Bald rick 9 Posted July 6, 2005 I heard an entertaining definition of evil last night, at the Theatre of Science show in London: Teletubbies were created with the investment of lots of time and money, so they can be thought of as a product of time and money, ie Teletubbies = time x money But, time = money, so Teletubbies = money x money = money2 But, money is the root of all evil, ie money = √ evil Therefore, Teletubbies = evil (from Simon Singh) Scary stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted July 6, 2005 Religion is all complete twaddle. I'm completely baffled how 21st century people can believe this nonsense ..... it's like believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Rather alarmingly, I find myself in total agreement with somebody and can't even correct them on their spelling or grammar! Top marks for content and presentation, Ms Janeo........... I'll try to say something more controversial next time (and I might even throw in the odd spelling mistake) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Yeti 14 Posted July 6, 2005 Teletubbies were created with the investment of lots of time and money, so they can be thought of as a product of time and money, ie Teletubbies = time x money This works for anything you wish to put here. Try capitalism ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted July 6, 2005 Teletubbies were created with the investment of lots of time and money, so they can be thought of as a product of time and money, ie Teletubbies = time x money This works for anything you wish to put here. Try capitalism ! What's this got to do with believing in God? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadornot 12 Posted July 6, 2005 Teletubbies were created with the investment of lots of time and money, so they can be thought of as a product of time and money, ie Teletubbies = time x money This works for anything you wish to put here. Try capitalism ! What's this got to do with believing in God? Maybe he's teletalist??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Strangelove 14 Posted July 6, 2005 In the last UK census we were asked for our religion for the first time, and I answered as a Jedi Knight. Apparently I was not alone, some 300,000 who expressed a preference also answered the same. Yes but that was because of an internet rumour that if a certain number of people put down a religion, it becomes officially recognised. Unfortunatly like a lot of stuff on the net it was never true Writing on the census that you "go to work on egg" at least has the excuse of being amusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Yeti 14 Posted July 6, 2005 Proof that 1=2 Step 1: Let a=b. Step 2: Then a²=ab Step 3: a² + a² = a² + ab Step 4: 2a² = a² + ab Step 5: 2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab Step 6: and therefore 2a² - 2ab = a² - ab Step 7: This can be written as 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² -ab) Step 8: and cancelling the (a² - ab) from both sides gives 1=2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cerberus 302 Posted July 6, 2005 Reading back over this thread I'm becoming increasingly confused. Belief in God is not the same thing as belief in an after-life. I'm not going to try to promote or denigrate either, but we need to establish what we're talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Josco 49 Posted July 6, 2005 Reading back over this thread I'm becoming increasingly confused. Belief in God is not the same thing as belief in an after-life. I'm not going to try to promote or denigrate either, but we need to establish what we're talking about. My original quest was to ascertain whether members considered the possibility of life after death, and if so, whether it was connected to an organised religion. Essentially, are we sentient beings with 'soul', or are we merely the equivalent of a few bags of chemicals some water and some electrical activity? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuber Mirum 125 Posted July 6, 2005 I suppose belief in a god/God implies belief in an afterlife, though not necessarily vice versa. I voted Jedi Knight because that is the nearest option to my suspicion that there is some kind of force regulating the universe, though not necessarily a sentient one. I think we should restart the poll with some better options distinguishing a bit more clearly between the "God" and "afterlife" side of things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cerberus 302 Posted July 6, 2005 Thank you, Mr J. It seems that you and I are in the minority here, although I readily admit that in my case it amounts to no more than wishful thinking. After all, having an immortal soul would get pretty tedious after a few hundred years, unless we are somehow re-born with no memories of our past life/lives. Did anyone see a series run on ITV a few weeks ago? A series of "celebrities" (first subject: Paul Ross) were hypnotised and recounted episodes from a previous life. Not surprisingly, all had some fascinating tale to tell, * none of them was a peasant who got the Black Death or died after falling into a bog. None of them claimed to have been Richard the Lion Heart or Napoleon, though. * actually, I didn't see the whole series Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted July 6, 2005 I hope I don't have an immortal soul .... I really don't want to spend all eternity with Cliff Richard & The Pope Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Oates 21 Posted July 6, 2005 Proof that 1=2 Step 1: Let a=b. Step 2: Then a²=ab Step 3: a² + a² = a² + ab Step 4: 2a² = a² + ab Step 5: 2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab Step 6: and therefore 2a² - 2ab = a² - ab Step 7: This can be written as 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² -ab) Step 8: and cancelling the (a² - ab) from both sides gives 1=2. Step 6: and therefore 2a² - 2ab = a² - ab = 0 I feel sure there is a message in there somewhere... I'll stick with Jedi Knight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Typhoid Harry 23 Posted July 6, 2005 Is there a Supreme Being? Yes. And what the Hell do you want? I'm busy, Medamnit! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest IYG Posted July 6, 2005 Proof that 1=2 Step 1: Let a=b. Step 2: Then a²=ab Step 3: a² + a² = a² + ab Step 4: 2a² = a² + ab Step 5: 2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab Step 6: and therefore 2a² - 2ab = a² - ab Step 7: This can be written as 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² -ab) Step 8: and cancelling the (a² - ab) from both sides gives 1=2. I'm no math genius but I'm pretty sure there's a mistake made between step 5 and step 6. I don't see the substitution and the -2ab disappears and the +ab becomes -ab. Very odd indeed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted July 6, 2005 Proof that 1=2 Step 1: Let a=b. Step 2: Then a²=ab Step 3: a² + a² = a² + ab Step 4: 2a² = a² + ab Step 5: 2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab Step 6: and therefore 2a² - 2ab = a² - ab Step 7: This can be written as 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² -ab) Step 8: and cancelling the (a² - ab) from both sides gives 1=2. I'm no math genius but I'm pretty sure there's a mistake made between step 5 and step 6. I don't see the substitution and the -2ab disappears and the +ab becomes -ab. Very odd indeed. 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² -ab) just shows that 2x0=1x0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrunoBrimley 86 Posted July 6, 2005 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² -ab) just shows that 2x0=1x0 And if memory serves me correctly if we multiply anything by 0 (that is to say ZERO) then the result is always equal to zero. Now with this said the figures would be correct unless there was a reason for them to be incorrectly placed in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deadornot 12 Posted July 6, 2005 sorry but this is just giving me a headache. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuber Mirum 125 Posted July 6, 2005 Step 6: and therefore 2a² - 2ab = a² - ab Step 7: This can be written as 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² -ab) I am bloody useless at algebra, but I'm pretty sure 2a² - 2ab cannot be written as 2(a² - ab). 2a² is the square of twice a, whilst the other one takes a² (minus ab) and doubles it. Or a meringue? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest IYG Posted July 6, 2005 Step 6: and therefore 2a² - 2ab = a² - ab Step 7: This can be written as 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² -ab) I am bloody useless at algebra, but I'm pretty sure 2a² - 2ab cannot be written as 2(a² - ab). 2a² is the square of twice a, whilst the other one takes a² and doubles it. Or a meringue? Stick to your day job, that algebra part is correct. Interesting how from a discussion of god we reached math, I guess it is the universal language. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuber Mirum 125 Posted July 6, 2005 Oh well, forget it then. On second thoughts, I want a second opinion before I eat humble pie. Mrs N. says I am right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bald rick 9 Posted July 6, 2005 Sorry Mr Notspud, but I'm with our resident film buff here. It's the a that is squared, then doubled, so the factorisation is correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuber Mirum 125 Posted July 6, 2005 Right enough 2a² is the square of twice a is wrong isn't it? that would be 2(a²). Probably. It has been a few years. Bruno's answer is correct, as his answers always are. Anyway, 1 doesn't equal 2. And that is about as much dogma as you will get out of me today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest IYG Posted July 6, 2005 Oh well, forget it then. On second thoughts, I want a second opinion before I eat humble pie. Mrs N. says I am right. Are you saying that A I have in College Algebra is meaningless? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuber Mirum 125 Posted July 6, 2005 Oh well, forget it then. On second thoughts, I want a second opinion before I eat humble pie. Mrs N. says I am right. Are you saying that A I have in College Algebra is meaningless? No, I am saying I'm useless at algebra and should keep my gob shut on the subject. Ask me about something I understand. Like... er...er...um...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
