this post was submitted on
624 points (78% like it)
853 up votes 229 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,114,498 readers

2,792 users here now

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 165 comments

[–]SimilarImage 18 points19 points ago

Age User Title Reddit Cmnt Points
1 month tag737 Before your judge others, or claim any absolute truth... here 31 61
2 months arpeggi4 consider that.. here 69 414
4 months chrismikehunt Not specific to atheism, but as an atheist I still found it very interesting. here 144 706

This is an automated response

FAQ | Send Feedback | Report Error

[–]apeman5291 19 points20 points ago

Since the electromagnetic spectrum is infinite, technically we can see exactly 0% of it. /mathmajor

[–]Italian_Barrel_Roll 19 points20 points ago

Last time I checked, exactly 0% was less than 1%.

[–]JeffMo 15 points16 points ago

I checked again, and that's still true.

[–]jij 7 points8 points ago

You're using heathen math, you need to transform the equation to god math.

[–]fljared 1 point2 points ago

If Timmy has five gods, but then has his parents killed for being a pagan and he becomes a sex slave to a soldier and converted to his a religion of 2 gods, how many gods did he lose?

[–]DunstilBrejik 2 points3 points ago

0 Because....GOD!

[–]CrazyCalYa 1 point2 points ago

Yes, but what he said was more correct. If I said the number of people in the world was greater than 28, would you still say I was correct? I mean, technically I would be, but is it at all helpful?

[–]The_Humungus 3 points4 points ago

The point of this OP just went WHOOSH, right over your head. The specific numbers of these statistics are relevant to the message but are not the central focus at what this message is trying to convey.

[–]CrazyCalYa 1 point2 points ago

Nah, this guy was just trying to defend the OP's picture. As explained elsewhere in this thread, the picture uses a lot of misleading information to make it sound prettier. I'm just defending the guy that's helping point that out.

[–]The_Humungus 1 point2 points ago

Ah, well done. I took this post as basically showing how little we know and can percieve in relation to what exists in our universe. Good call on "fact checkin" though. Always nice to get down to the nitty gritty and ensure accurate info.

[–]bitterorca 2 points3 points ago

But it's not infinite, right?

[–]mootwo14 -1 points0 points ago

Theoretically, it is.

[–]bitterorca 3 points4 points ago

Hmm, I'll admit, I don't know a lot about the subject but isn't it bound by the universe and energy constraints? Can't have an infinitely long wavelength because it can't be longer than the universe, which is not infinite. Can't be an infinitely small wavelength because it would have infinite energy, which isn't possible unless the universe is infinitely small. So there is a defined long wavelength limit and there has to be a short wavelength limit for the universe we currently live in.

[–]corruption93 0 points1 point ago

A constant infinity low frequency is 0, which means it isn't actually a frequency. There should be a high limit frequency based on the size of particles though? I don't know

[–]bitterorca 0 points1 point ago

I don't think it would be based on the size of particles though, because electromagnetic radiation all has the same particle: a photon.

[–]mootwo14 -2 points-1 points ago

You might not be able to have an infinitely small wavelength, but that doesn't mean there is a limit to how small they can get, if you see what I'm saying.

[–]bitterorca 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry, I don't see a distinction between infinitely small wavelength and wavelengths with no lower limit. Either way, it approaches zero. If you are talking about a negative wavelength, I believe that would be impossible in our (mostly flat) universe. In another universe where space were strongly curved, I could see how negative wavelength could be possible.

[–]thedufer 0 points1 point ago

His phrasing was a bit confusing. There is a lower limit: 0. But there are an infinite number of possible frequencies between 0 and any positive frequency. Take said positive frequency, and keep cutting it in half. You'll never reach 0, but you'll keep getting new frequencies.

In the energy spectrum this corresponds to there being no upper limit on energy, which probably isn't strictly true (total energy in the universe, perhaps?). The EM spectrum is probably finite, but too large for it to matter that its not infinite.

[–]bitterorca 0 points1 point ago

I don't think that is what (s)he was meant. But your point goes without saying. Yes, there is an infinite amount of distinct rational numbers between 0 and 1. That does not mean the spectrum is infinite.

The whole point of this thread was that a small range (visible light) divided by a supposed infinite range (EM spectrum) is exactly zero. The fact that there is an infinite number of possible frequencies between a finite range does not change the fact that the range is finite. Thus, we perceive more than exactly 0% of the EM spectrum.

[–]thedufer 0 points1 point ago

This is the problem with measuring the EM scale, and the point I (poorly) attempted to get at:

A finite frequency scale of (0,1] corresponds to an infinite energy scale of [1,infinity), since they are inversely related. The energy scale is likely the relevant one, so this particular finite frequency scale is in fact an infinite spectrum.

[–]owlsrule143 -4 points-3 points ago

The universe is infinite. Go find me the edge of it. Oh, and tell me what there is outside the universe after it ends? More universe?

[–]bitterorca 0 points1 point ago

Do you accept the big bang theory? If so, you accept that the universe is finite. It is widely believed that it is expanding, though other theories suggest that it is contracting. At one point physicists suggested that the forces pulling it apart and inwards were at equilibrium. Whichever you accept, virtually all modern physicists believe the universe we experience today is finite.

EDIT: found a good read from NASA. It's a very short introduction to modern views of the universe. In particular, look to the 'acceleration' section, where the cosmological constant Λ is introduced. You'll want to note that it is a constant and not infinity. Therefore, it is neither infinite nor is it expanding (nor contracting) with infinite acceleration. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/universe.html

[–]ghastlyactions 0 points1 point ago

The universe is finite. It is constantly expanding at a finite rate from the central point of the big bang explosion. Beyond the universe is the same stuff that was there before the big bang phase-change created all matter / mass / progression of time as we know it now.

[–]apeman5291 0 points1 point ago

The wavelength of light can be any value in the range from 0 to infinity.

[–]bitterorca 0 points1 point ago

See my other comment in response to mootwo14, but a wave cannot have an infinite wavelength from my understanding. It is bound by the length of the universe. Sure, we can describe a wave with wavelength infinity. Or on the opposite side of the spectrum, frequency infinity. But that wave cannot exist by the laws that govern our universe.

Much the same way, we can describe an object of zero mass or infinite mass. But either way, such an object will never exist.

[–]thedufer 0 points1 point ago

More importantly, energy comes in discrete quantities and very large wavelengths would have less than this discrete amount, which isn't possible. This would bound wavelength to something much smaller than the size of the universe.

[–]bitterorca 0 points1 point ago

Now we've ventured beyond my knowledge base, but at least we have established wavelengths have some (unspecified) upper bound.

[–]explorer58 2 points3 points ago

Someone finally gets it. /physicsmajor

[–]owlsrule143 2 points3 points ago

Hi. /electromagnetic marine biology law major

[–]DrWatson21 0 points1 point ago

It's infinite unless you consider that the Planck length may be the smallest meaningful unit of length. If so, we don't see exactly 0%, but some finite but exceedingly small fraction of the EM spectrum.

[–]apeman5291 0 points1 point ago

That would just make the spectrum discrete, but not necessarily finite.

[–]DrWatson21 0 points1 point ago

Good point, don't know how I missed that.

On second thought, you could put upper and lower bounds on the EM spectrum to make it finite. The lower bound for wavelength would be the Planck length, and the upper bound could be the "diameter" of the universe if it turns out to be finite.

[–]loozerr 0 points1 point ago

I am actually more annoyed by the image format and especially the poor quality of the image. /itmajor

[–]sebbie3000 25 points26 points ago

We don't create the rainbow, we perceive it after it has been created. That is intentionally misleading. And how would we know we only perceive that amount if we couldn't measure the stuff we don't perceive?

[–]borg88 8 points9 points ago

There is nothing special about rainbows in that respect. It is just saying that if we could't perceive colour, we wouldn't be able to perceive colour.

[–]The_Humungus 0 points1 point ago

Exactly. Kind of why he had the example in there too, saying does a rainbow exist to an animal that can't see colors?

[–]Deadzone_ 0 points1 point ago

Does a rainbow exist? In a physical sense, not totally. You're seeing light passing through rain drops and being scattered into different colors. It's all perception of your eyes and your mind, so to animals, rainbows aren't really there.

[–]ctornync 13 points14 points ago

Great comment, sebbie3000! I'll pat myself on the back for creating it with my eyes.

[–]RalphiesBoogers 1 point2 points ago

What did it say? I don't have cones, so there was nothing there for me.

[–]overthereman 0 points1 point ago

I'm also quite certain we still retain many of the atoms we were born with.

[–]baberg 0 points1 point ago

I think the author is misquoting (or misinterpreting) the fact that most of our body's cells are not the ones we were born with. That's not true for brain cells, but our skin is flaking off all the time.

[–]amoludare 0 points1 point ago

It's true you don't regenerate lost neurons. But they are constantly undergoing maintenance. Parts of a cell need to be replaced. I think it's plausible.

[–]RalphiesBoogers 1 point2 points ago

My mother saved every one of my cells in a jar, so I still have all the cells I was born with.

[–]dooby181 4 points5 points ago

How can we all be sure that we are all seeing the same colours? I've always thought that its because each colour has its own wavelength or something similar, but then I got thought about colour blind people and got confused. Is it the case that they are seeing the same wavelength but the receptors are faulty? If someone could explain this to me I would be very grateful. Or I could google it....

[–]baberg 3 points4 points ago

Think of the cones in your eye as buttons that are pushed by specific wavelengths of light. When a red light shines in your eyes the "red" buttons are pushed, which signals your brain that there's a red light. The same with green and blue (the three colors of cones) For the other colors it's a mix of your cones. If orange is put before your eyes the red and some of the green/blue cones trigger, which your brain then interprets as "orange". There's a range of responses between "YES, it's really bright red!" and "I think I see a little red in there"

For colorblind people (most commonly red/green colorblind) the cones have an overlap of responses where if you show a very light red and a very light green, the same signals will be sent to the brain meaning they can't distinguish between them.

I'm pretty sure this is right from Wiki and general knowledge, but I'd welcome being corrected by somebody who's an expert.

[–]dooby181 1 point2 points ago

Yeh that makes sense to me. I just read something that basically said 'we are built in the same way as each other so thats how we know we see the same thing - apart from colourblind people who are built differently'.

Thanks for responding!

[–]jeanofjogon 14 points15 points ago

This is 99.99999% horseshit.

[–]cjmook21 6 points7 points ago

Stars have bellies.

[–]scarrxp 2 points3 points ago

Scientists very rarely claim absolute truth.

They will however, measure, re-measure, then measure again until a body of peers decide that, you know what... lets stop measuring this, the numbers always come out the same. Even at that point, they realize this isn't "absolute truth". They only state that 'the numbers work', and then other scientists explain what it probably all means.

[–]yellownumberfive 2 points3 points ago

So what if I DO understand basic physics and biology, because I do. Am I now free to call out the morons who say Goddidit?

[–]5858butseriously 1 point2 points ago

So do other colors potentially exist, with humans just not being capable of perceiving them?

Kudos to the man who discovers a new color. That'd be dope.

[–]baberg 2 points3 points ago

Other wavelengths of light definitely exist around our "visible" spectrum, like infrared and ultraviolet. But the real idea is that "colors" are just how our brain interprets the signals being given to it by the cones in the eye. Light of a certain wavelength hits the "red" cone in an eye, which in turn fires an electrical impulse, and our brain says "That's red" and assigns it a visual representation.

If we could see infrared, for example, it would require another cone in our eye to detect those wavelengths. How the brain would interpret it is the real question. It might just make hot things brighter, or invent a new "color" to represent it, or as an overlay on top of regular colors (since you're emitting infrared right now from your own body heat).

There's nothing "special" about our the visual spectrum in a Physics sense except that it's the (very small) portion of the EM spectrum that we've evolved the ability to distinguish between.

[–]5858butseriously 4 points5 points ago

This was a really educational response. Thanks!

[–]kent_eh 1 point2 points ago

If no human can perceive it as color, then why would it be labelled as such?

Wouldn't it be better to call it just another part of the overall electro-magnetic spectrum?

[–]5858butseriously 0 points1 point ago

Well if someone had discovered it then that would imply we have gained the ability to see it?

[–]iheartbakon 0 points1 point ago

Many insects see ultra-violet. You can also "see" infra-red or other wavelengths with the aid of electronics. Try this one out for yourself: grab a common tv remote, turn on your webcam or other CCD camera device then point your remote at it and push a button. You should see a flashing light - that's your camera detecting infrared.

[–]5858butseriously 0 points1 point ago

Ah, my roommate showed me something similar with the end of a wii mote!

[–]Hypertension123456 0 points1 point ago

Ultraviolet. Here is the man, but it is too late to give him his kudos.

[–]NukeThePope 1 point2 points ago

Actually, it's usually women who discover new colors. Seriously. There is a small number of people with a mutation that allows them to see a bit into the ultraviolet, and if I remember correctly they're all women. I apologize for being too lazy to dig up a reference for this, though.

[–]5858butseriously 0 points1 point ago

That's interesting! And no worries, that's what Google's for!

[–]kzielinski 0 points1 point ago

Humans have three colour receptors. Some birds have five. So they you would expect that they would see and distinguish more colours than we do.

And neither of us has anything on the Mantis shrimp which has 12 colour receptors. Plus another 4 for various other things including the polarization of light (which we can't detect at all).

Kudos to the man who discovers a new color.

Actually chance are it will be a woman.

I also recall reading that the receptors in your eye can actually detect some ultraviolet frequencies that can't normally pass through the lens in the front of your eye. The materials we use for synthetic lenses are actually translucent over a wider spectrum then our natural lenses. Meaning that people who have had their lenses replaced in cataract surgery can actually see a slightly wider spectrum then they could before hand.

[–]apathetic_youth 1 point2 points ago

My friend used this speech to defend religion, so I guess its meaning is in the context.

[–]five_hammers_hamming 3 points4 points ago

People really do love to say that because awe exists, so magic things exist.

[–]NukeThePope 1 point2 points ago

Excellent synopsis!

[–]five_hammers_hamming 0 points1 point ago

I thought that there was a Down's Syndrome joke in there. Then I remembered how trisomy worked. My Jimmies are stable.

[–]iheartbakon 0 points1 point ago

Nuh uhhhh! God dunnit!

[–]felltir 0 points1 point ago

I'm colour-blind. Fuck you.

[–]semaj912 1 point2 points ago

what is this bullshit!? this has nothing to do with judging people or absolute truth!

[–]telemudcat 0 points1 point ago

How many chromosomes does an uncommon potato have?

[–]mootwo14 0 points1 point ago

1/2

[–]Grindstone50k 1 point2 points ago

I think those are known as "taters".

[–]wiscdoledino 0 points1 point ago

my mind just got jenna jemesion blowen

[–]johnbeltrano 0 points1 point ago

wat

[–]KaPowoop 0 points1 point ago

Cool. Never thought about the rainbow thing before. Makes me happy to have evolved the ability to see it, but curious about how different things might appear had we evolved to see a greater portion of the spectrum.

[–]EnkindleThis1 0 points1 point ago

you are traveling at 220 kilometres per second across the galaxy.

Ah, so that's where that sense of "wheeeeeeeeee!" I constantly feel comes from. TIL

[–]Probably_Swedish 0 points1 point ago

You don't replace all your cells... bro

[–]kstetsko21 0 points1 point ago

Oh my gosh we have two less chromosomes than the common potato?! Well that's cool except that the number of chromosomes we have doesn't really matter... What matters is what's on the chromosomes, not the quantity. More doesn't necessarily mean better because in potatoes for example, they have roots, the skin, the actual potato, etc. they need to have DNA for each one of those types of cells. Not all the DNA is used in every cell, only specific portions of the DNA are used which means that the potato may have more types of cells than humans, or not. Maybe the potato just diverged from plants that did and they have a bunch of leftover DNA they are not using. The number of chromosomes of species is not a good way of showing how similar or diverse the species are.

[–]delegable94 0 points1 point ago

oooh! you need to open up your physics textbook. if you took a softball in your hand and considered it a proton, to scale, a tiny marble way down the street would be an electron. all of that space between... is empty space.

[–]slandau2 0 points1 point ago

You do not create rainbows by seeing them. You just see them.

[–]micktravis 0 points1 point ago

Fewer than.

[–]Lyndbergh 0 points1 point ago

This just makes me wonder... how would the world look, sound, feel, if we had even a slightly more expanded version of our current senses?

[–]Deadzone_ 0 points1 point ago

It depends by what means the senses are expanded.

[–]4everalone08 0 points1 point ago

Im a potato!

[–]debash 0 points1 point ago

Your funny

[–]debash 0 points1 point ago

Yes I would like French fries with that .

[–]MuteSecurity 0 points1 point ago

none of the ones you were born with.

false.

you cannot regenerate brain and nerve cells.

[–]MarchtoRuin[S] 0 points1 point ago

well glad we enjoyed this little gem.

[–]NukeThePope 0 points1 point ago

Thanks to science, you clueless moron, we can observe the electromagnetic spectrum pretty much end-to-end. Anyway, was there supposed to be some kind of point to this pathetic argument from ignorance? "We can't see ultraviolet, therefore God did it?"

[–]kent_eh 0 points1 point ago

Or the inverse, if we can't see it, we can't know that god did it.

[–]Skizm -1 points0 points ago

If the atoms were 99.999999....% empty space we would be 100% empty space.

[–]JeffMo 0 points1 point ago

The pic didn't have the dots after the nines.

[–]drbooberry 1 point2 points ago

oooh! you need to open up your physics textbook. if you took a softball in your hand and considered it a proton, to scale, a tiny marble way down the street would be an electron. all of that space between... is empty space.

[–]baberg 3 points4 points ago

And you need to open a college-level Physics textbook :)

The model of a distinguishable electron in orbit is outdated. Now we refer to it as an "Electron Cloud" due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. The electron is not located in a single spot, but instead "smeared" over all possible spots in its orbit.

EDIT: Hope I didn't come off as too snarky - not my intention. Just trying to inform :)

[–]The_Humungus 1 point2 points ago

Isn't that a basic principle in quantum theory too (Uncertaintity Principle)?

[–]baberg 1 point2 points ago

Indeed - the "smearing" of the electron is just a side effect of the Uncertainty principle. The specific principle states that the location and the momentum of a particle cannot be known simultaneously (within an error range). There's also another lesser known part of the principle combining energy and time.

So in a short enough time span, there actually IS energy created and destroyed in the universe. It's happening everywhere, right now. Particle/Anti-Particle pairs are being created out of literally nothing, then destroyed (so the average energy remains zero). One result of this is the possibility of black holes "evaporating" over a long enough span, as these virtual particles could come into existence on the very edge of a black hole's event horizon, one particle falling into the black hole and the other one escaping. Since the one escaping becomes a real particle and thus adds to the energy of the universe, the one falling in must have negative energy, so the black hole actually shrinks by a tiny bit.

[–]The_Humungus 0 points1 point ago

Wow - thanks for the break down. I've watched documentaries with the themes you talk about but just not versed enough to correlate and connect the themes and theories as you seem to be able to.

Matter/Anti-matter and vacuum fluctuations have interested the hell outta me. And this doesn't even talk about the mystery that is dark-matter/dark-energy and how that may play into this.

[–]baberg 1 point2 points ago

versed enough to correlate and connect the themes and theories as you seem to be able to.

Don't feel too bad - Physics was my major in college so I've had a lot of training in this stuff. It's easy to remember and correlate it when you had to remember it for the tests :)

It was a lot of math and a lot of concepts to take "on faith" but the universe really is remarkable when you start talking about the very small (Quantum Mechanics) and the very large (Astrophysics). The other day I was pulling down my visor to shade my eyes from the sun when I started thinking about the reactions going on in that star, and our world spinning to make the sun set, and the photons that traveled so far just to be stopped right before they got to my eye...

I love Physics

[–]The_Humungus 1 point2 points ago

I love Physics

Ahh, me too. Part of me wishes humanity made it a required subject to learn from K-12. In reality, it's just as much as a language as German, English, and Spanish is but has a direct correlation in everyday life and how humans have rigged our thought processes.

[–]drbooberry 1 point2 points ago

i am well aware of that. but the electron is still a unit with an exact mass. and an electron does not have to be a part of an atom, and so it doesnt have to always be in the "electron cloud". the point is, even if electron are moving amazingly fast around an atom nucleus, it still means most of the atom is negative space. objects as we know it are more nothing than something.

[–]amoludare -1 points0 points ago

You sound sophomoric, not snarky.

[–]Skizm 0 points1 point ago

I was making a statement about numbers in general and how .9999... = 1. (turns out the number in the picture is not repeating but still interesting to note!)

[–]keoShine -1 points0 points ago

The number isn't repeating. It's just very, very close to, but still infinitely far from, 100%.

[–]NukeThePope 3 points4 points ago

Not infinitely far from, dumbass. Tiny fractions much smaller than one are anything but infinite.

[–]Skizm 0 points1 point ago

While correct I feel like you could have pointed out that infinite distance != infinite numbers in a slightly nicer manner lol

[–]NukeThePope 0 points1 point ago

I have no patience for idiots, sorry.

EDIT: Hypertension123456 tried to educate this guy a little further down in the thread, and look where that got him. Kudos to him for trying, but I wasn't willing to put myself through that experience.

[–]Italian_Barrel_Roll -3 points-2 points ago

There are an infinite amount of possible percentages between 99.9999999999999% and 100%. 99.9999999999999000000001 being one of them.

[–]NukeThePope 1 point2 points ago

That's not the same as an infinite distance, you uneducated clod! That lame-brained notion went out with Zeno's Paradox, but thanks for playing.

[–]keoShine -1 points0 points ago

What exactly is a "distance" between numbers if not real numbers that we can list? What are your units of measurement? The set of real numbers between 99.9999999999999 and 100 contains an infinite number of elements.

May I refer you to a video by one of my favorite youtubers? She explains that in order to have two numbers with no real numbers between them, they must be equal. 99.9999999999999 definitely does not equal 100, so there must be an infinite number of real numbers between them.

http://youtu.be/TINfzxSnnIE

[–]Hypertension123456 1 point2 points ago

The distance between two numbers is what you get when you subtract the smaller one from the other. It has nothing to do with how many real numbers you list. The unit of measurement doesn't come into it, unless the two numbers are in different units (in which case you should convert them to the same units before calculating the distance in between).

[–]keoShine -1 points0 points ago

That's the difference, not the distance. Numbers aren't real, tangible things that have physical distance between them. Zeno's Paradox is correct in theory. There are an infinite number of real numbers between any two points on a number line. We just tend to skip an infinite amount of them to jump to the points we need.

How about we do give a distance to these numbers. The distance between 0 and 1 is 1m. 0.00000000000000001 is 10am (attometers). Let's take 9 of them away, giving us only 1am left. There are 1,000 zeptometers in this space. Let's take 999 of them away, giving us only 1zm. There are 1,000 yoctometers in this space. Let's take 999 of these away, giving us 1ym. You can keep dividing this space by 1,000 to get smaller and smaller units. Every time you take all but 1 away, you're left with 1,000 of the next unit down.

[–]Hypertension123456 1 point2 points ago

But that paradox is easily solved. Instead of taking all but one away, just take all but zero away. Then you are done. That is how you give a distance to those numbers.

[–]keoShine -1 points0 points ago

You're confusing "distance" with "difference". There is a definite difference between any two real numbers, but that doesn't mean there are only that many numbers between them. By adding more decimal places, we get an infinite set of real numbers that fit the criteria of being between 0 and 1 (or between 99.9999999999999 and 100)

[–]NukeThePope 0 points1 point ago

Fuck you, I'm not here to teach you remedial math.

[–]keoShine 0 points1 point ago

How am I incorrect? What do I need to be taught?

[–]NukeThePope 0 points1 point ago

You need to be taught the concept of distance. Ask your grade school teacher to show you a number line!

[–]keoShine 0 points1 point ago

I know what a number line is. What's incorrect about saying there is an infinite set of real numbers between any two (different) points on that line?

[–]Skizm 0 points1 point ago

My statement is still technically correct... the best kind of correct.

[–]keoShine 1 point2 points ago

Yes, it is. The number in the picture isn't repeating, though.

[–]Skizm 0 points1 point ago

I know i was just kidding. I did think it was repeating at first as was just trying to be clever. It back fired and I tried to save face lol.

[–]keoShine 1 point2 points ago

No problems. At least you can admit your mistake unlike the other people I've been arguing with here for a while.

[–]Skizm 1 point2 points ago

I have been reading your argument above and in all fairness I think you are wrong. Infinite distance is not the same as an infinite amount of numbers. NukeThePope mentions Zeno's Paradox which is the correct counter to this argument (although he could have pointed it out in a nicer way).

[–]keoShine 1 point2 points ago

I only used the distance as a hypothetical. It was in response to Hypertension123456 calling the difference a "distance". I finally got him to agree with me that there are an infinite number of division, and that was the point I was trying to make. I never said that the distance is infinite, only that the finite distance can be broken up into an infinite number of parts.

[–]Skizm 1 point2 points ago

I agree with you in that respect but think that your use of the phrase "infinitely far" lead most of us to imply (rightly or wrongly) physical distance as opposed to numerical distance.

[–]keoShine 1 point2 points ago

I know. English is horribly ambiguous. There's a difference between "farther" and "further", but I don't think "fur" can refer to an immeasurable distance (non-tangible, non-countable, etc.). If it could, I would've used that instead.

I recognize that it was bad wording, but I don't know a better way to say it.

[–]LeapYearFriend 1 point2 points ago

Really, as an atheist, I just think half the arguments against fundies are posted for the atheist communities sake, just so they can feel good and smart about themselves. It's well known you can't argue with someone who believes in stuff like this to the point of mental illness. If you said this to an angry catholic priest or something, he'd say something like "science was invented by satan" and then boom, shut down.

People like that are kind of like special children. You just need to put them in their corner with their god and let the smart people do everything that matters in the world.

[–]gusty822 -1 points0 points ago

We're not all that far from becoming potatoes

[–]OrganEyes 0 points1 point ago

I wanted to make a comment on this but I knew I would get downvoted. Upvote for your sense of humor.

[–]ebonarmor 0 points1 point ago

lol, I'mgoingtohellforthis has ruined the word potato for me forever