23 Jun 10
Originally posted by Agergexactly how i feel.
You seem to be implicitly making the statement there is only one type of atheist: the type that affirms the non-existence of gods. Without getting drawn into a long debate over semantics let's say I'm an agnostic that operates under the assumption god doesn't exist (so as to avoid using "atheist" ) since I have precisely no reason to believe otherwise.
Simi ...[text shortened]... raise 2 to the power of the largest prime found so far and subtract 1 we get another prime.
some find it impossible to believe something with so little proof. the correct course of action is to consider it unproven and unexistant in principle until more data is found.
however some atheists indeed consider theists to be delusional. in principle they fall in the same trap theists fall in. with the difference that most likely nothing bad will happen to the theists after they die in the case they are wrong
23 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI'd say it's quite unlikely actually! Consider the 40th mersenne prime (M_40):
Actually, you have very good reason to believe that the largest prime number found thus far is a Mersenne prime. Almost all the known large primes are!
2^20996011-1 ~= 10^6320429
Asymptotically, the number of primes less than a given quantity x is x/log(x) (natural log) and so with a bit of work messing about with logs and stuff we can show there are roughly 10^(6320429-17.3) primes less than M_40 which is still quite huge! (only 40 of those being Mersenne btw)
Moreover in raising 2 to the power of n < 20996011, 20995970 choices of n (then subtracting 1) would not yield a prime :]
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergHe actually wrote: "Almost all the known large primes are!"
I'd say it's quite unlikely actually! Consider the 40th mersenne prime (M_40):
2^20996011-1 ~= 10^6320429
Asymptotically, the number of primes less than a given quantity x is x/log(x) (natural log) and so with a bit of work messing about with logs and stuff we can show there are roughly 10^(6320429-17.3) primes less than M_40 which is still quite huge! (only 40 of those being Mersenne btw)
I tend to agree.
Tell me a number around the highest known Mersenne prime that is not a Mersenne?
You cannot. It's because it's not a Mersenne prime.
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI agree with you but his post was a response to my assertion I have little reason to assume 2^(largest known prime)-1 is also prime.
He actually wrote: "Almost all the [b]known large primes are!"
I tend to agree.
Tell me a number around the highest known Mersenne prime that is not a Mersenne?
You cannot. It's because it's not a Mersenne prime.[/b]
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasRight. If we found it, chances are it's a Marsenne prime.
He actually wrote: "Almost all the [b]known large primes are!"
I tend to agree.
Tell me a number around the highest known Mersenne prime that is not a Mersenne?
You cannot. It's because it's not a Mersenne prime.[/b]
23 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergI didn't want to derail. Your original point is right on. Just because one's default position is to fail to believe in God, it does not follow that one has any regularly occurrent belief that there is no God, or even that one is disposed to have such a belief.
I think we can take it as a given that 'large' primes we find will be Mersenne. (We just ignore 'lots' of other primes)
23 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrAye, I find it a problem that there aren't many choices of things to label myself that roll easily off the tongue and/or are meaningful to others. 'Agnostic' isn't strong enough as (in my view) it sort of suggests that I think it about as likely there is a God as there isn't and just can't know either way, whilst 'atheist' suggests to most people I explicitly believe in not gods.
I didn't want to derail. Your original point is right on. Just because one's default position is to fail to believe in God, it does not follow that one has any regularly occurrent belief that there is no God, or even that one is disposed to have such a belief.
23 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think 'theist' is prone to the same mischaracterisations as 'atheist' in that it doesn't capture many shades of grey. From the posts I've seen you make so far I take it you have a healthy respect for science (perhaps that is your background) and your belief in the Bible is somewhat liberal. There are others who would share the same title however that would take every word in the Bible (some particular translation I should add) and regard it as inerrant truth (inspite of strong arguments to the contrary), further to that they insert their own extrapolations and end up with some omni-everything awesome entity that is logically inconsistent.
exactly how i feel.
some find it impossible to believe something with so little proof. the correct course of action is to consider it unproven and unexistant in principle until more data is found.
however some atheists indeed consider theists to be delusional. in principle they fall in the same trap theists fall in. with the difference that most likely nothing bad will happen to the theists after they die in the case they are wrong
What I'm trying to say is it's difficult to assess the extents to which atheists consider theists delusional since there is a big difference between a theist believing in some god inspired in part by the writings of the Bible and a theist believing that there exists precisely one god, this god has exactly the properties mentioned by said theist, this god did all of blah blah as written in the Bible, this god will allow you to *burn* for eternity for not believing in him (because we go out of our way to not believe in things!), this god literally made the world 6000 years ago, this god can defy logic, etc...
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergI call myself a non-theist because it’s nicely alliterative with non-aligned, non-supernaturalist non-dualist. 🙂
Aye, I find it a problem that there aren't many choices of things to label myself that roll easily off the tongue and/or are meaningful to others. 'Agnostic' isn't strong enough as (in my view) it sort of suggests that I think it about as likely there is a God as there isn't and just can't know either way, whilst 'atheist' suggests to most people I explicitly believe in not gods.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by Agergtheist is the larger category. someone believing in 1 or more supreme entities responsible in some degree for the creation of the universe.
I think 'theist' is prone to the same mischaracterisations as 'atheist' in that it doesn't capture many shades of grey. From the posts I've seen you make so far I take it you have a healthy respect for science (perhaps that is your background) and your belief in the Bible is somewhat liberal. There are others who would share the same title however that would t ...[text shortened]... ngs!), this god literally made the world 6000 years ago, this god can defy logic, etc...
and within theists there are more precise cathegories. christians, jews , muslims.
and within christianity there are fundamentalists(young earth creationists) and mormons and liberals etc.
i myself believe in jesus and god. i believe jesus is the son of god. i believe he died for our sins and was resurrected, though i am having trouble getting exactly why he just had to die for our sins. probably to give an example of sacrifice i suppose.
and i believe that the bible is essentially worth reading, if you can handle it. and know to spot what might be true, what is intended as parable and what is an outright lie made by isralites leaders to justify some events and/or to control the people.
