MTR09

I'm completely new to MATLAB and I am writing a function to find diagonal dominance in square matrices of unknown dimensions.

I am calling the matrix "A", then using B=abs(A) to get all the components as positive and C=length(A) to identify the dimensions (I already have programmed the error messages if A isn't square).

My idea is to say "i=1" and then use;

if 2*B(i,i)=>B(i,:)

ddom=1;

else ddom=0;

My idea is then to say that if both i=<C and if ddom=1, i=i+1.

I'm pretty sure my reasoning is fairly sound, but I don't know how to use an "if" statement that is dependant on two conditions.

If anyone could help it'd be really appreciated.

I really am struggling to think of one, 2006 Portugal was a shootout, so doesn't really count.

As life expectancy increases, it is estimated that 1 in 6 of us will live to reach our 100th birthday. If this happens it is likely that over 50% of the electorate will be either unemployed or retired.

Don't you think that we are on very shaky ground when the majority of voters are not taxpayers, considering that they will not need to concern themselves with the financial burden that falls on the shoulders of the taxpayers?

Also considering that the taxpayers will also need to front the bill for pensions, education, healthcare, law and order, defence, etc. do you think that it is economically viable to expect such a relatively low number of people to support Britain's public services on their own?

I was wondering if anyone knew how to change the function of a certain key on a keyboard.

My "down arrow" key is broken and it seems to be a problem with the circuit rather than the mechanism, I was wondering if anyone knows if/how I could maybe "swap" it to another key that I don't use as often e.g. "PrtSc". My warrantee has run out so I'd rather not pay to have it fixed.

Basically my question comes from the fact that there could be an intellectual dead end on the horizon of the atheism vs religion debate.

I freely admit that, presupposing the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, anything is possible.

In practice this means that if you believe in God to the point that you "know" He exists, you can easily deny any natural explanation you want as God could have tinkered with the natural laws. Even to the point of some creationists "divine trickster" God where He plants fossils to confuse us.

What I wanted to know was whether theists would find a natural explanation to, let's say, abiogenesis, more satisfying than their supernatural belief.

Personally I feel that a phenomena we can learn to understand is much more interesting and valuable than the idea of mysticism.

I am not going to challenge the concept of God's existence, all I am going to say is that I don't think the bible can be trusted.

Firstly and most obviously IMO. The bible was not written in English, it was written in ancient Hebrew and was translated into Greek, Latin etc. before English a few centuries ago.

There is no indication that God oversaw the translation and so no way of knowing the original word without being bilingual.

Reading the original Hebrew suggests a different Genesis account, the Hebrew word "yom" is not limited to meaning a literal day for example, it can mean a longer passage of time.

Secondly the Bible was written by men. Even if it was written by men influenced by God, it is still physically written by men. Humans inevitably put a spin on stories and exaggerate when they retell them.

Basically, I don't agree that people should put militant faith behind small details, which aside from being fairly inconsequential, are very hard to justify, even for someone who believes deeply in God.

IMO if you do believe in God, you should use the Bible as a guide. Even if it's original text was the true word of God, it is a third hand translation, written in archaic English.

I am posing this questions to Christians in particular who say to atheists "Why bother living if there is no God?" or questions to that effect. Suggesting that life is pointless if it is finite and therefore it is futile for atheists to continue living (although few go as far as to suggest a mass suicide).

My understanding is that Christians believe that in the life after this one, people who are saved will serve God in some greater purpose.

Some Christians also often suggest that there would be no point to life if there was no God (usually when challenging atheists to explain the reason for their existence). Suggesting that life in itself has no purpose.

From this I would deduce that the only reasonable assumption you could make is that this life is merely a test to see who will serve God in the next life.

So in effect, Christians believe that life is God's way of filtering out those he sees as useless.

Seemingly the only criteria for salvation is that we believe in Jesus and repent for our sins.

So what is it about belief in Jesus, that makes us useful to God? It can't be because we have shown blind faith, because there are many other religions which require the same amount of faith but whose followers would be consigned to the pit along with atheists.

In effect there are no discernable traits that God could filter out by creating such a illogical testing system. Our physical acts don't matter, nor do our personality traits.

From this, the only conclusion I can draw, is that the "test" is far too futile to be the true meaning of life. Therefore surely Christians would have to agree that if there is a God, there must be a further use for our lives than serving God, and that atheist lives are no more pointless than Christians.

P.S Atheists, shhhhh, I'm testing them!

Atheist?

Heathen?

Infidel?

Other?

Personally I find being called an infidel always brings a smile to my face. But heathen is quite good too.

I find being called an atheist a bit boring.

Like a website or a video.

By the way I'm more interested in the science aspect of it rather than rhetoric, as I am often put off the idea that AGW exists by their videos always showing hurricanes and tidal waves at the beginning, as if there was never a stiff breeze, nor a ripple in the ocean, before we started burning fossil fuels. I feel it compromises the argument's credibility.

Facts only please.

Basically, someone described this film to me and I really want to see it.

It's based in a society where humans are separated into superior and inferior groups by the government based on their height/intelligence etc.

It isn't Brave New World though.

The story is about a guy in the superior race who (I think) is terminally ill, and decides to switch identities with someone in the inferior race, to give him a chance of a better life. I think I remember being told he has to do stuff to increase his height etc.

Does anyone know what this film is/if it exists?

If it doesn't exist then can someone please make it? Because I really want to see it, thanks.

We really need a contingency plan to sneak out of Hell. Do you reckon there's a back door?

This would obviously be to combat the threat of domestic violence and child abuse.

Also what are your views on the future possibility of GPS chips being installed in people to help solve the problem of child abduction.

Just wondering if/how these ideas would clash with your religion.

The Father is God,

The Son is God,

The Holy Spirit is God,

Yet there are not three gods but one?

Is there a clear interpretation of this as to me it seems like orwellian doublethink?

P.S. I'm looking for lucid, intelligent answers from Christians, so could atheists refrain from implying gullibility etc. for the reason behind it. As that wouldn't be particularly prudent and would question the rationality that you claim to exercise.

"God created man in his own image"

My initial thought was that meant God made us to look like Him. However I noticed the lack of capitalisation in "his" meaning it cannot refer to God. What do you think?

My theory is that Theists (Christians especially) feel that they should do what they can to save atheist souls from Hell, by converting them.

But I also feel, as an atheist, that I should help Christians to rationalise and become atheists (or at least step away from fundamentalism) in order to stop them wasting their lives on false pretences.

To be honest, I would say the majority of the insults were thrown by atheists, claiming theists to be blind to the truth and ignorant.

But really, can we expect Theists to listen to our views when none of us would be willing to listen to them quoting bible verses as truth.

So my question, to both atheists and theists do you see R&S as a chance to help people see (your interpretation of) the truth? Or simply a challenge to belittle the other group?

I would consider myself an atheist, rather than an agnostic, however as a rationalist I would accept the existence of God if it became apparent.

Obviously my belief in Science is a belief of sorts- I have no proof that the stars are not simply lights in the sky, nor that the earth travels round the sun, nor that the Earth's gravitational pull stops me from floating up. I didn't derive any of these theories and so if I trust them it is a belief.

My question to everyone is, do you think it is possible to be a fundamentalist atheist who would be unwilling to believe in a deity even if the bulk evidence suggested it was true.

If so should atheists simply call themselves agnostic, as we do not have a full picture of how we got here?