How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: daskakik
You don't own the language, you can't tell people what they can and can't use, especially when everyone who isn't butthurt has no problem with it.

When someone insults my intelligence, while also exposing their own ignorance, I am going to call them out on it. I don't own the language, I know the language. And phantom got it wrong. It's not a big deal until she avoid admitting she was wrong and started calling me a liar lol... I don't even actually care, I am just baffled with how far you guys will double down on something that is textbook incorrect to avoid admitting you made an error.

originally posted by: cooperton
...weight when talking about if something is going to sink or swim.

Nobody said this.

Effing get over it.

a reply to: cooperton
You were wrong.

What is sad is that you can't even see why.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
They never said weight, you do know bearing false witness is a sin...

...2nd.

Heaviness measures weight.

"Newton (N) is the SI unit for weight. Weight is also measured in kilograms (kg) when used to determine the heaviness of an object."

This is different than density

originally posted by: daskakik

Steel is heavier than water, balsa wood is lighter than water. There are no semantic errors in those two statements.

That statement would technically be referring to a sample of steel that weighs more than a given sample of water, and a sample of balsa wood that weighs less than a sample of water. To correctly refer to the density of an object, the determining factor if something sinks or floats, you say density.

originally posted by: Venkuish1 And they are correct and you are wrong (as usual).

What are they correct about? 'Heavy' is not interchangeable with 'density'. Heavy refers to N, whereas density refers to m/V. They're not interchangeable

People are often use heavier and more dense interchangeably and we all know this. You made a comment that laymen to and I answered that you don't have to be a layman to use terminology in a different way. It happens quite a lot just as it happens when mass and weight are used interchangeably.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

ROFL a lot of chemistry class flunkies have starred your post.

Yeah I think one of them has multiple accounts, there's no way 8 people are starring something that is patently incorrect, especially this deep in a thread that has gone on a wild tangent. But ya never know, The lengths they go to avoid admitting they are wrong is astonishing.

Steel isn't heavier than water. What's heavier, a pound of steel or a pound of water?? LOL. See how that works now? Density is different like Cooperton said above.

It all started because phantom said:

"You're a liar, a fraud and most definitely not a scientist. I don't debate non scientists, especially idiots who call themselves scientists."

After I called her out on not knowing the difference between 'density' and 'heaviness'. At first she pretended like she never mixed up heaviness with density, but then after I found the post where she did, she began defending it again lolol. Then the others on her side of the argument felt compelled to defend the obvious misnomer as well while, continually pretending that i know nothing.

Sociopath level of narcissism.

originally posted by: daskakik
"weight when talking about if something is going to sink or swim."

Nobody said this.

Effing get over it.

Phantom referred to heaviness causing something to sink. Heaviness is a measure of weight. So yeah, phantom screwed up. It wasn't a big deal at all until you all continued to defend something that is obviously not true.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Double derp:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's like the trick question of which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of steel. They both weigh a pound but have different volumes.

When someone says gold is heavier than lead, it is understood that if you have equal volumes, the gold will be heavier because it is denser.

But then you must phrase it that way from the beginning, that you have equal volumes of gold and lead. You can't just say gold is heavier than lead.
I understand what you want to say, but the way you are referring to these properties of matter, any science teacher or professor would rip you a new one.
PS: My teen daughter read your post and laughed too. We're laughing with you though, not at you, not entirely anyway.

Okay, now we are not only laughing AT you, but pitying you as well. What a dunce.

originally posted by: cooperton
Phantom referred to heaviness causing something to sink. Heaviness is a measure of weight. So yeah, phantom screwed up. It wasn't a big deal at all until you all continued to defend something that is obviously not true.

No they said saline water is heavier than most crude oil, which is correct.

Oil floats on water because it is lighter.

Everyone understands that if you put water and oil in a container the oil will float because it is lighter/less dense.

Prove that wrong?

originally posted by: Venkuish1

People are often use heavier and more dense interchangeably and we all know this.

Yeah people also say 'irregardless' all the time too, doesn't make it correct.

You made a comment that laymen to and I answered that you don't have to be a layman to use terminology in a different way. It happens quite a lot just as it happens when mass and weight are used interchangeably.

Well there is correct established terminology to refer to the density of an object, and if phantom really was as smart as a scientist as she says she is, then she would have known that density and not heaviness is what determines if something sinks or floats.

I am so glad an objective person came along to call out the madness you all are exhibiting.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
They never said weight, you do know bearing false witness is a sin...

...2nd.

Heaviness measures weight.

"Newton (N) is the SI unit for weight. Weight is also measured in kilograms (kg) when used to determine the heaviness of an object."

This is different than density

originally posted by: daskakik

Steel is heavier than water, balsa wood is lighter than water. There are no semantic errors in those two statements.

That statement would technically be referring to a sample of steel that weighs more than a given sample of water, and a sample of balsa wood that weighs less than a sample of water. To correctly refer to the density of an object, the determining factor if something sinks or floats, you say density.

originally posted by: Venkuish1 And they are correct and you are wrong (as usual).

What are they correct about? 'Heavy' is not interchangeable with 'density'. Heavy refers to N, whereas density refers to m/V. They're not interchangeable

Weight is not measure in kilograms. The unit is strictly reserved for mass and not weight. But when mass and weight are used interchangeably as I said earlier then surely you get an answer about someone's weight which is given in kilograms.

The weight is the product of the mass and th gravitational field strength. Its unit is the Newton and not the Kilogram.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I understand what you want to say, but the way you are referring to these properties of matter, any science teacher or professor would rip you a new one.

No they wouldn't because they would probably use the same terminology. I already posted a link to where they do this.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

People are often use heavier and more dense interchangeably and we all know this.

Yeah people also say 'irregardless' all the time too, doesn't make it correct.

You made a comment that laymen to and I answered that you don't have to be a layman to use terminology in a different way. It happens quite a lot just as it happens when mass and weight are used interchangeably.

Well there is correct established terminology to refer to the density of an object, and if phantom really was as smart as a scientist as she says she is, then she would have known that density and not heaviness is what determines if something sinks or floats.

I am so glad an objective person came along to call out the madness you all are exhibiting.

What madness?
There is nothing more mad than creationism.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

I understand what you want to say, but the way you are referring to these properties of matter, any science teacher or professor would rip you a new one.

Exactly. Thank you for confirming this. Over 5 pages of them trying to re-write textbook definitions rather than admitting they were wrong.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

What madness?
There is nothing more mad than creationism.

Nice try, but that still doesn't change the definition of heaviness to mean density.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

What madness?
There is nothing more mad than creationism.

Nice try, but that still doesn't change the definition of heaviness to mean density.

Nobody did.
You are clutching at the straws.

originally posted by: daskakik
No they wouldn't because they would probably use the same terminology. I already posted a link to where they do this.

That link said "heavy for its size", it was trying to explain the concept to newcomers to science so they could grasp what it meant. "heavy for its size" means mass / volume. it was not saying heaviness is interchangeable with density. Here's one of my favorite quotes I've found so far on the topic:

"Many researchers have reported that pre-school and early primary aged children have an intuitive understanding of density"

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Nobody did.
You are clutching at the straws.

Daskakik is making the claim that heaviness and density can be interchangeable, all in an attempt to defend phantom's dumb comment. You guys literally hate the truth, you just want to appear right even if you're wrong

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

I understand what you want to say, but the way you are referring to these properties of matter, any science teacher or professor would rip you a new one.

Exactly. Thank you for confirming this. Over 5 pages of them trying to re-write textbook definitions rather than admitting they were wrong.

Yes, sadly it appears they are taking the rewriting the textbooks" route no matter what.

Plus these people are card carrying leftists, and it is totally their playbook to act this way in every facet of living. Just like Ilhan Omar or Cortez does. Lots of other examples. Like corrupted and abused foster children.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Nobody did.
You are clutching at the straws.

Daskakik is making the claim that heaviness and density can be interchangeable, all in an attempt to defend phantom's dumb comment. You guys literally hate the truth, you just want to appear right even if you're wrong

Nope, they have been saying that heavier and more dense are used interchangeably in every day life. And that's true as most people do it regardless of whether they are laymen or not. It's rather easy to understand. It's like mass and weight.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Nope, they have been saying that heavier and more dense are used interchangeably in every day life.

No they just tried to quote a collegiate level article to try to prove that heaviness and density are interchangeable:

No they wouldn't because they would probably use the same terminology. I already posted a link to where they do this.

But it said that density is a reference to something being 'heavy for its size', meaning mass per unit volume, which is density. It didn't say heaviness is interchangeable with density.

And that's true as most people do it regardless of whether they are laymen or not. It's rather easy to understand. It's like mass and weight.

Yeah many people mistake weight/heaviness for being the determining factor of something floating or sinking, but it is textbook incorrect to say such a thing. Daskakik is still trying to argue that even a science professor would use the incorrect terminology.

What a perfect exhibition of incorrigibility.