swansont

None of this happened, though. Nobody redefined atheism. Nobody called you (or anyone) “an atheist” The phrase was “atheist about over 99% of the gods humans have invented” You’re focusing on one word and ignoring the rest of the statement.

Unfortunately that analysis doesn’t appear to account for thawing the chicken, or any thermal losses while you are slapping it. Also “For chickens this so called specific heat is 3.35 kJ per kg of chicken per degree Celsius.” according to https://www.poultryworld.net/poultry/overheated-chick-calculations/

Do you believe in these other gods? If not, how is the expression inaccurate?

Seriously? Which has nothing to do with iNow’s claim. This thread is about being atheist. Not whether God exists.

If everyone on earth disbelieved in God, then they would all be atheistic. It would be their collective belief that God was invented. The existence is beside the point. It’s irrelevant.

I’m not interested in the evidence you didn’t provide to things you didn’t claim. I’m interested in you providing evidence of things you did claim: namely that my reasoning is flawed, or that my claim that thousands of deities exist is incorrect.

It’s about belief. If you don’t believe in a god, can that god be real, as far as you’re concerned?

No, that’s not a fair summary of my posts, and there’s no faith involved here. I provided evidence of thousands of deities. I provided reasoning that supports iNow’s claim. I notice that you are not providing any evidence to counter what I have provided, or showing any flaw in the reasoning. You’re moving the goalposts. This is about whether people believe these gods exist. We’re not discussing evidence for the existence of any god, we’re discussing evidence of belief. How is this relevant?

Fine. It’s not based on direct evidence. It’s an extrapolation. But that doesn’t mean it’s not true. I’ve supplied the reasoning, and the minimum number of deities is easily confirmed (the Egyptian, Norse, Aztec, Hindu, etc.) We also know that Christianity, and probably other popular monotheistic religions, deny that any other gods exist. No, it’s really nothing like that.

That wasn’t the claim. It was that they were atheistic regarding 99% of the gods. The general claim can be deduced (like a Fermi problem) Do you (and people in general) believe in deities outside of your own religion? If no, then you are atheistic regarding these deities. How many deities are there? How many thousands? (Egypt alone had >1400). Even if your religion has multiple deities, the percentage is likely close to or exceeds 99%. Now, if you are convinced that a deity isn’t real, because of your belief, then said deity must have been invented.

And they get to hide behind the “rhetoric” excuse…except that there is no denouncement of the violence. You get the opposite, like Kari Lake making a joke, and people laughing about the attack. You get conspiracy nonsense offered up.

What derivation? A bald assertion is not a derivation, and your assertion was rebutted. Pick a point. I can e.g. assign a value for the electric field, the magnetic field and gravitational field to that point. That's three. Three is not one.

Stochastic terrorism. You send the message that violence is acceptable, and then wait for one of the millions of followers to decide they are going to follow through on it. Then the GOP applauds it or is silent on the matter.

Repeating this doesn’t make it true.

OK, that makes no sense. For entangled spins, it’s because angular momentum is conserved. Energy is going to be conserved, too. But nothing has be “constantly maintained” in order for that to happen.

trevorjohnson32 has been banned because enough is enough

I believe you have a sign error here.

! Moderator Note And yet here you are. As long as you choose to be here, you need to comply with our rules

It’s a simulation, and it’s light entering a medium where the speed of light will be c/n and not invariant. Even if it wasn’t a simulation, how would you know what direction the “experiment” was moving?

So that’s a “no”

It’s incumbent on a poster to make such connections and explain the relevance of it. In this case, some work that cites a work tying K-K theory to entanglement. Just seeing mention of a fifth dimension and knowing there’s a hypothesis with five dimensions is speculation without it. For you to think this is not speculation, surely you have a citation in mind. Please share it.

This assumes they were only trying to hit military positions.

Can you hand me a gravity field?

You’re being obtuse. A rock does not need to read our mind to fall under the influence of gravity. That would indeed be absurd. It falls, and we want to know about its motion. So we come up with equations which allow us to do that. Gravity exists all around us, we can assign a magnitude and direction to any point we choose, and it has these values independent of anyone’s thought.

Correlation is not an interaction, and the correlation is present at the beginning. This applies to you, too.