Strong Atheism, or Weak Atheism?

Keep in mind that we are talking about a guy who apparently bases his theology, to a large extent, on the movie Constantine (rated "46% - Rotten" according to rottentomatoes.com).

Putting the snark aside, how is it that any of you can understand his posts?


"Oh wait, who said god was to let everybody burn in hell?"
A:
God.

"Well, yeah, I just wanna test ya respect and want to know wether anyone of you is so convinced of a lack of god and subsequent punishment that he would actually dare comitting some sort of obscene blasphemy?"
A:
Blasphemy is easy; Jesus enjoys anal foreplay.
There you go, I commited blasphemy right there, with no ill effects.

"Are you really like that?"
A:
Not usually, but you asked me to blaspheme so I did.

"Are you just people who have lost their faith??"
A:
I have never had faith, but some folks here once did.

"Are you really people who just doubt his existence?"
A:
"Doubt" is putting things mildly.

"[Rant]"
A:
What?

"Why not listen to some old dusty book people have been reading for ages reaching over 2,000 years and more, instead of some mob of 'realists' who just screams 'Diz is all bullshit!'"
A:
Nobody here is screaming anything, but even this hypothetical flock of gangsta scientists is likely far more articulate than you could hope to be.

"'If there as a god, why doesn't he help out man w/ his miseries?' pose that question to yourself."
A:
There is no god. That was easy.

"Well, can't you just agree w/ me there is that 2,000 years book?!?"
A:
No; the bible is far older than just 2000 years old.


I hope that answers your questions.
 
W4d5Y said:
Are you really like that? Are you just people who have lost their faith?? Are you really people who just doubt his existence? I mean, I could also do it the phylosopher's way -
I am or am not religious although there might or might not be a god (Oh'snap, that's the gnosticists! Or however you call them :O ) But if I really went that far, I wouldn't have actual faith anyore - because faith excludes logic.
Click to expand...

Hang on...

faith excludes logic.
Click to expand...

So... let me get this straight.
Faith excludes logic?

So you're basically protecting yourself by saying "ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN'T TOUCH ANYTHING I SAY NA NA NA NA NA! NA NA!"

This does not work.



/EDIT Mecha? I'm literally surrounded with crazy Asian people who speak almost exactly like that all the time, minus the whole religion thing (except sometimes).
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Putting the snark aside, how is it that any of you can understand his posts?
Click to expand...

*does not raise hand*

I'm shocked that some people here seem to be quoting him and actually responding to his nonsensical chicken scratch. i can't make heads or tails as to what he is saying.
 
I gave it a shot, but the big middle chunk of his post was just plain indecipherable.
 
I just don't understand how someone can believe SO MUCH in the ancient book of the Bible (and its teachings), and yet have almost no knowledge what-so-ever as to its origins and literally the number of versions there have been in the centuries.

It reminds me of the game where in a classroom one person whispers something into the ear of the person next to them and that person whispers it as best they heard it to the next person until it reaches all around the room. At the end of it, it ends up NOTHING like the original.
 
W4d5Y said:
okay, I shall abandon my faith and deny it from now, letting spread devil's work or what ever it is over our miserable world. Oh wait, who said god was to let everybody burn in hell? Well, yeah, I just wanna test ya respect and want to know wether anyone of you is so convinced of a lack of god and subsequent punishment that he would actually dare comitting some sort of obscene blasphemy?
Are you really like that? Are you just people who have lost their faith?? Are you really people who just doubt his existence? I mean, I could also do it the phylosopher's way -
I am or am not religious although there might or might not be a god (Oh'snap, that's the gnosticists! Or however you call them :O ) But if I really went that far, I wouldn't have actual faith anyore - because faith excludes logic. Therefore I do reject such
attempts at physically prooving such an entities existence, as it just contradicts with my believe I have layed my trust in. And also, god never actually didn't proove he didn't exist - otherwise nobody would have been allowed to learn about him. It's just like that Constantine-type-thingie - he knows God exists, but that doesn't render him a believer yet. So, there's choosing between Knowledge and Believe. There's no inbetween I'd know of so far, and I simply chose the latter because I thought to myself I'd be on, you know, some kind of safer side. Why not listen to some old dusty book people have been reading for ages reaching over 2,000 years and more, instead of some mob of 'realists' who just screams 'Diz is all bullshit!'
They way I think I just don't concider any false-thinking in the first place. I say something has to be right, some stuff might be wrong and other shit is just not interpreted well. You guys might suddenly raise the question "If there as a god, why doesn't he help out man w/ his miseries?" pose that question to yourself. I don't wanna answer that, because I'm waaaay not in the position. But what really startles me is your picking single aspects against any proof of existence of god. Well, can't you just agree w/ me there is that 2,000 years book?!? And you're not better than me in points of argumentation, some of you just exaggerate and claim the bible wanted us be believing the world was "6000 years olde".
Click to expand...

jesus christ what a nonsense post.
 
Wtf? What ya want me to ****ing do anyway?!? You seem to be able to counter me in every point, quite right, but it just kinda maketh me sick knowing that some 2,000 years old tradition is just abandoned like that while I've been ****ing sticking my nose into that book and probably pluseminues none of you ever has, so why do you struggle so much trying to disproove something, while in your eyes I am the only one who doesn't the foxtrot unifrom know wtf he's talking about?!? I mean, I don't think you would even concider IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS that maybe, someday, there might actually be a proof for something people have been believeing in for quite a lot of time, and besides of the Conquisition by the catholic church, a plot to violently spread the church's power further, we probably won't regard the christian faith some sort of nature-religion...

Waita sec, I think I've drifted off what I wanted to say, again...
Well, I just kinda regret you people don't ever think about offering those "teachings" or higher purposes a little thought...
People keep screaming at me there was no such thing, I've gotta endure that, while on the other hand, you just are proud of being "rationalists" and never do the same for me- Do you simply claim ye olde testament (Noah, Moses n' shit) was some mock-up or hoax??! Why should they? What disprooves THEIR authenticity? And what do we learn if those stories proove to be true?
 
I've thought about it and I've rejected it. End of story. And you realise burden of proof requires you to prove that your story is true, not the other way around?

Let me show you.

Say, that I said, that everybody around you was Satan in disguise.

Disprove it. Right here, right now.

/EDIT And by 'the other way around' I do not mean the story needs to prove you are true. I mean that we do not need to disprove your story in order to make it invalid. It is invalid until it is proven true.
 
W4d5Y said:
Wtf? What ya want me to ****ing do anyway?!? You seem to be able to counter me in every point, quite right, but it just kinda maketh me sick knowing that some 2,000 years old tradition is just abandoned like that while I've been ****ing sticking my nose into that book and probably pluseminues none of you ever has, so why do you struggle so much trying to disproove something, while in your eyes I am the only one who doesn't the foxtrot unifrom know wtf he's talking about?!?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're saying but that "foxtrot uniform" thingy is pure comedic gold ..I'm going to use it all day

me to fellow worker: "you dont know what the foxtrot uniform you're talking about"
fellow worker: ?

W4d5Y said:
I mean, I don't think you would even concider IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS that maybe, someday, there might actually be a proof for something people have been believeing in for quite a lot of time, and besides of the Conquisition by the catholic church, a plot to violently spread the church's power further, we probably won't regard the christian faith some sort of nature-religion...
Click to expand...

are you using babelfish to translate from german because you dont make any sense ..at all! nature religion? conquisition?

W4d5Y said:
Waita sec, I think I've drifted off what I wanted to say, again...
Well, I just kinda regret you people don't ever think about offering those "teachings" or higher purposes a little thought...
People keep screaming at me there was no such thing, I've gotta endure that, while on the other hand, you just are proud of being "rationalists" and never do the same for me- Do you simply claim ye olde testament (Noah, Moses n' shit) was some mock-up or hoax??! Why should they? What disprooves THEIR authenticity? And what do we learn if those stories proove to be true?
Click to expand...

ok, I understood that last part ..somewhat ..that's like asking what happens if we discover the moon is made of cheese : it's not going to happen so why waste time even thinking about it?
 
Gravity started out as a theory. But unlike religion, gravity actually has PROOF that it exists. If you can give me proof (through mathematical equations, through extensive reasoning, debating and concluding all in a logical manner, etc.) that God exists. I'll give the theory another shot.
 
W4d5Y said:
What disprooves THEIR authenticity?
Click to expand...

History?
Geography?
Science in general?

This kind of proposition always comes up. People have the choices of:

A) God flooded the world, Noah collected every species (whoops I meant "types"!) to put on his boat, and Moses parted the sea.
B) None of the above happened because it's preposterous and is not substantiated by any modicum of evidence supplied by our understanding of the world as it is today.

And yet people still waddle around and say things like "OH DOOD, SHOW ME IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. YOU CAN'T, MAN. YOU JUST CAN'T. BESIDES I THINK THEY FOUND PART OF NOAH'S ARK ON EVEREST OR SOMETHING".
 
W4d5Y said:
Do you simply claim ye olde testament (Noah, Moses n' shit) was some mock-up or hoax??! Why should they? What disprooves THEIR authenticity? And what do we learn if those stories proove to be true?
Click to expand...

First of all, I love how you refer to your beliefs in such a derogatory manner... "Moses 'n shit".

Secondly, its the very fact that NOTHING has given proof to those stories to make us believe that they were true, and THAT is why we don't believe in them. You are backwards in thinking that WE have to disprove something in order to not believe in it when there is no proof to support the claim in the first place.

Beerdude26 said:
Gravity started out as a theory. But unlike religion, gravity actually has PROOF that it exists.
Click to expand...

Not to be nit-picky, but there isn't any proof related to gravity... we only have theories as to what causes gravity. (Although I get your point you are making; gravity is a phenomenon you can easily witness and demonstrate, whereas religion can't even do that in regards to God.)

CptStern said:
me to fellow worker: "you dont know what the foxtrot uniform you're talking about"
fellow worker: ?
Click to expand...

:D thats exactly what I was thinking when I read that... lmao
 
W4d5Y do you understand the concept of "Burder of Proof".

Simple question, answer it yes or no.

If you answer Yes, please explain it in your own words. Explain it in a way with basic examples unrelated to religion.

If however you answer No, please shut up.

so why do you struggle so much trying to disproove something
Click to expand...
Who's struggling?

You seem to be able to counter me in every point, quite right, but it just kinda maketh me sick knowing that some 2,000 years old tradition is just abandoned like that while I've been ****ing sticking my nose into that book and probably pluseminues none of you ever has,
Click to expand...
Slaves were huge traditions for thousands of years. Do you think having a slave is right? Your trying to say I should believe in god because it's an old tradition. Well then I should have slaves to.
Logic > Faith. You can have all the faith that when a nuke hits you and explodes you'll survive. However logically you will die....

I mean, I don't think you would even concider IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS that maybe, someday, there might actually be a proof for something people have been believeing in for quite a lot of time
Click to expand...
Once there is some proof for the theory of your god, maybe i'll believe in it. However until that day, no I wont. Why should I believe in something just because it could be proven someday.
Otherwise:
I believe in your god.
I believe in every other god that has once or is believed to exist.
In your religion and others I am only allowed to believe in there god else I am not abiding by there religion.
Oh shit, I'd go to there "hell" anyway.

Do you simply claim ye olde testament (Noah, Moses n' shit) was some mock-up or hoax??! Why should they? What disprooves THEIR authenticity? And what do we learn if those stories proove to be true?
Click to expand...
I'll make it simple for you(while not 100% correct),
If there's no proof, it's disproven until there is proof. If the stories are true, thats great however until that time....

If you do believe in the old testament... how many people have you murdered? Better start killin else you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
 
"What ya want me to ****ing do anyway?!?"
A:
We would like you to shoulder the burden of proof.

"[Rant]"
A:
What?

"why do you struggle so much trying to disproove something, while in your eyes I am the only one who doesn't the foxtrot unifrom know wtf he's talking about?!?"
A:
We are not struggling; this is easy.
Also, you are not the only christian who does not understand what he says.

"I mean, I don't think you would even concider IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS that maybe, someday, there might actually be a proof for something people have been believeing in for quite a lot of time"
A:
I considered it, and considered it to be near-infinitely unlikely.

"[Rant]"
A:
What?

"Do you simply claim ye olde testament (Noah, Moses n' shit) was some mock-up or hoax??!"
A:
Yes, all the supernatural events are quite fictional.

"Why should they?"
A:
Their stories turned you and billions of others into obedient servants.

"What disprooves THEIR authenticity?"
A:
Their inability to shoulder the burden of proof.

"And what do we learn if those stories proove to be true?"
A:
Then christianity would be a rational science. Until then, it is fiction.

I hope that answers your questions.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
I gave it a shot, but the big middle chunk of his post was just plain indecipherable.
Click to expand...
He's basically saying that he could question his view of the world, but to engage in such analysis he would be forced to abandon, or necessarily invalidate, his 'faith'. Faith, he says, is inherently independent and defiant toward rational thinking. Faith excludes logic. Faith, in fact, may well be logic's antithesis.

[What?] There is a difference between knowledge - informed by analysis and criticism - and belief. There is no in between. He chooses the latter because it appears to offer some sort of 'safe side', Why not?

Presumably the logic is this:

1. GOD DOES EXIST.
- if I believe, I win.
- if I do not believe, I go to hell; I lose.
2. GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
- if I believe, I lose nothing; no God means no after-life and no divine judgement.
- if I do not believe, I lose nothing.

Belief is the only course which results in the best option each time.

Of course, this presumes that God will reward belief motivated by craven cowardice and calculating risk-assessment.

Really, I think the man's argument tends more toward the 'I believe therefore I believe'.

It's stupid anyway.
 
"I believe because my mommy and daddy (and everyone around me) have brainwashed me to not only believe with blind-faith, but to defy the concept of questioning my faith in any form or fashion."
 
Instead of 100%, scientific theories are maximum 99.9999999...% provable.

There is always the possibility that new evidence will be discovered, that will contradict the theory gravity, electromagnetics, etc.

Such contradiction is vastly unlikely most of the time, yet an infinitely small (but non-zero) possibility will always exist.
So technically speaking, you could possibly drop a ball and have it fall straight up instead of down. The odds are so infinitely far against that, however, that you will never worry about that happening.

The same odds, coincidentally, are against god. So you have to ask yourself why folks like Wadsy aren't terrified of falling off the planet.
 
"I believe because my mommy and daddy (and everyone around me) have brainwashed me to not only believe with blind-faith, but to defy the concept of questioning my faith in any form or fashion."
Click to expand...
Well, the point is I wasn't brainwashed as a result of power-gaining intentions of somebody else, but I chose to do so on my very own, so no, I can't agree I was a product of controle and deceiveous intentions.
I simply read that book, think "hey, that sounds cool. Let's give it a try!" and ain't an extremist person who does stuff on the behalf of others, thereby disprooving he was a believer out of his own decision but rather one
due to other people abusing man's being prone to believing into higher supernatural sources or powers. And the fact I am pretty much nothing like your stereotype displays of such "believers" and that kinda makes me proud, not exactely proud to act stupid in front of people because he's maybe tending to trust his faith-sensitive brain regions. But rather that I am at least not part of or at least trying to stay away from evil/bad faith or rather any explicit direction of believe, because in the end, any way you interpret religious writings could be wrong, even worse if you start visiting sects or scientology :sleep: So you better start thinking about it yourself and try to listen to most trustful sources you can get your hands on.
that's like asking what happens if we discover the moon is made of cheese : it's not going to happen so why waste time even thinking about it?
Click to expand...
It's hope that keeps me going. Hope is no bad thing.
Q:"Why should they?"
A:
Their stories turned you and billions of others into obedient servants.
Click to expand...
Q?: To whom should they be obidient servants? To god? Oh me, I thought you were so much of an atheist that you'd be avoidant to "such nonsense that there's no 1,000 pages book written about that has allegendly been existing for more than over 2,000 years and therefore tends to be incredibly inauthentic."
Well, there's nobody who could have had made PROFIT out of it. Power, money, trust? Who could have gained that?!? No human being I know of, so far. The most probable thing why the christian religion was eventually founded after the death of Jesus could not be explained to be a
major contemporary plot of someone's decivious, or whatever you call it like, intentions. Reflect: Do you actually know anyone, who could have supported the founding of that religion in order to establish a greater yeild of his personal power. [oh, it might be a post wasn't received I wrote 24 h ago :O] Well, maybe the romans did.
Because the christians were sooo cooperative and friendly and acknowledging towards them that time. Ooops.
He's basically saying that he could question his view of the world, but to engage in such analysis he would be forced to abandon, or necessarily invalidate, his 'faith'. Faith, he says, is inherently independent and defiant toward rational thinking. Faith excludes logic. Faith, in fact, may well be logic's antithesis.

[What?] There is a difference between knowledge - informed by analysis and criticism - and belief. There is no in between. He chooses the latter because it appears to offer some sort of 'safe side', Why not?

Presumably the logic is this:

1. GOD DOES EXIST.
- if I believe, I win.
- if I do not believe, I go to hell; I lose.
2. GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
- if I believe, I lose nothing; no God means no after-life and no divine judgement.
- if I do not believe, I lose nothing.

Belief is the only course which results in the best option each time.

Of course, this presumes that God will reward belief motivated by craven cowardice and calculating risk-assessment.

Really, I think the man's argument tends more toward the 'I believe therefore I believe'.

It's stupid anyway.
Click to expand...
Okay, you don't really apreciate my point of view but thanks, that's what I struggled to express all the time but sadly failed at. ;( //edit: yeah, I think I kinda tend to spirituality. I also think Buddha is extremly interesting. Religion is supposed to help mankind, but believing in god doesn't imply a good soul as I already hinted. So, if you don't believe in god, you can at least handle Buddha, because he's an extremely interesting type and his teachings rock. Can you agree with that?

Oh yeah,
craven cowardice and calculating risk-assessment
Click to expand...
That's a point...But I can't really deny him as well, can I?
He's absolutely right, the bible already said that those who will try to return to the right path will stumble on their way. There isn't really an option either....On one hand you're coward, on the other hand you'd be doomed, because not believing in god won't help you, too... You know, after all, we cannot determine what we are worth in god's eyes, but I think I trust him, while I am aware that this might be risk management, but didn't Jesus say, he would look for every sheep he has lost? And why would we be told all this stuff in the first place if one wasn't aware that this would lead to calculated subjection? We can't be really blamed for that.
So if there will be a doomsday [to put it in a phylosopher's way of thinking], we will see, what was right, not okay and what was absolutely wrong we did. Maybe I'm gonna fry in hell instead and you're gonna ascend to heaven w/ what ever explanation you can think of now, we might never know.
But that's okay.

And yeah, if god actually would proove not to exist, I will probably change my mind, because any clinging to unbareable theories would only render me a complete religious nerd. The point is, I guess I have to remain open to new aspects of this topic, but in the end I'm just searching, and I thought a 2000 years old book filled w/ thousands of pages is a pretty much interesting thing to pay his attention to and dedicate his religious thoughts to. Can you follow me? Or does my bad syntax distract you?
 
Okay, let's say, we found a new religion, and you'll be our new god, and that's why I'm so totally gonna do as you just said.
 
It's not your syntax that is most befuddling - I'm afraid I find your arguments completely mad. :p

I'd like to ask you this, though. Like you said, you face a problem:

- if you don't believe, you go to hell
- but if you don't believe, you are doing it just to stay away from hell.

Do you see? You are obeying because you are forced to; because the consequences for disobedience are the exercise of force. If you disobey, you will die eternally. But if you obey, you may only be doing it out of fear - there's no honest feeling there. I'm sure a lot of people follow or have followed God because they are scared.

If he really wanted people to make the moral choice, he would suppress the idea of hell, keep it a secret, so that people who followed God would do so of their own free will because they thought it was the best way - not because they were scared of hellfire.

But no. You are being blackmailed. You are under duress. How can you stand for that?

I know I can't. That's why in many respects the question of God's existence is irrelevant to me, because even if he did exist, and even if his way was the right one, I would still refuse to accept him. I'd rather not lend my support to a philosophy which preaches the death of those who do not agree.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Instead of 100%, scientific theories are maximum 99.9999999...% provable.

There is always the possibility that new evidence will be discovered, that will contradict the theory gravity, electromagnetics, etc.

Such contradiction is vastly unlikely most of the time, yet an infinitely small (but non-zero) possibility will always exist.
So technically speaking, you could possibly drop a ball and have it fall straight up instead of down. The odds are so infinitely far against that, however, that you will never worry about that happening.

The same odds, coincidentally, are against god. So you have to ask yourself why folks like Wadsy aren't terrified of falling off the planet.
Click to expand...
Your wrong there actually. 99.9999999....%=100%
 
You, lets say, make no sense, and because of as i just said it is the reason you make no sense, to anyone, and thats why.
 
Sulkdodds said:
I'd like to ask you this, though. Like you said, you face a problem:

- if you don't believe, you go to hell
- but if you don't believe, you are doing it just to stay away from hell.

Do you see? You are obeying because you are forced to; because the consequences for disobedience are the exercise of force. If you disobey, you will die eternally.
Click to expand...

But you see thats where religion and faith are MOST amazing - they don't just believe because they are afraid of the consequences... they have been sculpted and brainwashed since childhood to believe in it so much and so blindly, that they WANT to believe.

The consequences merely act as a reinforcement to those who begin to stop having faith, and more-so to have a sure-fire reason to try and get THEIR friends and family to believe as well. After all, if you believe in the religion, then you believe in the consequences of hell... and nobody would want their child to go to hell now would they? So of course they, in turn, brainwash THEIR children. Its an endless cycle.
 
W4d5Y. You believe so you wont go to hell. However, arn't you going to hell anyway for not following both the old and the new testaments as Jesus commanded? Jesus said you have to or you will go to hell.
 
Sulkdodds said:
I know I can't. That's why in many respects the question of God's existence is irrelevant to me, because even if he did exist, and even if his way was the right one, I would still refuse to accept him. I'd rather not lend my support to a philosophy which preaches the death of those who do not agree.
Click to expand...

Hah, like Douglas Adams.

What was it he said? "Oh, and if turned out there was a god, and this Clintonian Hair-splitting craven *something something* impressed him, then I wouldn't worship him anyway."
 
Well, about going to hell...There isn't really an option, if you consider the options
-There's no god:
-I believe, I don't loose anything
-I don't believe, that's okay, cause it's just being realistic
-There turns out to be a god:
-I believe, I probably win. If I believe correct
-I don't believe, I loose.
Well, those points are clear, while, in case of god being evident:
-I don't believe, I go to hell
-I do believe, I might go to hell though, because I didn't live my life the right way, say, interpreting the bible wrong, or not expiating, because you can never be perfect, you will always harm
others, but you can always say sorry, which is a good thing.
and -I believe, therefore this is the best I can do.
OR: God's existence is evident. I KNOW he exists,
-I don't trust/believe (in) him either, because I don't agree with the teachings.
-I do trust him: I'm either a coward or it's just the best you can do, too.

So, well, what's wrong with the above?
 
W4d5Y said:
Well, about going to hell...There isn't really an option, if you consider the options
-There's no god:
-I believe, I don't loose anything
Click to expand...

yes you do, for one all the time spent foolishly worshiping something that doesnt exist ..not too mention life choices that you might not have made based on your belief system etc



W4d5Y said:
So, well, what's wrong with the above?
Click to expand...

lots ..for starters your faith is based on fear .."I'll only do good not because it is right thing to do but because if I dont then I'll go to hell" ..in other words the only thing keeping you from slaughtering a small village worth of people is your fear of hell?
 
W4d5Y said:
-I do believe, I might go to hell though, because I didn't live my life the right way, say, ... but you can always say sorry, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

LOL wow I just love how religion is so brainwashing that all you have to do is believe in order to get into the magical place of heaven. you don't even have to live by the right morals anymore... its just plain-jane believing. i could kill someone and enjoy doing it, but as long as I believe there is a God and I say I'm sorry once I die, then I go to heaven.
 
Exactly.

Wadsy is using Pascal's Wager, which is loaded with blatant logical errors, which you blokes have astutely picked up on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Problems with Wadsy's belief include:

-ignoring the possibility of non-christian gods.
-assuming that a god must offer rewards and punishments.
-ignoring the costs inherent to worship.
-mistaking coersion for belief.

That's why Wadsy must be incorrect. Instead of being a 50 - 50 chance, the chance is actually more like 99.9999...-0.0000...1


(In terms of probablility 99.99999...% is more accurate than 100% because it identifies the chance that at some point down the infinite line, the string of nines could theorhetically end in an eight.

Solaris is correct, however, that in the real world that such a probability is functionally identical to 100% against.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Munro
The Meaning of Half-Life
Replies
0
Views
1K
Munro
Munro
Back
Top