tryto

I've adjusted all of those 3, thank you! Temple at Sennisten was already in the quests, but I added Digsite, as well as Fiara to Guthix and switched around the placement. :thumbup:

I've made the said changes, apologies for the slowness! I followed PawClaw's prescriptions; really, I'm not interested in having a drawn out ethical debate in this guide, but rather trying to illustrate the general nature of the gods in broad strokes for maximum understanding. Thanks!

Heh, thanks for finding this, but I did consider using it but rejected it as it did not seem to indicate an actual incarnation of Seren, and more importantly, wasn't found in Runescape(as in, while playing). Thanks!

http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/File:Guthix_logo.svg I actually think we're talking about the same thing, it looks twisty and rootlike too :P

I've made all the changes you suggested. I added an entry for the Elder Gods, even though we don't know nearly anything about them. Apmeken was a female, so I changed the heading, and Guthix's symbol of scales was added to his entry. Also tweaked the Zamorak information. Thanks for the help!

Ten.

Thanks, corrected.

Thanks, added.

Tip.It Times: 13 September 2009 Time for a new release of the: >>>Tip.It Times!<<< When replying please make sure to clarify the article you are replying to! Thanks! This week we bring you an interview with Excl, the winner of the first Runescape Machinima contests and a well known youtube Runescape filmmaker, along with the usual offerings of a fictional article, and two accompanying articles; one a personal reflection on grinding and the other a learned discussion on the ramifications of December 10, 2007. Enjoy the articles!

[hide=blah]Forum Username: tryto Age: 17 State (US only, do not give a city): Ontario Nation (do not give a city): Canada Educational level: 12 1. Have you ever attended a worship of any religion? Yes -by choice? Yes -What kind of worship? Both Christian (catholic and methodist) and Jewish synagogue. -Did you regularly attend this worship, by choice or parental guidance? Yes (the christian ones) 2. Do you consider yourself religious? No. 3. Is there a god, gods, or a supreme deity? No. -Did said god, gods, or supreme being create the Universe, according to your belief? No. 4. Is there an afterlife? No. 5. How do you believe that existence came about? (in a nutshell) The universe has always existed in some form or another. 6. Have you ever attended a worship of any religion that you do not consider yourself a part of? Yes -What? Jewish (as mentioned above) -Your thoughts on the experience It was about the same as christian ones I had attended, with more hebrew. 7. What are your thoughts on non Judeo-Christian Western religions? Remember that religion is a broad term so please be specific. With regards to religions like buddhism, while I find them more acceptable to my worldview than judeo christian versions, I still find them unacceptable to to introduction of entities like karma. With regards to theistic religions like hinduism, they have the same problems as judeo-christianity (a personal god) 8. What are your thoughts on Judeo-Christian religions? Remember that religion is a broad term and that both of these groups have many subdivisions that have radically different beliefs and practices. I find the concept of a personal god distasteful due to the seemingly inevitable onslaught of a absolute morality, a specific set meaning for life, and commands (many of which are offensive). I find it irreconcilable with the unnecessary suffering present in everyday life. Living in north america, I come in contact with evangelists and the like of the christian variety often. You can likely guess my feelings towards them; I don't bother them, why should they bother me? The same mormons came to my door at least eight times one month last year. Jewish communities I feel no antipathy towards; they have never bothered me, appear extremely intellectual, and the only gripe I have towards them is their fallacious and specious arguments conflating antizionism with antisemitism. 9. What are your thoughts on Asian religions? Remember that religion is a broad term so please be specific. I'm very skeptical of institutions like acupuncture. I feel no great antipathy towards Taoism or Confucianism, and confucianism's meritocracy and ethics allow me to find some common ground. I don't come into contact with adherents much. 10. What are your thoughts on African religions? Remember that religion is a broad term, so please be specific. Again, I don't come into contact with adherents much, but my limited knowledge of the subject is a handicap to me. To me, it's fairly simple in this case; I find no evidence in favour of their assertions. This follows along with most religions. 11. What are your thoughts on South American religions? Remember that religion is a broad term, so please be specific. I have no thoughts of note, besides vague ideas on ancient incas and aztecs. I know of no modern held religions that originated in south america. 12. What are your thoughts on Aboriginal religions (any native group that was displaced, such as Native Americans, Maori, Aborigines, etc)? Remember that religion is a broad term, so please be specific. aboriginal religions I've come into contact with quite a bit. I don't hold the same respect or love for animals that it does, and many parts of it are quite similar to african religions. I do look up to their doctrine on using all of the animal when they slaughter it. 13. What are your thoughts on pagan religions (Wiccan, alternative, Satanic, and other non-traditional forms of worship)? Remember that religion is a broad term, so please be specific. Also note that many alternative and pagan practices are not affiliated with Satanic worship. The rise of religions similar to wicca, and quasi-religions like "The secret" , while their followers are not in contact with me, nor do I have any comment on them...I do not appreciate the way which science has been misused by them, especially physics. The secret, in particular, rests on misinterpreting quantum mechanics. 14. What are your thoughts on atheism, the belief that there is no supreme being(s)? Please remember that there are degrees to this belief, and that not all share the same thoughts. I'm an atheist. I don't like those who claim to be an atheist yet have never done any serious research or thinking on the position, and I don't like the general attitude many atheists seem to have towards others, especially the religious. 15. What are your thoughts on agnosticism, the belief that a supreme being(s) exists, but the individual chooses not to worship it/them (or if one is unsure if a supreme being exists, but does not outright deny its existence)? agnosticism deals with knowledge not belief. Those who refer to themselves as agnostics, to me, are only giving me half or less of their complete theological position. I'm an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in god, but nor do I know for certain. 16. Have you ever publicly chastised someone who believes in a religion/school of thought different than yours? Not outside of philosophy classes or private conversations. (or on the internet, which doesn't count) -elaborate -what group were they? what group were you? 17. If you belong to a religion or non-religion, please identify. atheism. -Did you consciously choose to follow this belief? Yes. -Did you belong to another belief, by choice or force, before following this belief? Yes. -Did you personally research (as in personally in the first person) options before coming to this belief? Yes. 18. Is intelligence (not IQ, but actual intelligence) correlated to one's belief in a religion or non-religion? Keep in mind that intelligence can not be measured by any science, this is simply your judgment call. In my personal experience, while there are definite exceptions, the more outspoken theists (famous or otherwise) have a definite negative correlation with intelligence. It may not be linked to belief; instead it may be linked to their desire to share with everyone the personal choice they have made. 19. Does religion, in your observation, do good in the world? Please cite specific groups or denominations. It does both good and bad. Islam in particular gets a bad rap from me, especially in the festering middle east. Female genital mutilation, the government style, treatment of women and minorities, and adherence to their outdated commands all come together. Islam to me is where Christianity was a couple of hundreds of years ago (maybe more). Hopefully they grow out of it and become more secular as Christianity has done. Meanwhile, while I make no remarks about the motives I think that charity givers and the like for Christianity have (nothing good to say) I can't deny that many of them would not have given without religion. 20. Does non-religion, in your observation, do good in the world? Please cite specific groups or denominations. Good and bad, but not nearly so much bad. Humanist societies in particular I find do much, and the methodological naturalism of science has accomplished a multitude of tasks that a supernatural outlook would find much more difficult. Of course, there are examples like nuclear bombs as something bad, but the same innovation gave us nuclear power. 21. Does religion, in your observation, do bad in the world? Please cite specific groups or denominations. see above. 22. Does non-religion, in your observation, do bad in the world? Please cite specific groups or denominations. see above. 23. Please list your experience with sexual education, including but not limited to: lectures by parents, schools, religion, or non-education. Please do not list your sexual experiences. The typical birds and bees from the parents, a full onslaught of sexual education, birth control, and sexual diseases in school. I've listened to the abstinence talks, the anti birth control talks, the antiabortion talks from religions, and their counterparts from other groups. 24. Have you engaged in sexual intercourse of any kind? Please do not list your sexual experiences. A yes or no will suffice. yes. 25. What, in your opinion, defines "love?" Love is a word detailing a strong attraction or affection. 26. Have you ever been in, or are now in, a relationship? Yes, but not currently. -Is sex involved? Yes it was. 27. Are you single/committed relationship/married? Single. 28. What, in your opinion, is sex's place in a relationship (or lack of relationship)? Sex is incredibly important in a relationship, and with no or poor sexual compatibility a strong relationship is difficult, but not impossible. 29. Have you ever partaken in an illicit substance (excluding alcohol or marijuana)? -if so, what? Yes, LCD. -Have you ever lost control of your actions while under the influence of an illicit substance? No. 30. Have you ever partaken in marijuana? Yes. -Do you habitually use this substance? No. -Have you ever been "stoned?" Yes. -Have you ever lost control of your actions while under the influence of marijuana? No. 31. Have you ever partaken in the consumption of alcohol? Yes. -Do you drink socially or alone? Or both? Both. -Have you ever been drunk? Yes. -Have you ever lost control of your actions while under the influence of alcohol? No. 32. Have you ever regretted a sexual encounter? No. 33. Have you ever regretted using an illicit substance? (excluding hangovers) No. 34. Have you ever regretted using alcohol? (excluding hangovers) No. 35. Have you ever given serious thought (longer than 30 minutes in a year) to the existence of a supreme being(s)? Yes.[/hide]

Thanks both of you. I've made the corrections to the guide. Thanks a lot! :) Any other corrections to the quest guide can be posted here as well.

The way our crediting system works is you get credited if we use the info. Most of the website's guide was written during the day, and you weren't credited in it because I didn't make use of your information in writing the guide. Unfortunately, most guides contain much of the same information. In the future, most quest guides are typically posted in the guides section of the forums; it's easier for us to find them, and you'll still be credited if we use your info there. Thanks.

Thank you SO much. This information was incredibly helpful during hunter guide updates, and your map was used for the hunting region map. Thanks a lot!

Fixed, thank you. :)

Whenever I put in a cd(music, application, whatever), it refuses to autoplay. This is quite a problem for music cds, as I cannot do anything at all with them. The problem first started after using a quickbooks application cd. As you can see, the drive is called QBCA(numbers), which I do not think is a coincidence. Changing autoplay options in properties has no effect. I'm running xp service pack 3, I don't have a dvd drive, and I've used applications like daemon tools before, if that could cause the problem. The drive name remains QBCA(numbers), even when the drive is empty. I also have only one optical drive, not two which is what is being shown for some reason. EDIT: I disabled my emulator and the second optical drive (E:) disappeared. An image of what is happening: Any help is greatly appreciated. :) EDIT: Solved the problem with some help, thanks.

Apparently you don't when you say that, if you believe in god, then you should also believe in the FSM. Like I said, theists don't care to be 100% convinced they care to be 100% committed. I never said that. Remind me what logical fallacy that is? :P No one seriously believes in the FSM, and no one should. The same reasons for people not believing in the FSM should be similar to the reasons why I don't believe in god, namely, that just because something cannot be disproven, does not mean that it must exist(a fallacy committed by many, many theists). When the analogy doesn't apply then it is a strawman. You are saying that X = Y, where X is my real argument and Y is a ridiculous one you made up yourself in which you are telling me X is similar to, therefore X is just as ridiculous. X is not Y and treating it as such is the same as attacking an argument that is not mine. I said that x is ..wait for it...LIKE Y. Thank you. I showed that x is like y, because both are the absence of something, like atheism is the absence or lack of a belief in god, while baldness is the absence or lack of hair. Hence my argument is implicit. Personally, I have no opinion on whether it is a religion or not, as that would just be a debate purely about semantics, and while I do enjoy most of them, this one would be boring because I'd much rather debate other topics in regards to god's existence. However, I do notice that atheists vigorously try to push themselves as far away from theists as possible to evade their own arguments being used against them. If you do not believe in atheism then you are a theist. If you do believe in atheism then you are condoning the usage of faith. You cannot believe in the lack of something, by definition. Believing in something without evidence is faith, and believing in something with evidence is justified belief. For example, theists believe in god without evidence(like you mentioned earlier). Thus, it is faith(I'm working off of Paul's statement here, which I find no issue with). An example is the Riemann Hypothesis. Most mathematicians believe it is true. They believe this, not on no evidence, but on the very great evidence that the first 15 trillion numbers agree with it. This is not faith. First you state that atheism is a religion, then you say you have no opinion. Either choose your first statement, that atheism is a religion and defend it, or take the second statement and drop it. He still felt the pain and humility. It would be completely pointless if a god was crucified because like you said, it wouldn't be a sacrifice. That's why god chose a human form - one which experiences human experiences such as pain. So it was a sacrifice. I don't deny that he felt much pain(should he have existed). However, there is a clear difference between dying for a cause, which Gandhi did, and which jesus would have done if he were the son of god, and dying for no cause. In your argument, wouldn't a suicide be just as great a sacrifice? They suffer great pain as well, yet it is self-evident that a suicide does not quite the same thing that Gandi did. Much much much more improbable than the fact that a god exists. That's where the FSM fails. It attempts to make god seem just as improbable as it is, but as I pointed out, Bobby purposely tried making it sound as improbable as possible. The FSM is less likely than another god, and so it is not a good mockery of a logical fallacy? The FSM *is* a god in all true definitions of the word, it supposedly created the earth and the universe, is all powerful and infinite...I don't see where it differs. We really have no idea what your deistic god could look like; and is it absolutely impossible for it to look like spaghetti? No. You only give what you get. I'd probably take your arguments a little more seriously if you did so yourself. Oh now. I'd like to see an example of a statement I made where I simply wrongly accused you of a logical fallacy in a single sentence with absolutely nothing, not even attempting to back it up.

My point was that proof is almost always irrelevant to most theists. Therefore, "skeptical" shouldn't be applied. In that case I agree. Since I said I was not like a theist in that regard, because, among other things, proof IS important to me. You're right - no strawman here. Unfortunately for you, you've made one with your last sentence defending your viewpoint though. Thanks for admitting you falsely accused me of making a strawman. I don't think you understand the difference between a strawman and an analogy, which is what the second sentence is. It cannot be strawman because that is exactly what you said; namely, that you stated that atheism is a religion. You can argue that the analogy is a false one or it is unapt; but since it is my argument, it cannot be a strawman unless you actually do not in fact believe that atheism is a religion. The having a point/being pointless isn't the dichotomy here. Dictating what has a point and what is pointless and then using them for your argument was the dichotomy. I'm not dictating anything. I'm asking you a simple question; if Jesus was not the son of god, was his sacrifice pointless or not? In fact, here, you are the one who has the opportunity to decide what you think. No, but making it as ridiculous as possible and the fact that he made it for a specific reason makes it extremely improbable. Like I said, supporting the FSM isn't doing you any good. That's it! It is extremely improbable. But it is also impossible to disprove. There is a difference. This is what happens when you respond to paragraphs with a single patronizing line. You don't develop your points, and so I have to guess what you mean when you say I "misunderstand theism".

Show me. Otherwise, I can simply say "strawman" to every single point you make, be it so or not, and we get nowhere. #1. I said I was skeptical, and you said I misunderstood theism. I said I was not like a theist because I am skeptical. If you say that I am wrong, it implies that either I am not skeptical, or a theist is skeptical. I am not lying, and thus a theist must be skeptical. Therefore, not a strawman. #2. Saying that atheism is a religion is 1)untrue 2)a strawman( :P ) and 3)Projectionalism. You are also saying that I am strawmanning my own viewpoint. heh. Since atheism is by definition a lack of religion or the absence of a religion, that's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. #3. You said that I made a false dichotomy. I then responded that there are indeed, only two possible choices for this option. Either something is pointless, or there is a point to it. That is not a strawman; it is true. I simply ask ; is jesus's action, if he was not the son of god, pointless, or not? You have repeatedly refused to answer. #4. Blatant misconception. Just because someone doesn't personally believe something, it doesn't mean that it is not true. and this is, indeed what you are arguing. You have argued that because Bobby does not believe in the FSM, when he formulated it, it cannot possibly be true, and this is in the middle of an argument about whether it is disprovable, so I cannot help but assume that is also what you are stating. I then gave a couple examples of my point. tl;dr; stop committing the fallacy fallacy. (for fun; you committed d a strawman by saying I planted a strawman, therefore I will not respond to your points)

I don't think you understand theism then. They don't aim to be 100% convinced, they aim to be 100% committed. And before you say that you need to be convinced in order to be committed, this isn't true. A firefighter is committed to saving as many lives as he can, but this doesn't mean he is completely convinced that his attempts will be successful. In fact, he rarely pays any attention to the proof aspect at all and will still try. So the average christian is skeptical about the existence of god? I think not. It's not a false dichotomy. "I do not believe in god" is the same as "I believe god doesn't exist", atheists just reword it to avoid getting attacked in the same manner that theists are attacked. Just like how they say it isn't a religion. :lol: Are you saying that atheism is a religion? This is astounding. definition of religion: * a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" * an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" . Nope, atheism isn't either. There is a huge difference between having certitude of the non-existence of god and not having certitude. Now that is what a false dichotomy is. So something can neither have a point nor be pointless? Please, give me an example. The point of a false dichotomy is that there are other options than the two presented; please show me how this act is neither pointless, but also had a point. Except Bobby doesn't actually believe in it. It was created to make a point. So when I wrote an article saying that gun control is good(I don't believe this is true), than gun control is definitely not good? I don't follow; the motivation of the originator has no relevance to the disprovability of something, although it does bring into question the truth of it(but it doesn't matter, since no one believes it anyways) Let's take another example; an author I read invented waterbeds in one of his books, but he didn't believe they were possible. Does that mean they aren't?

It's basically 1=9/9(fractional laws) =9*(1/9)(because 9*1=9, thus 9/9) =9*0.1111...(because 1/9=0.111....) 1=0.999.....(because 9*0.111...=0.999....) and you're correct; I left out a couple of lines; I'll just replace the first one with this one #-o

You think it exists, but yet you say it can't be proven. This sounds very familiar... :-k and so I remain skeptical. Unlike a theist. Quick question. Do you believe that god exists or do you believe that god doesn't exist? False dichotomy. I have disbelief in the existence of god. I do not believe that god exists. This is simply the makings of a tautology. Then why call him that at all? Because it's funny. Heh. The FSM was made four years ago and there is proof. Spaghetti was made centuries ago and there is proof. Chances are, without the invention of spaghetti, Bobby Henderson would've chosen a different name for his made-up entity, correct? Or maybe Bobby Henderson had a genuine religious experience, like Abraham. Perhaps he would have, perhaps he wouldn't have. Ghandi. Now which is superior in regards to self-sacrifice? If jesus's self-sacrifice was pointless, as it would be if he was not god, then still Gandhi(his hunger strike achieved a definite purpose.) As well, if jesus's self-sacrifice did have a point as if he was god, then he actually didn't suffer anything. http://www.rationalresponders.com/would_you_go_on_the_cross

Because I don't choose to cherrypick at the article like what you've done, that means I don't understand it? I'll quote it again: ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite? Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite. They did not say "in an infinite future" they said "in the infinite future" meaning they believe in one and they don't consider it hypothetical. Then in that case you have your infinite. It's an unproven assumption. Maybe he's right(I think so) or maybe he's not. I just choose to remain skeptical, and in any case, once you admit infinite time, then we don't have to have this argument any more, because we have an infinite. I don't deny that I think infinites exist; but we can't prove it. Belief that god does not exist is still a belief no matter how you want to slice the cake. God cannot be disproved, therefore there is no evidence for that belief - it is a belief based on faith. I have a good feeling you set me up to go in circles on purpose... Go ahead, reiterate yourself, but I'm warning you I'll do the same. Atheism is not the belief that god does not exist. It is the absence of belief in god. That's it. 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. #2 is atheism, #1 is called strong atheism. Again, you didn't answer the question. Since I'm a nice guy I'll answer yours though - yes, it would make it different. Your question about whether humans created spaghetti? Of course we did, I thought it was rhetorical. My point here was that human made spaghetti would necessarily be different than FSM spaghetti. The only irrelevancy I see here is your bringing up string theory in the first place. Here, let's get back on track. I'm curious to see your response to this paragraph which you must have overlooked: "Trying to make the FSM as plausible as you can is actually counterproductive to your argument. Anyone can babble illogical nonsense and claim that X is like Y. "You believe in ghosts? Ghosts are like triangular uncooked pieces of toast with five sides that can talk. Why? Because neither have proof, therefore should be treated the same." Sorry, but that attitude irritates me." I don't particularly care if the FSM is plausible or not. I don't believe it, and in fact, I don't think anyone does. The point of the FSM is that the one argument I quoted was is a fallacy. I am simply correcting you, when you stated that FSM spaghetti is the same as earth spaghetti, when it logically cannot be. Jesus didn't do anything? He didn't cause a religion to be created in which charities and the likes sprouted out from, making millions and millions of people's lives more hopeful, peaceful, and loving? If you are honestly going to sit here and deny all the good things that Christianity has done then what is the point in arguing? Christianity!=Christ. There are millions of followers of Gandhi, and he is often quoted as a moral authority. I'm not including them in my reckoning, just as I am not reckoning good deeds by christians in my valuation of a single person. That's why, for example, I didn't mention the Inquisition(PLEASE do not respond to this sentence, because I'm not mentioning it :P ) Let's see. Gandhi, directly, in his lifetime, and with his own hands, gained independence for India, for example. I don't think Jesus did as much in his lifetime, with his own hands, unless you accept that jesus was god. Let's take their ethical philosophies. I note that you did not respond to my argument that Jesus involved threats(ie. hell) as reasoning for his ethics. Gandhi did not do this. Which is superior in this regard? " The smallest unit of measurement though is not the atom, theres finer substructure to levels beyond which the uncertainty priciple applies, I'd also be willing to debate that maths wasnt at all a creation of man, and that it exists independant to him, but it think thats beyond the bounds of this thread" Oh, I know. I responded already; there are smaller units of measurement, but a piece of coastline's smallest unit is an atom. So therefore you cannot use smaller units without not making any sense. I could bring in the quantum planck length as a smallest length too, but it's not really necessary, because an atom is the smallest piece of coastline that could exist.

Yes, but the limit of a sequence is a fixed value, not an infinite process, so saying this is misleading. Yes, at any given stop, at any given stage of the expansion, for any given finite number of 9s, there will be a difference between 0.999...9 and 1. That is, if you do the subtraction, 1 0.999...9 will not equal zero. But the point of the "..." is that there is no end; 0.9999... is infinite. This is just untrue; 1/3 is exactly equal to 0.333.....; if you include the 0.0000...1 you won't equal 1/3. This can be shown using infinite series.

? Your article says that either the universe is infinite right now or is expanding infinitely. Are you trying to discredit the article that you yourself posted? You misunderstand the article. The universe, if it is not infinite, would require infinite time to become infinite in size. That would require that infinite time could exist in the first place, so circular reasoning must occur for this to work. In fact, anything, given infinite time, would gain infinite properties. That doesn't prove that infinities exist. Nobody said that either. What was said was, "You can neither prove nor disprove god, therefore atheists are using faith in their beliefs too." By definition, faith is a belief that is not based on proof. If you have no proof that god does not exist but you still believe that, then you have faith that he doesn't exist. A typical misunderstanding of the etymology and definition of atheism. Atheism means, literally, without theism. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. It does not involve certitude; even a complete agnostic is not a believer, and thus not a theist, and so they are an atheist. If you prefer, you can append agnostic to atheist, making agnostic atheist. This works because they refer to two different things; atheism to belief and agnosticism to certitude and knowledge. The opposite of agnostic is gnostic, having absolute knowledge. Are you really arguing that mankind didn't invent spaghetti...? http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art73.htm And the FSM not being physical kind of defeats the purpose of him having the ability to fly and being made out of spaghetti. Maybe next time people will come up with names that don't contradict the point they're trying to make. Again. You have completely ignored my points and are strawmanning them. The FSM is wholly seperate from the concept of spaghetti; just because man created spaghetti does not mean that they created whatever type of metaphysical spaghetti the FSM could be made out of. Are you saying that if I changed the name of the FSM to the flying gurkendagglepfizer monster, it would be different? Those strings aren't just something made up for the purpose of crediting a rhetorical argument, unlike your invisible spaghetti strands that exist in outer space. Irrelevant. The purpose of claims does not hold any relevance on their being true or not,and could be construed to be a ad hominem argument against the originator. Ooo, you're such a bad boy. :) Their teachings are both good, but when it comes to what they've physically done I think Jesus wins. Gandhi was a pacifist and didn't rely on physical threats to persuade people to obey his teachings. If you don't believe that Jesus was god and died for our sins, then he didn't really do anything, while Gandi did much for his people.

Recently, I've had a couple arguments with people disputing the fact that 0.999...=1, a couple on the internet and a couple in real life. It seems to me that this is one of the most commonly disputed mathematical facts, along with the Monty Hall problem, and it is also by far one of the simplest. Even after repeated proofs I've sent to people, they still appear to intuitively distrust this. I've come to the conclusion that most of these people are ignorant that 0.999.... indicates that the 9's go on forever, infinitely, and thus never reach an end point, and thus, in fact, do equal one. To dissuade people from changing the topic and trying to argue that 0.999 !=1, I've included a couple of proofs. [hide=]1. 1=9/9(fractional laws) =9*(1/9)(because 9*1=9, thus 9/9) =9*0.1111...(because 1/9=0.111....) 1=0.999.....(because 9*0.111...=0.999....) 2. x=0.999... 10x=9.999... 10x-x=9.999...-0.9999... so 9x=9 x=1 therefore 0.999....=1[/hide] Can anyone think of an alternate explanation for this phenomen? Why would otherwise rational people, who can accept easily that 0.333....=(1/3) and that 0.333...*3=1 (by fractional definitions), be unable to accept this particular mathematical fact?