Dan-95

@ J.C True, i vote cake @ Smartguy OK, i'm no good with models or graphs so i'll just expand on what i meant. By observing one of the degrees of freedom of one of two entangled 'twins' the other twins value is automatically known. This can be used to send information in the form of binary or other code (if it had more degrees of freedom). The information is transmitted instantaneously, ignoring the speed limit, no matter where the other particle is. If this is true then you should be able to send information to two different reference frames (and according to relativity, both are right.) If so, you would be able to send information of each others circumstance and thus be able to communicate through space/time. You could have agreed to interact at some point with other person but still be able to communicate using the entanglement communicator, enabling you to violate causality. No time travel required @btg lul'd at the consciousness metaphor

A thread dedicated to answering questions related to science. Before we start, BTG and pro-evolution debaters, don't let it go there, please. In scientific context we shall refer to the theory of evolution as fact, don't bother debating this, my bottom point is that we're doing this just because it's more scientifically fun. Anyways... Question: Can quantum entanglement violate causality? I haven't worked with quantum mechanics in a while so forgive any mistakes. If the pair of atoms are set up to send bits, then one person decides to travel near speed of light or hang out near a heavy mass and time moves differently for both, couldn't we violate causality by sending messeges? You would be able to communicate to the future(and vice versa) You could set up an experiment where while (future person) interacting with (past person in future{longer wait}) while sending a messege to past person in past not to interact. So, what would happen or where did i go wrong? Or is this chopped up as an incompatibility between relativity andthe quantum world.

Alright, stole some definitions off google... Philosophy:a. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence. b.A theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior. In case a it would be possible for atheism to be redundant, but perhaps the acompanied adverb has badly described this case. Case b you would be completely right. Also, yet again, i think we've stretched out the term atheist. Lets not forget there is such a thing as a spiritual atheist. And belief in atheism is an answer to the idea god, as a whole. So we have different definitions of atheist, from spiritual to realists. Lets just jump off these ideas for now Also, you being a Psychologist (i think), do you think philosophers rarely dieing as an atheist is more than coincidence?

Looking on the debate: -lol Alyxx, so humble, prolly why you have so much rep. -cmon guys, be civil, everyone is entitled to their opinion. -I would just like to reminds everyone that your vote is an opinion, which can be based on facts if you wish. We can't undo the past and test other options (Yet O.O), so there isn't really a right or wrong answer. Postulate using deductive or inductive thinking, just don't blatantly or disrespectfully saying 'you're wrong!'. So far it's been good though .

1. Neverwinter nights: my first game.... ever. 2. Portal: Cliche? yes. 3. Pacman: Not even joking, still love it. 4. Left for dead(1&2): not really a good game, yet i always go back to it. 5. BF2142: Very fun game, could have been executed better though.

@Axel: Suicide huh? If i went through what you went through i probably would have pulled a knife (or other weapon) on them, knowing that it would be one of the worst options to choose, one of those times where my emotions would overpower my logic, guess we just react differently. Anyways, were these people bigger/older than you? Where i am people only pick on people their own size or bigger, unless the kid's asking for it, but it still usually stays in acceptable bounds.

Finally chose an option: positively, going off the old saying 'adversity is the grindstone of life' and diversity.

I posted earlier.

I feel sickened that someone could write html that badly. I am unsure of his style sheet though. Honestly, i don't care much, he(or she) can believe what he wants and can preach on the internet if he wishes. I'd act the same way if i was on a Christianity page.

Whyso?

Love a good rpg, although i wouldn't say i'm a hardcore RPG junkie. I just like getting lost in a game world and developing a character.

I got nothing else to say except: fair enough... Consensus on a forum? Impossible!

Global warming is in relationship to heat being trapped by 'greenhouse' gasses, the extent of relationship betweens man and global warming itslef is debatable. Ozone destruction is related to certain chemical acting as a catalyst breaking down O3. Question: Would ozone reduction increase effects of global warming or just radiation?

OK, new hypothetical, we are robots exactly like humans except our hardware does not allow us to contemplate ultimate meaning, the existence of a deity, etc. All other functions are exactly the same and their offspring don't change or mutate. We are physically unable to ask such questions (philosophy is extremely different) and large scale contemplation comes in the form of science. Like i said, it's impossible for me to prove you otherwise, i'm just doing this for the sake of the question. I'm not asking for an educated guess, involving technical equation taking each and every variable into account, i just want an opinion and/or prediction about the made up circumsatnce. And i don't care whether such a position is even feasible. Me, making up hypothetical situations, can go on forever, please just bend it some way. Edit: Be careful with the assumptions you're making, i can't ultimately prove you wrong but there seems to be a whole lot of confidence in shaky statements.

-Elder Scrolls: Morrowind -Neverwinter Nights -Baulders Gate -Diablo -QWOP (lol) -Counter Strike -Hitman: blood money Just some general advice: -Bioware usually has great writing and epic stories. -Bethesda can make an atmospheric world for exploration. -CoD for a good 'ole adrenaline rush, quickly loses it's charm though. -I would consider Starcraft digital chess. -experience an MMO -Shit your pants by playing a good horror game on a stormy night with headphones on full in the dark.

We both know it's impossible for me, or anyone, to prove you otherwise. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this is an alien race exactly like humans except they have discovered a post-it note left by god saying that he has left this universe and worship or acts in his name are useless and he will never return, it even has the godly sign of approval. How would their society be different without the worship, practices or motives? What i'm trying to get at is that we are talking about society, not humans. Thats not to say society isn't shaped by humans, so everything the same except religion, how will this affect society? P.S If you find an error in this hypothetical, just adjust to make sense, there will be a way the question can still apply practically.

Am i the only one who thinks ME1 was way better than 2? The drawbacks of ME1 for me was the inventory and sometimes horrible voice acting. Call me insane, but i didn't mind being in the mako. But ME2 was very monotonous to me, Shepard felt different, waaaaay to streamline and it can just barely classify as an rpg. Not to mention insane difficulty isn't even insane (except for praetorians!). I wasn't so much drawn to the story as i was to the relationships with other characters, most of the characters felt designed rather than having a unique personality though. All in all it felt mediocre to me, but i have very high standards for bioware, or had (DA2)

OK smartguy (referring to your name, not insulting). For now, just imagine if the idea of religion was never invented, how do you predict society would be different and do you think this society would be better, worse or not really change anything. Theres no wrong answer as it is opinion.

Opinion on how it has changed society, perhaps -not directly-, into the current form of it, if that has happened at all. Society as a generalised term of current observations. Also, i don't see how a question can be wrong, it can make no sense or be out of context, but i've never heard a 'wrong' question. Besides, i'm asking for an opinion, in regards to could/would society be better/worse with or without religion or how do you think religion has atributed modern society and is this good or bad?, if there was an impact at all, that is. It's like that saying that goes 'an idea can change the world' or something like that. Ofcourse an idea won't actually do anything, but it can have repercussions that we can say, with confidence, are related. But i get where you going in later parts, religion can be interpreted, read, acted upon differently. I'm saying religion as a generalisation (for the poll) or with/without aspects of it relating to society. Also, forgot to put 'both' :S

So, how do you think Religion has shaped modern society? For the best, worse or somewhere inbetween? Please give reasons and possibly historical evidence. I, myself, currently don't have an opinion on the matter as i have not done any research. Here are some questions though: -Is religion important to modern society? -How, in history, has religion impacted on the society we know today, if at all, and i this good or bad? -Theoritical situations such as a society wholly devoted to one religion or perhaps a society without even contemplating such ideas of worship to a deity(or something along those lines). gl;hf. Edit: Probably typos but i'm going to sleep now...

All this talk of taking over a country, i think we go back to Canada, large uranium desposits and close to a certain superpower.

Agreed, therefore, atheist agnoticism. And what happened to your rep? Get into something controversial? +rep for you

Russia, always liked the cold, snow, language, history and culture. I bet if i were born there, i would wish to be Australian though...

Also, looking through some posts, our definitions are a real clusterf*ck. Perhaps a clarification of broad terms in parentheses?

What i mean by the act of not believing is to reject. Does that clear it up? Somewhere between ranting, i was mostly 'against' or talking in context of strong or explicit atheists. The kind of atheist that does not practice or have knowledge of god is what i consider bordering agnostic, thus, agnostic atheist statement. I guess the kind of non-practice or lack of knowledge, or understanding, lack of belief is what we've been arguing about(This would include things not yet aware of such situations, such as babies. I guess we just call this position of belief [Or lack thereof] different things.) . Looking back, i was probably to broad with my terms. And i'll admit, pretty much all of my previous posts are tired slurrs of ideas i have had, this post, however, was written at about 11pm, so it shouldn't be tainted by a more insomniac-like side. Now if you'll excuse me, i'll be waiting for the insanity to kick in... If we still have something to argue about, do tell.