisted. Like how tightly you tighten a nut on a bolt. It's basically a force that causes a rotation. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it very well, but you get a feel for torque by changing a tire on your car.

This is nonsense. At 12:58(times according to my SFN clock) Moo posts what is clearly just her opinion about the methods and tactics used by evangelical homeschools and provided examples of said methods and tactics. Then, you, at 1:00(LESS THAN 2 MINUTES LATER) post a reply which quite obviously is misrepresenting what she said. This is behaviour that you have been undertaking in this thread since you started replying to me. Each of your replies to me have been a minute or less from when I posted. Does this suggest that you actually took the time to read them and digest what the poster meant? Your action in this thread coupled with your posting behaviour in the thread regarding the teacher being fired indicate, in my opinion, that you are not mature enough as of now to post on the subject of religion. The problem with this site's religion forum was not just the "politically correct, accepted majority here at SFN, which clearly believes that religion is a bad influence on society, and that it must be attacked"(a marginal at best group with whom you have inexplicably lumped me) but also people like you who get too emotional any time anything even close to what could be perceived as challenging religion comes up. It's time to end the martyr complex. Both sides there are wrong(one for being oversensitive and being convince they are being persecuted and the other for being jerks). Both extremes are present here and neither, imo, are mature enough to post about religion. That is why religion on SFN has yet to succeed. If we are to bring it back, even some moderators(like yourself) should probably be on the list of those not mature enough to have access. However this list of users unable to access the religion forum would most likely take out the majority of the users interested in the forum, so it may be best for those wanting to post about religion to find a separate religion forum. And, Pangloss, this time, I AM stating my opinion. No problem. I hope you had a nice dinner. Now, what were we talking about?

You're confusing heat with temperature.

YOU changed the subject. Indeed, we are then YOU moved from evangelicals to "screaming zealots" and proceeded to argue against that. Enter the strawman. How many times do I have to tell you that I HAVE YET TO STATE MY OPINION IN THIS THREAD? Really? Thanks for informing me. Again, I still have not given my opinion. Why are you twisting her words? She merely stated her opinion about the methods and tactics used by evangelical homeschools and provided examples of said methods and tactics.

Excuse me for assuming that, in a thread about evangelicals, we would be talking about evangelicals. Boy, am I stupid. Still see no connection to this imaginary prejudice you think I have. I still have not given my opinion on the subject. If you haven't seen Hell House, you can watch it on YouTube.

If he meant what I thought he meant, then these rocks would be fossils of the transition from singlecellular to multicellular life.