"This is another way of eventually going back to stating that abiogenesis is impossible, as many theists do. There are bound to be those here who have studied far more in depth than I have, but my own findings have been that we have absolutely NO…"
"Sharpton has had several outings in the last couple of years that have made me ponder what I perceive are his changing mindsets on a few topics: namely the pledge, a couple of the amendments, and his views on American freedom in…"
"The German buckles actually translated to "God with us" (which I believe was in the Prussian coat of arms as well?), while "God is with us" would be "Gott ist mit uns". I too, however, experience the same type…"
"Irreducible complexity is something that's almost impossible to take seriously in the here and now. I personally find it very similar to the "god of the gaps" argument, whereby whatever science is currently unable to interpret or…"
"I'm shocked at the lack of people who expected this exact happenstance. In Canada, Walmart has been pulling the same act for as long as I can remember. The ONLY full time employees are management, who enjoy enormous salary positions, while the…"
"I'm with Karim. Rape is almost certain to be insensitive to actual rape victims, however prayer assault sounds fitting. I AM curious, though - being that they are essentially spouting nonsense into open air at their imaginary friend and saviour…"
"That's Graham Chapman in Monty Python's "Life of Brian". INCREDIBLY controversial film when it came out 35 years ago, as it offended the Catholic church in a big way. Years later, I'd say it's a must for atheists haha"
"I like what Loren has said, but for me the only difference is that the fear aspect bends too much to the whim of society to affect individuality, in my opinion. People like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Harvey Milk would almost…"
"I tend to think that the difference between science and pseudoscience is monolithic in one key regard: method. Whereas scientific method almost demands that a theory is disregarded when little to no empirical substance is found in support,…"
"Your question is whether the sequence of negative numbers -1, -2, -3,…
could be considered a sequence of non-primes?
That comes down to the question of whether -p is a prime number where p is a prime natural number since -p can be factored…"
Your question is whether the sequence of negative numbers -1, -2, -3,…
could be considered a sequence of non-primes?
That comes down to the question of whether -p is a prime number where p is a prime natural number since -p can be factored as (-1)p.
Here we get into the question of definitions and conventions in ring theory and the customary definition is that an element of a ring is prime if and only if it has no proper factorization. (A proper factorization is a product ab where neither a nor b is 0 or a unit.) Since -1 is a unit of the ring of integers, the factorization -p = (-1)p is not proper. The usual convention then is that -p is a prime if p is a prime.
Therefore the sequence of negative integers -1, -2, -3, … contains primes.
Glad we could bury the hatchet for the time being ;) I appreciate what you say. From my side, I realize I should have been frank and direct with you in my first reply rather than the second.
As I should have stated up front, I don't expect everyone to like or even respect my way of posting. But in the cases where it legitimately detracts from the message, I'm happy to explain why I act the way I do and what the intention is. You seem intelligent and frank, so you deserved nothing less.
Definitely no hard feelings on my side ;) (Oh and I'm familiar with the expression you used. I used it as a short-hand phrase to refer to the bunch of assumptions you made that I did not feel were warranted.)
P.S. We actually kind of share first names. My real name is Mathieu, the French version of Mathew ;)
Thank you, Matthew, for your concern. Your posts have been more thoughtful than many, and responding to them gave my brain some needed exercise.
I stopped following the discussion when I posted that it had gone as far as reason would take it. At that time I had already posted that the name Atheist Views on Gun Control would have described the discussion more accurately than Atheist Reasoning on Gun Control.
Gun violence in America is indeed a problem and I wanted to add that violence of other kinds in America is also a problem. I saw this while in the Navy during the Korean War, which was a United Nations endeavor. I was aboard a destroyer in a four-ship division led in turn by American, British and Dutch commanders. While led by American commanders, the division fired our main battery guns far more often than we did when led by European commanders. Though the sample included too few nations to draw valid conclusions, the experience persuaded me that America was one of the world's more violent nations.
The gun control discussion is moving me toward starting a discussion that wilI draw out atheists' views on the role, the vitally necessary role, that emotion plays in human responses. I'm working on how to state the opening words.
Now, I will visit the gun control discussion. Be kind to y'self.
Sure thing :) As an ex-Quebecer, debating without insults and agreeing to disagree are a lifestyle choice. As a NEVER been indoctrinated, critical thinker since as long as my brain remembers (age 3.5?), I've been arguing about parenting, faith (not bibles), society, biology, violence against females, relativity of morality, and universality of education all my life. For 30 years reading books was my main vice (among others, I'm a vice rich person). I mostly focused on non-fiction, but among fiction readings, dystopias and realistic sci-fi were my favourites. I don't read quite so much any more, eye issues. But if you check out my other discussions here, you'll see I'm used to being at odds with people, almost as much with group-think-atheism-Humanism as with faithers. I hate group-think to an extreme and I've taken many university level courses in statistics, so I'm not easily duped by cute graphics meant to sway the masses, no matter which side of a debate presents them. And always remember... when numbers fail to demonstrate anything, you're left with ideas... With ideas, one must determine if one's conversation partner is informed/experienced or not... and go from there.
Matthew, I'm new enough at A/N to not know the expectations arising from friending others here. Upon reading your invitation, I decided to visit your page and the discussions you initiated.
The vigor of your reaction to Huckabee's words reminded me of the vigor with which I reacted to words and events long ago. When WW2 ended, I was finishing eighth grade and when I learned of Hitler's atrocities I raged over why human beings choose madmen to lead their nations. I had no desire to live in such a world, but I stayed around and in time learned of the economic problems afflicting the German people when Hitler started seeking power.
I'm now reading a book titled "The Allure of Toxic Leaders" and while it deals with people far more powerful than Huckabee and others like him, it describes well how such people attract followers.
The vigor in your initial post has started me to thinking: do A/N visitors remember, and will they share, their reactions to events that resulted in their questioning/doubting/etc what they'd been told about religion. I'm working on an initial post.
Re Canada. I've been to Niagara Falls and through the largely rural area east of Detroit. I've long wanted to go through the Canadians Rockies but haven't. Maybe in my next life. Ho, ho, ho.
Hello Mathew Welcome to this world of rationality, truth and peace, where common sense and science lead to freethinking wisdom as you know as an atheist of two years. We invite you to join the busy group "ORIGINS: Universe, Astronomy, Life, Earth, Humans, Religion, Gods, Atheism, Evolution, Darwin..." with 700 discussion topics and 3600 members. http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin Terry