If the elections are carried out in a fair way and it's clear that the American people don't want Trump, I'm sure he'll accept the elections.
Given the way he's been acted in the past when losing that's not something to be so sure about.
Buffer/stack overflows, type mismatches, null pointer errors and numerous other classes of programming bug that are ridiculously common in C code should all have died out years ago, and the reasons for C's continued popularity have very little to do with its technical merit.
Yeah, don't be so sure.
I think you have something there. Trump is too stupid to be evil.
Yeah - if an ex sends a video of her having sex to make you jealous, sharing it with the world at large is pretty much the ultimate F U response.
"So do you want to see just how not jealous I am?" *click*
Ain't that the truth. They spend all of their money on whine.
Yup, I think you're right. Keeping an answer which matches the number with the least significant digits is used when multiplication and division, giving us the 97. (Technically speaking the 9/5 has infinite significant digits since it comes from the defined boiling and freezing points of water at STP in degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius).
For addition the rules is to round to least precise number being added. Both 97 and 32 are precise to the "ones" place, and so the answer is 129. Just like you and the AC stated. My bad.
I thought it was more like 130. The 54 gives you two significant digits, so if you round 129.2 to another number with two significant digits it goes to 130 F. Unless I'm missing something.
But there are many events that happened beforehand that go into the formation of a particular brain, none of which (obviously) the brain had any say in. So is free will a simple quantifiable quality you can isolate within the brain?
Sciences like neuroscience are great at answering many mysteries we come up with. The question of free will is not one of these.
Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are merely midpoints of indecision where someone has committed fully to neither view. A true agnostic still remains someone who is not willing to commit in either direction, that doesn't change.
I'm not sure what you mean by "committed" here. Just because an atheist or theist holds a belief that the existence of a god cannot be known for sure (agnostic) doesn't mean they're only partially an atheist or theist. They're still fully in their categories, just a difference of degree.
For example, I believe in the theory of evolution. In any reasonable way I can imagine, I am "committed" in my belief. But as with all a posteriori claims I recognize that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt, and if sufficient evidence were somehow to come up to contest it (however unlikely that might be) I would change my view. This doesn't make me a weak believer in the theory evolution, just rational.
"Agnosticism is a statement that something (the existence of a god or gods) cannot be known. It says nothing, however, about one believes."
Except that is in itself a belief.
Right. Except that belief is regarding whether or not the existence of any god or gods can be proven. It is not necessarily regarding whether or not someone actually believes in the existence of said gods.
You're working under the common misconception that someone is not an Atheist unless that person believes they can prove no gods exist. This is simply not the case. Look up the definition. All it entails is that someone has no belief in the existence of any gods. That's it. Full stop. A person who believes they have proof that no gods exist may have a stronger form of atheism, but anyone who does not believe in any gods is still classified as an atheist.
Imagine that is not the case. Someone can make a claim that whenever I leave my apartment blue fairies break in, have a party, and leave it just like it was when I left so that I don't notice. We can come up with a word on whether I believe that. I'll say, "Yup, that's me, I don't believe it". So then someone retorts, "but can you prove it?" I'd have to say, obviously not since the claim (like many claims about gods) is metaphysical and cannot be disproved. "Ah ha! So I guess you're not that really, then are you?"
This is just one silly example. There are infinite metaphysical claims possible. Must we put footnotes on them all? What makes the concepts of gods so special that we need to parse useless hairs for those claims and not others?
The only reason people insist that atheists must have some proof that god exists to be true atheists is because a) they don't like atheism and feel the need to make someone admit they don't know everything or b) they're put off by obnoxious anti-theists (another category that falls fully under the atheist umbrella) and don't want to be associated with them. But all they're really doing is needlessly muddying the waters for simple concepts.
Agnosticism is a statement that something (the existence of a god or gods) cannot be known. It says nothing, however, about one believes.
It is possible to be an agnostic atheist (I cannot prove that no gods exists, but since there is no evidence I find it silly to believe so) or an agnostic theist (even though I cannot prove god exists, I choose to believe so through faith).
Saying an agnostic is someone that has no view whether or not gods exists is a common misconception. Refer to a philosophical text for information that your dictionary must lack.
A company is known by the men it keeps.