DzPshr13

This is meant for those who define Agnostic Atheism as the belief that there is no God but not having proof.

No one has proof. Therefore, by this definition, everyone needs to put "Agnostic" in front of their belief system (Agnostic Christian, Agnostic Muslim, etc). If it applies to everyone, there's no point in giving the title to anyone, as it can just be assumed. Basically, it just makes you come off as a self-satisfied tool. "No, I don't believe in God, but I'm not so foolish to say that I can prove it." No one can prove their belief. It doesn't make you better than them to parade yourself around like you possess Socratic wisdom that they don't.

Do you, Agnostics, think that Atheism is defined by knowing that there is no God or believing that there is no God? It seems, from some of the questions and answers that I've read, that there are Agnostics who don't believe in God but call themselves Agnostic because they don't know that there is no God.

Do these people imagine that I, an Atheist, profess to know with absolute certainty that there is no God? If they do, they are incorrect because I don't know, and I make no claim to the contrary. I'm Atheist because I don't believe God exists, absolute proof aside.

Now, are there any among you, who call yourself Agnostic, who would be defined as Atheists under this definition?

Okay, I know that I know how to do this, but it's been so long since I was in a math class that I've forgotten.

A car travels west on a straight, 10 mile track. In the first run it travels at a perfectly straight, 0 degree angle from one end to the other. In the next run, it travels at an angle of N degrees. How far will the car have traveled with this new angle?

I know that this is a right triangle and that I'm trying to determine the hypotenuse (h), but for the life of me, I can't figure out the equation. I tried h=10/cosN (derived from cosN=10/h; cosN*h=10; h=10/cosN), but I keep getting inconsistent answers that can't be right (for example, negative ones). It's possible that I made mistakes at any place (or many places) along my line of thinking, but I simply can't remember the right way to do it. So if anyone can tell me the algebraic equation (don't care about specific answers) to find this, I'd really appreciate it. There's bonus appreciation if you can also tell me how to determine the other side (x).

--_10__

--|-------/N

--|------/

x|-----/h

--|---/

--|_/

90-N

(The dashes are just for formatting, ignore them)

In regards to the fundamental forces, I know that gravity is the force that holds objects of sufficient mass together (I'm sure that's a horrible way to put it, but regardless, I understand what it does), that electromagnetism holds charged objects together (electrons to protons, molecules, our bodies, etc.), and that strong force holds the nucleus of atoms together, but I have yet to hear an explanation as to what the weak force actually does. Don't bother going into excessive detail as to how it works because you'll probably lose me, but if anyone could tell me what the effect of it is I would really appreciate it. The only explanation I've ever received is, "it's related to radiation," which tells me nothing, really. Is it what throws of atomic particles? Does it hold onto atomic particles, it's strength determining half-life? If someone could help clear this up for me, I'd very much appreciate it.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/206374/nova-what-darwin-...

Believe or disbelieve if you want, respond or don't respond if you want. This is one of the better videos I've seen when it comes to explaining the origins and mechanics of the theory of evolution in a clear and concise way. If you refuse to watch it "on principle," you won't be able to deny that you're willfully ignoring information.

Imagine that you ride your bike to work every day. It isn't terribly far, and you get a nice workout. Overall, you're happy with the situation. Then one day, you see one of your co-workers coming to work on a pogo stick. You don't have a problem with this; sure it seems kind of silly to you, but they seem to be getting something out of it. Who are you to judge? After seeing this for some time, that co-worker eventually approaches you and tries to convince you, through the benefit of their personal experience, that taking a pogo stick is extremely fulfilling and that it is far superior to riding a boring bike to work. Regardless of how profound and well spoken this person's presentation was, you would never be convinced that this person was right.

Let's take it a step further. Say, you give it a shot out of pure curiosity. You've never tried it, so how can you know they're wrong? You take the pogo stick to work for a week. Maybe it's horribly embarrassing for you; maybe you don't mind it; maybe you enjoy it and think it's really fun. Regardless of your reaction to it, you would always feel, in the back of your mind, that riding a bike is the more reasonable mode of transportation. Regardless of how much happiness it brought you, you would know that it was a happiness brought on by the frivolity of using a pogo stick, of letting your mind go for those few minutes that it took you to get to work, but once you were back in a position to think rationally, once you allowed yourself to see through the illusion that you created in the moment, you would realize that you were being silly and that you should probably go back to the bike.

You will never be able to convert me. Now that I've seen religion as an illusion (whether it is or isn't, I see it as one), I will always see it as one. Even if some major event has me reaching for God to bring me some form of comfort, it will be in the same mindset with which an alcoholic reaches for a beer when times are tough. I'm looking for comfort, but at the same time, I know that it isn't real. I'll know that I've had to suspend my disbelief to accept the illusions, and once I've worked passed whatever trauma sent me to God, my knowledge of what it took for me to get there will send me right back out again. I'm not asking that you stop believing; I'm just asking that you stop asking me to.

I hope this helped at least some people understand the Atheist aversion to conversion (that was accidentally all poetical). I'm not saying that you are silly for believing what you do, merely trying to create a viewpoint from which you can relate to my perspective. Does this make any sense to anyone?

I hear this statement all the time, so I was just wondering what the general consensus was. Do you feel that this is a true statement?

1. Absolutely

2. I guess so

3. I don't know

4. I'm inclined to disagree

5. Hell no

Please feel free to elaborate.

Obviously, there is a pop culture feeling on breasts that dictates that bigger is better. I hear and read men insulting women for having small breasts. I hear and read women complaining about their breasts being too small. However, I've found that, for the most part, As and Bs tend to be much better looking than large breasts. I don't mean, if you're my girlfriend, I'll accept you (I would, but that's not the point). I actually tend to prefer smaller cup sizes, and I hate implants (they don't look or move right). I always feel bad when girls get down on themselves because of their breast size, though I don't know that it would be particularly appropriate to say, "you have very nice looking breasts," to a woman you aren't dating.

Anyway, am I alone in this? I'll take answers from men with your preferences and why, or women with any experience you've had that either supports the reasoning behind the insecurity or shows that this isn't an uncommon opinion.

This is one of the most common descriptions that shoes receive, yet it doesn't seem to be fitting. If it's meant to make a statement about how they will affect men, I feel that it's necessary to point out that I, nor any other straight man I've met, neither notice or care about a woman's shoes, unless they stand out as ridiculous or silly. Why spend a ton of money on "sexy" shoes if your target audience doesn't care? It's like a mime spending their money on the highest quality face paint that exists.

I've also heard the argument that women dress for other women rather than men, but if this is the case, is "sexy" really a fitting term (I'm speaking purely from a straight perspective). The idea of the word "sexy" is that the subject evokes a sexual desire in the observer. Therefore, by a woman calling another woman's shoes "sexy" she is stating that the shoes fill her with a sexual desire for the woman wearing them. If this is untrue, then the word is inappropriate.

So, my question is this. Is there some detail that I'm missing, or is this just another one of those things that people say that makes no sense if you give it even the slightest amount of thought (e.g. "atm machine" and "pin number")?

I know it hasn't started yet, but who else already tired of it?

*Raises hand*

Surely, there were some people in the World Trade Center that day who wouldn't want the United States to deny Muslims their right to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero. How is it not spitting in their faces to not only suggest we deny Muslims their first amendment right but use their death as the rationality for it?

I really like classical sitar, but I'm so unfamiliar with artists that I don't have any clue where to start. Just to be clear, I'm not looking for pop songs played on sitar, but a legitimate, classical style.

What's worse, people who can't spell or people who use no punctuation, whatsoever?

I meant to give someone a thumbs up, but decided to fail at aiming instead. This resulted in an accidental thumbs down. Can I correct this error?

Does this constitute undeniable evidence of its validity?

http://failblog.org/2010/08/03/epic-fail-video-bus...

to stop using fake names for, or censoring, religious words? For example, Xtians, Geewiz, G-d, etc. These will be found offensive by some people and stupid by the rest, so what's the point? Just say Christians, Jesus, God, Atheist, Muslim/Islam, Muhammad, Judaism, Hinduism, or whatever is relevant, as though you actually intend to have an adult conversation.

by the fact that every time you eat there is less food in the house?

I don't understand why it's necessary to ask if I'm sure I want to use so much punctuation every time I punctuate a sentence properly.

There's a biology section which is frequented by many actual biologists. If people were actually looking for answers about the evidence that evolution is true, why wouldn't they post their questions there? The only explanation I can think of is that they know the evidence exists, but by asking the questions in the religion forum, they know they will only receive answers from atheists who have, for the most part, no more than a second hand knowledge of the subject. This suggests that they know creationism doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and in order to keep their delusion from crumbling, they only ask questions of those who aren't equipped to properly scrutinize it.

Therefore, I present you with a challenge. If you really want to discuss the subject, go post your questions in the biology section. If not, you must admit that you aren't as sure as you claim to be about the validity of creationism. I'm not asking that you admit evolution is right. I'm merely asking that you concede the fact that you don't actually know what you claim to know.

I'm going to the game today and got seats in section 132, row 22, and I was wondering where that was, roughly, in the seating chart box. The lack of row-by-row seating charts on the internet is quite frustrating. Preemptively, I have no need of the answer "you'll be 22 rows back," as that does nothing to help me find relative location.