Strange

That's not pride. It is based on verifiable facts.

But if your god can change its mind once what's to say it won't change it again and go back to being cruel and vindictive? I don't belief in gods (yours or anyone else's) there for atheism is not dead. I'm quite happy to ask the mod to close this but, so far, it has been reasonably polite etc so it probably wouldn't be.

There is no such thing. You may be thinking of inflation but that is hypothesised for a completely different reason. This is off topic so if you want to discuss it further, start a new thread

What pride? I said nothing about myself, just the deluded people who post silly ideas on science forums. That is a statement of fact so, again, I don't know where you think pride comes into it.

The only place I see "science" like that is when crackpots post their "theories" on forums like this.

There are no fabrications and a large amount of solid evidence. It is a bit silly to make up objections like this. Meteors are common especially at certain times. If you see one, you are quite likely to see another soon after from the same source and on the same course

I have read a couple of articles about this. I doubt their criticisms are correct but it is good that there are people willing to analyse and challenge the data like this. It can only make the science stronger. The New Scientist headline is typically sensationalist - confirming it's place as the Daily Mail of science!

While I would share your concern with an extreme reaction to someone denying the big bang model, there is a difference : there is evidence for the big bang model so belief doesn't come into our ; there is no evidence for gods so that is purely a matter of belief.

Is belief an "action"? It is not something we can choose to do or not do (I don't think) Except I wasn't quantifying agnosticism. I was quantifying belief! I guess disbelief can be quantified a well. There are atheists where the "a" seems to stand for "anti" and others where it is closer to apathy or indifference. So your god changed his mind about what was good and bad?

Very good point. There been some very significant religious thinkers who have been troubled by doubt about their beliefs.

That has been said about many people but I but you can't provide any evidence. Except when saying an eye for an eye, or condemning people to eternal torment. Your god is also a cruel and jealous god You included me? How sweet

This is obviously not true. I know at least one person who doesn't think like that.

Well, I agree it is a point of view. In the same way as saying I can't understand the appeal of golf. But golf still has its fans and some people believe in gods. I didn't say gods don't exist just that some people don't believe in them.

I don't think I was ruling anything out. The only definitive statement I made was for the existence of non-physical things (eg dreams, qualia, pink, Thursdays ...) I'm not sure that not believing in gods days anything about their existence Speak for yourself

I think you should remove the word "scientific" from that. And "speculation" seems generous.

So these are not really instructions, are they. Just some sort of fantasy. And do you have any evidence that changing XY to XX would change wither the sex or the gender of a person? Physical sex is determined in the womb (in as much as it is determined at all) and is not necessarily related to the presence of XX or XY genes.

I'm not sure how it undermines the atheist position (not that there is "the" atheist position, I imagine there as many positions as there are atheists). If someone doesn't believe in gods, why would that be changed by the (rather obvious) existence of non-physical things. Does it undermine the idea of not believing in Santa Claus, or not believing in a small teapot orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter?

Even if so, I'm not sure how that relates to atheism. Unless the argument is somehow equating qualia with gods.

So the ideas to show that there is a bus, such as set of data or address signals, that change. Some may go up and some down (or not change at all). The short hand is to show the overall change by two diagonal lines, just so it is clearer where the change is happening. I have also seen these drawn without the sloping lines, so you just get a series of rectangles with the values in. So, in this case, what happens is that the data is "captured" (and held) on the rising edge of the clock. So look at the value at each rising edge and draw the data changing (the sloping lines) at that point, with the value at that clock edge written inside. That would so much easier if I drew a picture... I'll try a post one in a minute... Does that help?

Maybe we mean different things by "[well] defined" I'm not sure if "infinity" has a technically, well defined meaning in mathematics (but I am not a mathematician). And one type of infinity can be defined as the cardinality of that set. The another infinity is the cardinality of the reals.

Neither of those are true. I often wonder why people think their god approves of them lying like this. Arguably true. Depending on the definition of "abstract", "concept", "existence", "physical", etc. But utterly, painfully, irrelevant. The existence of mathematics does not prove gods exist. Some people who developed science believed in various gods and some didn't. And, again, it is completely irrelevant if they did. What does "confident in atheism" mean? There are still people who don't believe in gods, so yes there is still atheism.

It is defined and it is neither of those.

It depends what you want to use the coil for. Is it an electromagnet (which probably wants DC), a transformer (that needs AC), a motor (can be AC or DC, depending on the type of motor), a loudspeaker (needs a varying signal representing the sound), a room heater (can be AC or DC), or ... No. But it might depend on what you mean by "stuff". Who knows. It depends on what they are doing in those videos I suppose. Who knows. It depends what the "tiny circuit board" is. A signal generator? A filter? A radio receiver?

Dr William Chester Minor, a contributor to the first Oxford Dictionary: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-the-oxford-english-dictionary-went-from-murderers-pet-project-to-internet-lexicon It is quite common: cleave (join) and cleave (split), for example. That is not what it means in British English, maybe it is different in Canada. Lucifer was the Latin name for Venus as the morning star. (The evening star was called Vesper; these are both Latin translations of the Greek names.)

Why?