>> ^heathen:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^sillma:
Oh man, why did I watch this. I have to wait 2 weeks for this episode to come out

Torrents?
Also who cares, can't ever watch an episode of QI enough!

Even torrents won't help here yet. Episode 5 of this series only just aired on the BBC this Friday. From the Youtube description this is a preview of episode 7. (Although the Wikipedia page suggests it's episode 6, so there might be only 1 week to wait, not two.)


Maybe YOUR torrents won't help you, my torrents are future torrents.

>> ^heathen:

Washing your feet thoroughly is even more important when you have to use your feet to wash your hair.
Damn, that was impressive!


And eat, pick your nose, clean your holes, etc.

I don't know, but I want to find out..
>> ^heathen:

So if the Fruity Oaty Bar commercial triggers Summer Glau to kick arse what does this one make her do?

In reply to this comment by heathen:
Simon Pegg was great in Star Wars, that "leaf on the wind" scene gets me every time.


Oh gawd, I just blew a nerd gasket with that comment.

>> ^heathen:

>> ^ant:
What if you need to get out like from a fire?

Just walk around the side of the frame, or crawl underneath - looks like it's a couple of feet off the floor.


Har har! I meant when installed.

This is a very ugly misconception that you seem to have. Except for several very vocal celebrities, Atheists aren't "against" religion... there certainly isn't some central creed or governing body telling us what to organize against.

What Atheists are against, in the western world, is having our government (and hence our lives) tainted by beliefs that we don't hold. In Muslim countries, there are harsh penalties (up to Death) for blasphemy... so you won't find many people speaking up. In the US, Muslims and Hindus aren't making laws to persecute us, hence why you don't hear us complaining about them.

There's no crusade to remove Religion... There's no attempt to persecute Christians, we just want the ability to go about our heathen lives in peace.

Here is a bunch of atheists who disagree with you: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism

This is probably because the content in the video was a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical sermon that made such astronomical leaps that it didn't need to be said.

Pretty harsh point for the people who enjoyed it. If that's true then make your case against it, since you have understood it so well as to completely dismiss it.

There wasn't an argument made for this. For some reason, you seem to believe that "the things we do in life have no meaning after we die" turns people into sociopaths... And since we're not all sociopaths, that proves that God exists. The first issue is that you assume that 'meaninglessness' leads to sociopathic behavior. Secondly, this is a textbook example of Denying the Antecedant fallacy.

Show me where anyone said this, or even implied it.

--Skipping the story--

Is this really your argument? 80% of the people you meet were raised Christian (even most of the Atheists)... This is confirmation bias... You can't say something is put there by God when Religion was preaching to them on a weekly basis. If there really were some sort of imperative planted by God... wouldn't there be far less religious wars?

Breaking news... people really do spend their entire lives 'waxing philosophically'... People do die for things that their religion has told them was wrong, but they felt was right (Anti-Gay Violence?).

That's what is called sitting in Gods lap to slap His face, or borrowing from my worldview to establish yours, and this really isn't an argument in your favor. Also, as far as sin goes, do you understand Christian theology?

This is news to me... I believe Mormons teach this, but all other denominations preach that when you accept the Holy Spirit, it moves you to do good deeds... that the good deeds aren't your own.

Revelation 22:12

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me here. I was very specifically using the definition of 'meaningless' that the speaker above uses... as in, 'meaning nothing after you die'.

But that isn't the definition he used. He applied it to past present and future.

My point exactly. The only thing that matters is that you've accepted Jesus as your Savior. NOTHING else matters... hence it is meaningless.

Where do you get the hence from? Meaning is meaning. Even if there was only one meaningful act you could ever do, it would still be meaningful. However, in the context of God, everything takes on its true meaning, attaining the purpose it was created for.

You completely ignored my point here. Except for the Mennonites, there are no other denominations (in the US) that take a hard stance against violence. None. Zero. This country is 80% Christian, and yet we've been at war for 209 of 235 years of our existence.

No ignored my point that religions don't matter, because the true church is the body of Christ. You want to blame an institution, and that's fine, but that isn't what the church is.

Let me be very clear on this: ALL CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS IN THE US ARE FALSE purely based on this one single fact (again, excluding Mennonites)... Granted, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist... but it certainly does mean that I can't trust any US-based Christians...

I believe all denominations are false because they bring separation to the body of Christ.

What have you done to end discrimination (of ALL types)? Have you participated in any protests against wars, for Gay Marriage, for Women's Rights? Have you stood up in Church to let everyone know that you think it's wrong to discriminate against others, regardless of what they've done?

I'm against discrimination, flat out, and I would say something if I see it. I don't go to protests, no. I use my time to help people in many other ways.

I'd recommend reading up on philosophy, logical debate, and comparative religion... and finding a denomination that is above reproach. The reason Atheists always seem to have the same 'tired' arguments all the time is because we don't need to have new ones... the old arguments still come out in our favor.

I'd recommend the same to you, and the old arguments obviously are not coming out in your favor since atheism is in decline

http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf

This is the point where most Atheists become seriously pissed... Simply stating that someone is wrong because they don't believe what you believe is not the way to have a discussion. Especially when what you believe isn't widely believed by your own fellow Christians. LCMS, Presbyterians and Seventh-Day Adventists are the only denominations that officially preach Young-Earth Creationism...

The whole point is, if it is an old earth, it doesn't make sense that Jesus would come after 198000 years of struggle. That doesn't really prove anything, but the entire point is invalidated if it is a young Earth. Do you see what I am saying? I didn't say he was wrong, I just said what I believe.

>> ^hatsix

This is a very ugly misconception that you seem to have. Except for several very vocal celebrities, Atheists aren't "against" religion... there certainly isn't some central creed or governing body telling us what to organize against.

What Atheists are against, in the western world, is having our government (and hence our lives) tainted by beliefs that we don't hold. In Muslim countries, there are harsh penalties (up to Death) for blasphemy... so you won't find many people speaking up. In the US, Muslims and Hindus aren't making laws to persecute us, hence why you don't hear us complaining about them.

There's no crusade to remove Religion... There's no attempt to persecute Christians, we just want the ability to go about our heathen lives in peace.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, those might seem to be good reasons, but in the end, atheists are supposed to be against religion.

*beg you heathens!!

I have a few of them. A big one is scummy dish water, shit is nasty. Rinse your fucking dishes people. I'm not a clean freak or nothing and am not apposed to some dirty dishes but when they are in a sink full of water with bits of food and other gunk floating around, it's just nasty.

Another is toothpaste bits in the sink. It's sloppy and if it isn't cleaned out it gets all hard.

Last, and biggest pet peeve, cigarette butts (or worse, chew spit) in a beer or soda bottle. Here in NY our smoking population is pretty light but even still this so grosses me out. These stink up my place after a party and just leave me with a nasty aftertaste in my mouth. I cant recycle them because I sure as fuck am not going to wash them out. This is such a big pet peeve that I have forbade smoking or chewing in my house. If your doing either when you come over, you can spit it the fuck out before entering my abode. And don't spit it out or toss the butt on the sidewalk either you heathen!

>> ^heathen:

When a video that's 11 seconds long needs "Wait for it" in the description it might be time to consider that the problem is with people's attention span, not their literacy. ">


I was gona click out after 4 seconds.

Wait. What were we talking about again?

>> ^maestro156:

>> ^heathen:
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that some infinite sets are more dense than others, rather than bigger?
Whether or not the numbers of an infinite set could theoretically be listed both sets are still infinite in size.
If you take the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and the set of integers (.. -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...), you will see that the infinite set of natural numbers is encompassed within the infinite set of integers. Thus the infinite set of integers is "bigger" by any measure.
If you prefer to look at the set of integers within the set of real numbers, you could reasonably use the term "denser" since there is an infinite and uncountable set between any given pair of integers, but bigger is still a reasonable term.


Not exactly, as you can pair up every integer with any natural number in a one to one relationship. Bigger usually always means "more of". There is no meaningful way to say that any set of numbers that can have a 1 to 1 relationship with any other set of numbers is larger. The fact that one set can eat up another set and still be of the same "magnitude" infinity is pretty amazing, but not really indicative of "size" in the typical sense. For instance, take the set of numbers infinite half's from 0-2, and the set of numbers from 0-1 inclusive of ends. So, you have

(0:2)0...1/4...1/2...3/4...1,...5/4...3/2...7/4...2

(0:1)0...1/8...1/4...3/8...1/2...5/8...3/4...7/8...1



Notice 2 things; one, every time you go and make a new set of halfs for the 0-2 set, it eats up all the similar numbers in the 0-1 set, however, set 2 will also create a new set that doesn't match up...ad infinitum. We didn't have to start at these particular halfs, this is just the list order I chose, there are infinite other sets with the same numbers but different orders. Also note, that the every number from the top set is a 1/2 multiple of the set on the bottom. Every number from set 1 can get a number in set 2 by way of multiplication by .5, the revere is true of the other set. In fact, if you don't include the end point for the set of numbers from 0-2, then 0-1 has more numbers in it than 0-2 because a one to one relationship can't be established for 1 (because in set 2, if you multiply 1 by 2 to get a number by our multiplication factor you get 2...which is not included!)...so the set of numbers from [0-1] is greater than the set of numbers from [0-2).

Infinity will drive you nuts! I have heard that the human minds has evolved to think to the number 7 without abstraction. Beyond 7, you venture into a realm for which your mind has no naturally evolved tools.

>> ^maestro156:

>> ^heathen:
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that some infinite sets are more dense than others, rather than bigger?
Whether or not the numbers of an infinite set could theoretically be listed both sets are still infinite in size.
If you take the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and the set of integers (.. -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...), you will see that the infinite set of natural numbers is encompassed within the infinite set of integers. Thus the infinite set of integers is "bigger" by any measure.
If you prefer to look at the set of integers within the set of real numbers, you could reasonably use the term "denser" since there is an infinite and uncountable set between any given pair of integers, but bigger is still a reasonable term.


What if we were to talk about the numbers between 0 and 10, instead of 0 and infinity?

Some sets would be listable, and some not. In one number line there would be 10 numbers, and in others an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 10.

However we wouldn't say that some tens are bigger than other tens, as 10 always equals 10.

Even though it would take longer to list all the three decimal place numbers between 0 and 10 than it would to list the integers between 0 and 10 it doesn't make the first 10 larger than the second.

>> ^heathen:

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that some infinite sets are more dense than others, rather than bigger?
Whether or not the numbers of an infinite set could theoretically be listed both sets are still infinite in size.

If you take the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and the set of integers (.. -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...), you will see that the infinite set of natural numbers is encompassed within the infinite set of integers. Thus the infinite set of integers is "bigger" by any measure.

If you prefer to look at the set of integers within the set of real numbers, you could reasonably use the term "denser" since there is an infinite and uncountable set between any given pair of integers, but bigger is still a reasonable term.

>> ^heathen:

>> ^Lolthien:
Anyone who voted for this needs to reconsider their direction in life. I can't tell if this is meant to be funny, or if it's a parody of comics from 1988.

I upvoted the video, please tell me more about how I should reconsider my direction in life.


See the life you have been living and how that has affected what you find funny? You may want to adjust to a modern lifestyle and shift your sense of humor accordingly.



Or not. Not really my business.



Seriously, unless this guy is being ironic, I could not find a single funny thing about it.