A world with no Christianity
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@Jared Alesi: "we use imperial measurements in America"
That's always puzzled me. But at least you've always had decimal currency in the US. I grew up in the UK and New Zealand learning how to add up columns of pounds, shillings and pence. Twelve pence to the shilling, 20 shillings to the pound. Utter madness. All that wasted time learning illogical weights and measures, and they still managed to cram in a hour of religion every day. It's a wonder I can think at all.
Lol. Agree with you on the imperial system. Hahahhaa
It's mostly based on body parts. Units of 12 make more sense than 10s for a lot of reasons. But having so many different carry points is ridiculous.
And of course, while many countries have switched to decimal weights and measures, nobody seems to have introduced a decimal minute, hour, day, or week yet. And I'm surprised the church didn't try to replace the pagan day names with saints or angels or something.
Well, minutes and hours are comprised of 60s, which makes division easier since 60 has lots of factors. A system of trigonometry using Base 60 numbers was deciphered here recently, but I forget which ancient civilization employed it.
@Jared Alesi: "Base 60 numbers"
I think that was the Sumerians, who passed it on to the Babylonians. Use your thumb to count the joints on four fingers on one hand. Each time you get to twelve, fold down one finger on the other hand. When your fist is clenched, you've reached 60.
@Algebe Re: Base 60
Holy crap. Never knew that. Friggin' cool.
For hours, minutes and seconds, I don’t get it either. I’m guessing the Julian calendar was already set and changing everyone’s minds on what to call what would’ve been unnecessarily hard. For days, months and years, I don’t think these things can be changed. A day is gonna have to be a long as it is. A month could be more uniform but changing that would mean robbing people of their birthdays. Hahahaha
Yeah, wouldn't want to rob people of pointless observances that commemorate basic animal instincts to reproduce succeeding and bringing into the world another contributor to overcrowding. Oh well.
A day couldn't really change, no, but a year isn't really made of 365 of them. I'm not sure of the numbers, but it does seem like an extra day or a partial calendar day would be necessary. However, due to changes in speed of rotation and revolution of Earth, adjusting the calendar is necessary every so often. I do wish weeks were evenly distributed in a year, though. It wouldn't be difficult to have a five day week and just have 73 of them, instead of seven days and roughly 52 weeks.
@Jared Alesi: "I do wish weeks were evenly distributed in a year"
Yes. While year, day, and month are defined by natural cycles, there's no basis in nature for the seven-day week. Nor is there any physiological reason to have a rest day every seven days. It's just another way in which ancient superstitions continue to rule our lives.
Simply based on nomenclature, any outside party would look at the west and surmise that we all believe in Norse mythology. Wednesday after Odin, Thursday after Thor, Tuesday after Tyr, Friday after Frigg. Saturday is from Saturn, Roman. Sunday and Monday come from Latin and northern European language. But most of our week is Norse. Funny, since nobody believes in them anymore.
I was actually curious as to where the 7 day week came from. You have any ideas?
In ancient times there were seven celestial bodies so each got a day. The Romans made it official in 321 A.D.
Trump is going to burn people alive if they use science =
"Report: Trump Bans ‘Transgender,’ ‘Fetus,’ ‘Science-Based’ From CDC Documents"
"Instead of the words “science-based” or “evidence-based,” analysts were told they could use instead: The “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the newspaper reported."
This is frightening. What are "community standards and wishes" about ebola, for example? I expect the community would like the CDC to use science-based and evidence-based approaches to prevention and treatment.
That should be "in consideration of". In "consideration with" doesn't make sense.