Daphne The Magic Ferret

Since it creates the false dichotomy that if a person chooses to believe in God, they'll be rewarded, while if they choose not to believe in God, they'll be punished.

This obviously ignores the countless possible versions of gods and afterlives, such as a god whose afterlife only punishes believers and everyone else simply has their consciousness end. Or a similar situation except the afterlife only serves to reward nonbelievers. These among the thousands of possibly correct religions and countless other unimagined possibilities.

So all else equal, aren't atheists and theists left with an exactly equal amount of risk and benefit, given the only 3 relevant differences in the list of possibilities they'd be subject to:

If accepting the wager: You benefit more than atheists if god rewards only believers, you lose more than atheists if god punishes only believers, you're even if god doesn't exist.

If rejecting the wager: You benefit more than theists if god rewards only nonbelievers, you lose more than theists if god punishes only nonbelievers, you're even if god doesn't exist.

The risks and benefits cancel out, and religious people gain nothing over atheists by accepting Pascals Wager. So with regard to net benefits, wagering is pointless.

What exactly do the religious people who continue to use this argument think atheists would lose by not wasting their time betting on something that leaves them no better off than before? Of course, the argument also makes the ridiculous presumption that it is possible to sincerely believe in something purely out of selfishness or fear of what might happen if you're wrong.

Why? Also, how would you prefer the funeral service to be done?

Bonus Question: Are you an organ donor?

I am trying to submit my applications online today or tomorrow to 5 different universities using the ApplyTexas application. However tomorrow is also the day that SAT scores for my test date are released, and I have it set up so that the scores will be automatically sent to those universities.

'm not sure if they're released directly at midnight or if the schools receive them electronically, but my question is, what happens if they receive my scores before receiving my application? Will they hold it until they find the application it goes to? How will they know when they've received the matching application, and how will it affect their review?

Via: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/answer?qid=20120...

A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even "imagine" a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

Sorry, kinda long intro, but short question at bottom, I'm very confused about how the units work for these problems:

So I am trying to convert to units desired, given angular velocity and radius.

In this example, I'm given 80rpm as angular velocity, and 2ft as the radius, and I want to convert it to feet/min. So first I get the linear velocity, doing 80*2pi*r and get 1005.31, but what units would that be in? Would that be in ft/min since the radius was in ft, or is it still in rpm?

Basically I need to know, when I'm doing these conversions and angular velocity is given in say, degrees/sec, with radius given in miles or something, would the linear velocity end up being miles/sec, or still degrees/sec, or something else entirely in that example?

Sorry, kinda long intro, but short question at bottom, I'm very confused about how the units work for these problems:

So I am trying to convert to units desired, given angular velocity and radius.

In this example, I'm given 80rpm as angular velocity, and 2ft as the radius, and I want to convert it to feet/min. So first I get the linear velocity, doing 80*2pi*r and get 1005.31, but what units would that be in? Would that be in ft/min since the radius was in ft, or is it still in rpm?

Basically I need to know, when I'm doing these conversions and angular velocity is given in say, degrees/sec, with radius given in miles or something, would the linear velocity end up being miles/sec, or still degrees/sec, or something else entirely in that example?

Sorry, kinda long two part question, I'm very confused about how the units work for these problems:

So I am trying to convert to units desired, given angular velocity and radius.

In this example, I'm given 80rpm as angular velocity, and 2ft as the radius, and I want to convert it to feet/min. So first I get the linear velocity, doing 80*2pi*r and get 1005.31, but what units would that be in? Would that be in ft/min since the radius was in ft, or is it still in rpm?

Also, if it turns out that the units would be ft/min, that means if I follow the same formula on the next problem I get:

Given 55degrees/second with a radius of 1.1miles, I find the linear velocity to be 380...? Is it degrees/mile or miles/second? If it's the first case, then need to convert that into mph. But how do I even begin to convert degrees into miles, assuming that the "denominator" unit would already be miles? I must be incorrect in the units part, otherwise I don't understand how to go about converting that.

If it's the second case, then does that mean I'm suppose to just drop the top number's units and just do radius units/bottom angular velocity units? As you can tell I'm very confused.

I promise I'm doing a whole chart of these, so I'm not just looking for answers, if someone can guide me with a formula to these two initial problems I'm sure I'll be able to figure out the rest.

For example, I'm given 80rpm as angular velocity, and 2ft as the radius, and I want to convert it to feet/min. Does this require getting the linear velocity first before using normal conversion factors, and if so, how would I go about doing that?

So far I've conceived of two different ways to write this, but I'm not sure which is the most correct way to do so:

"I hope to gain experience in the business world and further explore it as a career opportunity, as well as meet and become acquainted with knowledgeable professionals whom I may have the opportunity to keep in touch with."

"I hope to gain experience in the business world and further explore it as a career opportunity, as well as meet and become acquainted with knowledgeable professionals with whom I may have the opportunity to keep in touch."

In the first sentence, I want to know if "whom" or "who" is the correct way to write it, or if the second sentence is a better way to phrase it no matter what.

The sentence:

In reference to the intellectual quality of popularly printed and read material, Thoreau remarks “If others are the machines to provide this provender, they are the machines to read it.”

Would a colon, or a comma, or something else go in between "remarks" and the beginning quotation? And should I change "If" to a lowercase i.

Also, when it comes to quoting this type of narration under normal circumstances, should commas be placed before quotations like dialogue, or is it okay to just lead the sentence into the quote without a comma.

In my last question, someone objected on the grammatical grounds that "We can't just redefine the English language every time some special interest group would like to be included within a clearly defined category that does not and never has included them"

Why can't we? The government has had a hand in changing dictionaries in the past. It is within the government's power to change the legal definition of marriage, and it has more than once in the past. Marriage was once defined as a contract of ownership over a woman between a man and that woman's father. The moment government stopped recognizing marriages as contracts of ownership and instead as a union between a man and a woman, the definition of marriage changed.

It changed once again less than a century ago when the U.S. government recognized marriages between interracial couples as valid marriages.

What makes people think that the government can't/shouldn't change the definition of a word as it relates to the legal system even if there is a legally justifiable reason for doing so?

I mean in this context:

One argument/compromise I've heard in regard to same-sex marriage is that same sex couples can be given the same legal rights involved in marriage but under a different name, so as to not 'corrupt' the definition/sanctity of marriage. The common counter to this is that it's "separate but equal", but that's not the point I want to address.

My question is, if the exact same rights as offered in marriage are given to same-sex couples but under a different name, then what exactly would be the point of a marriage? What would be the point of having 2 different institutions for the same legal conclusion. The only distinction would then be the name.

Why exactly are the people who bring up this compromise so keen on protecting the traditional/religious definition/name of marriage if the only thing that gives marriage any relevance to government are the legal benefits that would be equally provided in the same-sex alternative?

What are real/normal/regular parents? What is a real/normal/regular/proper family set-up? Does gender play a role in it? If gender does play a role in it, explain what effect sexual organs have on parental roles and familial framework.

Can single parents be real/normal/regular parents?

Depending on the responses I get, this may or may not be a preliminary question.

Assuming God would be all-powerful, omniscient and gave us freewill, and therefore this God has the power to do anything and already knows everything we will and won't do. Why does this god care that people have faith in it and learn to follow it's rules in order to earn a reward? If this all-powerful, all-knowing god simply gave us clear knowledge of it's existence (knowledge telling us exactly which god it is and what is wants so that there wouldn't be multiple religions) and clear knowledge of any lessons this god wants us to learn, then everyone would be able to agree on behaving morally, we'd have peace, and everyone would get into heaven rather than suffering for eternity. Why would this god set up a system in which he knew some people would go to hell because of their lack of knowledge/understanding, rather than simply giving people what is required to allow everyone live peacefully in heaven, as is well within an all-powerful being's ability to do so.

Does this God want us to either earn the knowledge or suffer the consequences? As humans we might place value on "earning" things, but a God would be well above the intellectual level of humans. Why does this god care that we earn what is well within it's power to give freely? Sure we might have freewill, but an omniscient god still knows what decisions we'll make as a result of that freewill. It knows that some people will suffer because they lack something that God wants them to have for them to be accepted into heaven. Why did God create people knowing our limitations and knowing that not all of us would do the things necessary to go to heaven rather than hell in the afterlife?

The diagram I'm given to work from on my geometry homework is a standard pie chart, so basically I'm asked to use the pie chart as a circle and find the central angle. The radii are the lines that mark a slice of the pie chart, and they all meet at the center. Because it is modeled after a pie chart, the only numbers I'm given is the % that each slice of the chart represents and they all add up to 100%; the slice I'm working from has only the number 8%, and I'm not sure where to plug this number in to an equation.

So given the number 8% to represent the slice of the pie, what equation do I use to find the measure of it's corresponding central angle?

Basically I don't even know how to begin this problem, and keep in mind I'm working from the level of a Geometry student, so the equation our teacher taught us probably wasn't a Trig equation, or at least not too advanced.

Thankyou for your help!

Which evolved first? Stomach acid or the properties in mucus which cause stomach acid not to dissolve the walls of the stomach?

The most common religious argument I hear against gay marriage is that it would "redefine a union that is traditionally between a man and a woman" and that "marriage is a religious institution".

If marriage is a religious institution, then why are we having a legal battle over it? Why do married couples receive legal benefits under the U.S. Constitution which clearly defines separation of church and state? If we're going to define marriage as a purely religious institution, then shouldn't the government stop giving married couples legal acknowledgment through things such as tax and social security benefits?

The most common religious argument I hear against gay marriage is that it would "redefine a union that is traditionally between a man and a woman" and that "marriage is a religious institution".

If marriage is a religious institution, then why are we having a legal battle over it? Why do married couples receive legal benefits under the U.S. Constitution which clearly defines separation of church and state? If we're going to define marriage as a purely religious institution, then shouldn't the government stop giving married couples legal acknowledgment through things such as tax and social security benefits?

Hello. First, I'd like to say that I'm a highschool student and the extent of my knowledge on the disaster in Japan is from what I've heard in news clips and from my teachers and friends. I've heard about the radiation from Japan and that it's hit California, and from diagrams they've showed on the news, it looks like a huge amount of radiation.

I understand Japan is basically parallel to the U.S but on the other side of the world, but how can radiation travel so fast across the ocean? And what will be the affects of it? Will it really be bad and extremely dangerous, or will it have little to no effect for whatever reason? I live less than 20 minutes from the beach on the coast of Southern California so I'm curious and want to know if I should be worried, and also if it will spread further past the coastal states and eastward.

Any info greatly appreciated, thanks :-)

What do you think?

Personally I think atheism or theism can, and in many cases do overlap with agnosticism. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of any gods. Atheists can also go a step further and assert the positive belief that no gods exist. Theism is the positive belief in the existence of one or more gods. If agnosticism is simply the position that one isn't, or can't be 100% sure of a certain conclusion, then can't these positions overlap?

Isn't it possible for a person to acknowledge the fact that one can't be 100% sure that there are no gods, but that alone is not enough to cause them to place positive belief in any god? And then wouldn't that qualify them not only as an agnostic, but also as an atheist by the bare minimum definition? And isn't it also possible to acknowledge the fact that one isn't 100% certain of their position, but they still place active belief in the existence of one or more gods? Wouldn't that not only qualify them as agnostic, but also as some form of theist or deist?

And of course there are also atheists and theists who are 100% certain of their positions, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for someone to be an agnostic-atheist or agnostic-theist/deist, right?

For simplicity I often say I'm an atheist when asked, but if I wanted to be really specific, agnostic-atheist is a more accurate description of my thoughts on the subject.

What do you think? Mutually exclusive or no, and why?