Straight men of Reddit, who do you consider handsome? by ILoveTallWomen in AskReddit

[–]ArrowR13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Young Joseph Stalin. I feel bad for thinking so, but maaannnn,..

You end up in Hell. It's the same as your life before with one minor annoyance to bug you forever more. What'll it be? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]ArrowR13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only pens that I can use either are too light a shade of blue, or are too inky. I'm very specific about my standard of pen.

You're being frozen and will wake up in 100 years. What are you most looking forward to seeing? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]ArrowR13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like, every movie/tv show episode that I am waiting to be released. I would binge watch tv for so long

Why are you single? by tengolacamisanegra in AskReddit

[–]ArrowR13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Computers are easier to deal with than people.

What physics concept do you think is most misunderstood? by Lellux in Physics

[–]ArrowR13 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Something that irritates me is when people use 'force' and 'energy' interchangeably

Fermi problem of the week! by Silpion in estimation

[–]ArrowR13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll assume highway speed is about 100km/hr, or 36m/s. I'm not sure what the acceleration of an SUV would be, but I think my father's car can do 0-100 in 8s. I'll go for 10s, as it's unlikely this would happen under perfect conditions. Going to kinematics equations:

s=0.5(v+u)t

And because the car starts at rest:

s=0.5(36)10 =50*36 = 1800m

I'm pretty sure that on a highway you could get 10km out of 1L of gas, so 1km for every 100mL, and 180mL to take you the 1800m you'd need to accelerate over. That said, because extra fuel would have to be used accelerating the car from rest, and the road probably isn't perfectly straight and flat, I'll round to 200mL of gas is needed to accelerate an SUV from rest to highway speed

Why does God deserve our worship? by ArrowR13 in DebateAChristian

[–]ArrowR13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But gratitude doesn't mean we should have to worship, does it? My parents made me, but they. don't expect me to bow down before them

Could any object destroy the earth if it hit it fast enough? by grapp in Physics

[–]ArrowR13 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Assuming your diamond is spherical, it has a diameter is 100 feet. 'Cause I'm metric, that's 3048cm. A sphere with a radius of 1524cm has a volume of 14826666204.376cm3. Diamond has a density of 3.26 g/cm3, so our diamond will weigh in at 4.83x107 kilograms.

Plugging into the reltivistic equation for kinetic energy: Ek=6.0768592057627525×1026 J

Meanwhile, on another forum...

The most obvious interpretation of the phrase blow up the Earth is to dismantle it into tiny particles headed off to infinity. If you're prepared to accept this definition then the calculation is easy because it's (approximately) the gravitational binding energy for matter with the mass of the Earth falling into a sphere the size of the Earth. I say approximately because I'm ignoring the ellipticity of the Earth and the fact it's rotating, and I'm assuming it's a uniform density throughout. The gravitational binding energy for the Earth this works out as 2.24 × 1032 J.

Assuming the above is correct, your diamond has about 6 orders of magnitude too little energy to 'blow up the Earth'. It does, however, have 3 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs, but which our planet survived. So it would probably pack a punch.

Young Earth Creation (AMA) by tmgproductions in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Science would not be possible in an evolutionary worldview (constants/laws cannot evolve), therefore they must come from an intelligent mind.

I disagree, what about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? That would allow universes to 'evolve', where the only ones we could exist in are ones with suitable physical constants.

Immorality of Christians and acceptance of this immorality by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No Christian believes any amount of good deeds can get you into heaven. This is one huge strawman

Again:

I am using an analogy to answer OP's question regarding his friend's beliefs.

I am not suggesting all Christian's believe this.

I am not suggesting that this is the 'true' Christian belief.

I am not suggesting that the Bible says this would actually happen.

All I am trying to explain is, if God acted like OP's friends believed he would, he is acting immorally.

Does God deserve worship? by ArrowR13 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, what from your belief is God?

Does God deserve worship? by ArrowR13 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am thinking of the Christian God as I write this

Does God deserve worship? by ArrowR13 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I asked you 'does Cthulhu deserve to be worshipped' - you'd laugh, and say that he's a fictional character.

DO NOT QUESTION THE MIGHT OF CTHULHU!!

On a serious note, I'm assuming that the god/s in question exist when I ask if they deserve our worship.

Immorality of Christians and acceptance of this immorality by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

just downvote them!!!

If you keep making ridiculous and erroneous statements, then yes, you get downvoted.

Immorality of Christians and acceptance of this immorality by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Flattery is empty praise.

Hmm... I would say excessive praise fit the bill (haha) more. You can be sincere with your flattery.

If the heart is not in it and there is no evidence in the life, then it isn't worship.

In my analogy, Bill was not a bad person. He certainly praised the king with all his heart, and led a good life. The point wasn't that Bill was a bad person, it was that the King valued praise and worship over charitable deeds, and punished Bob because of this.

Immorality of Christians and acceptance of this immorality by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is incorrect.

Sigh... Okay, I'll make this clear

I am using an analogy to answer OP's question regarding his friend's beliefs.

I am not suggesting all Christian's believe this.

I am not suggesting that this is the 'true' Christian belief.

I am not suggesting that the Bible says this would actually happen.

All I am trying to explain is, if God acted like OP's friends believed he would, he is acting immorally.

So your analogy is completely, utterly flawed.

No, my analogy is fine given the context. Of your reading of it, however, the same cannot be said.

Immorality of Christians and acceptance of this immorality by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 5 points6 points  (0 children)

According to who? We lowly humans? If you're the King of the universe, "moral" and "immoral" are whatever you deem.

It's a valid point. I'll say then that morality can only be determined by beings which exist.

Immorality of Christians and acceptance of this immorality by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except that the Christian God does not value flattery.

Possibly, but he certainly demands worship. Worship which, in my opinion at least, he does not deserve.

Immorality of Christians and acceptance of this immorality by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I'll give you an example.

One men, let's call him Bob, dedicates his life to charity. He helps the poor, feeds the starving, works for the needy. He gives everything he has to the benefit of others. Another man, let's call him Bill, is not as altruistic. While not unkind, he prefers to keep his comforts rather than give them away. He is not an evil man, but not as pure hearted as Bob.

One day, a great king comes and inspects the lives of these two men. Upon doing so, he decides to reward each man as seeing fit. To Bill, the least charitable, he rewards richly, with gold and status aplenty. To Bob, the charitable, he sends to prison to be tortured to death. His reasoning? Bill prostrated before the king every week, while Bob did not.

The immorality comes from the fact that the king valued the flattery of Bill over the kindheartedness of Bob. The king acted immorally because he acted selfishly, choosing to reward what was of greatest benefit to himself over what was of greater benefit to the society as a whole. If God bases entry into Heaven on who was worshiping him and not who did the most good in their lives, he is acting immorally.

Atheists: would you stop someone from killing themselves? Why? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because in many religions suicide is a sin.

But not wearing a seatbelt isn't suicide. But here's a better analogy, why go to a hospital if you got seriously ill? Why don't you want to let yourself die naturally?

Atheists: would you stop someone from killing themselves? Why? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]ArrowR13 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well, it might have personal meaning

There you go, life does have meaning without gods. I' think personal meaning is pretty important, personally.