By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pizzahut451 on 26 September 2010
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
Scoobes said:
pizzahut451 said

 


Evidence about God not living in the clouds?  Uhh, have you ever been in a plane? If you were, did you ever see a God up there in the clouds? Or have you ever looked in the sky?

Have you looked at 100% of the sky? Could those of us not making observations through telescopes day in and day out even know for certain that there isn't an entire ecosystem of perpetually airborne creatures flying around up there? Nope.


you cant possibly be serious...

You say that the thought of God living in the clouds is ridiculous, but how can you yourself be certain of that? Looking up doesn't guarantee that you know everything about the sky. You're the one who must be kidding.


ok, ill bite. A God CANT POSSIBLY live in the clouds, because he is present everywhere. A God cant live on earth because the earth is not eternal and God is. And if God did live in the clouds, im sure some pilot would have seen or heard him. Seriously, your arguments are so incredibly shallow. Try coming up with something more intelectuall or smarter, than just saying have you looked 100 percent of the sky?



Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 26 September 2010
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

please dont ever quote me again

Plugging your ears and saying I'm not here doesn't make your arguments any less illogical.

If you want to be taken seriously then you're gonna have to address the arguments I have made rather than running from them and screaming "No, no, no!"


No, i dont normally do something like that, but its just that your arguments are incredibly shallow. Its not something that i usually spend my time on responding.



pizzahut451 on 26 September 2010
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
ManusJustus said:
pizzahut451 said:
ManusJustus said:

If anything, Atheists are more 'moral' than the rest of society as we have the lowest crime rates of all 'religious' groups, though that probably has more to do with atheists tending to be more educated and wealthy, which are better predictions of likelihood to commit crime.

just a fiiiiiiine example of arrogance that is so incredibly high among atheists

Its not arrogance if its a fact.  Look at statistics on the matter, you'll find that atheists tend to be more educated and wealthier than the rest of society and that atheists have lower crime rates.

As I said before, I think economics is the biggest predictor of crime, and it makes sense that wealthy people aren't going to be knocking up banks and jacking cars.  Thus, atheists commit less crime but aren't necessarily more moral than the rest of society, though its ridiculous that people would consider atheists less moral when they are the best behaved members of society.


Oh yeah? The fact that you generalize everything in that post makes me wanna puke. First of all, a group of people CANT be more educated than the other. You'll find atheists who are smarter than christians and christians that are smarter than atheists. And statistics werent done on ALL christians and atheists, so its pretty stupid to say that ''atheists tend to be more educated and wealthier than the rest of society''. That is incredibly arrogant

Oh, now I see why you don't want to talk to me. It's clear you have some prejudice going.

Education has nothing to do with intelligence. If the statistics are reliable and say that atheism and low crime rates/wealth are correlated, you can reasonably come to the conclusion that an atheist is less likely to commit crimes or make little money than other people. That is incredibly stupid. That is like saying a white person has a less chance to comitt a crime than a black person. Atheisam and religion have nothing to do with those people comitting crime. To tie those people with the fact that they are atheists or religious and say thats the reason for their high or low crime rates is dumb. Thats why that statistic is retarded and biased. And if someone was a REAL christian, he or she wouldnt comitt a crime and thats another reason why that statistic sucks.And another thing...unless the statistic is used on a whole group of people, we cant really say that the other group is less likely to comitt a crime and to make little money than other

This isn't arrogance. I think what you read his post looking for arrogance. You wanted to believe this guy was arrogant because of your inherent prejudice against him. Nowhere in his post was anything "generalized."

I'm sure you thought he was implying that atheism and wealth and all that are CAUSEATED, when in fact he only stated that they are CORRELATED. In other words, you can use the data to make predictions about atheists, non-criminals, and wealthy people, but you can't say that the variables of the study are directly causing one another.EXACTLY!!!!

If you were EDUCATED in Probability and Statistics you would have known that of course. The fact that you haven't taken the course (or just didn't really retain what you learned) has no bearing on your intelligence, however.

In short, you need to calm down. Im not sure about that, i posted that post a while ago, and im sure i was calm back than as i am now.





kowhoho on 26 September 2010
pizzahut451 said:
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
ManusJustus said:
pizzahut451 said:
ManusJustus said:

If anything, Atheists are more 'moral' than the rest of society as we have the lowest crime rates of all 'religious' groups, though that probably has more to do with atheists tending to be more educated and wealthy, which are better predictions of likelihood to commit crime.

just a fiiiiiiine example of arrogance that is so incredibly high among atheists

Its not arrogance if its a fact.  Look at statistics on the matter, you'll find that atheists tend to be more educated and wealthier than the rest of society and that atheists have lower crime rates.

As I said before, I think economics is the biggest predictor of crime, and it makes sense that wealthy people aren't going to be knocking up banks and jacking cars.  Thus, atheists commit less crime but aren't necessarily more moral than the rest of society, though its ridiculous that people would consider atheists less moral when they are the best behaved members of society.


Oh yeah? The fact that you generalize everything in that post makes me wanna puke. First of all, a group of people CANT be more educated than the other. You'll find atheists who are smarter than christians and christians that are smarter than atheists. And statistics werent done on ALL christians and atheists, so its pretty stupid to say that ''atheists tend to be more educated and wealthier than the rest of society''. That is incredibly arrogant

Oh, now I see why you don't want to talk to me. It's clear you have some prejudice going.

Education has nothing to do with intelligence. If the statistics are reliable and say that atheism and low crime rates/wealth are correlated, you can reasonably come to the conclusion that an atheist is less likely to commit crimes or make little money than other people. That is incredibly stupid. That is like saying a white person has a less chance to comitt a crime than a black person. Atheisam and religion have nothing to do with those people comitting crime. To tie those people with the fact that they are atheists or religious and say thats the reason for their high or low crime rates is dumb. Thats why that statistic is retarded and biased. And if someone was a REAL christian, he or she wouldnt comitt a crime and thats another reason why that statistic sucks.And another thing...unless the statistic is used on a whole group of people, we cant really say that the other group is less likely to comitt a crime and to make little money than other

This isn't arrogance. I think what you read his post looking for arrogance. You wanted to believe this guy was arrogant because of your inherent prejudice against him. Nowhere in his post was anything "generalized."

I'm sure you thought he was implying that atheism and wealth and all that are CAUSEATED, when in fact he only stated that they are CORRELATED. In other words, you can use the data to make predictions about atheists, non-criminals, and wealthy people, but you can't say that the variables of the study are directly causing one another.EXACTLY!!!!

If you were EDUCATED in Probability and Statistics you would have known that of course. The fact that you haven't taken the course (or just didn't really retain what you learned) has no bearing on your intelligence, however.

In short, you need to calm down. Im not sure about that, i posted that post a while ago, and im sure i was calm back than as i am now.

Statistics are constantly being used for the betterment of mankind and are a huge component of all the developements which make your life easier. For you to say that they are 'stupid' or 'biased' is quite frankly an insult to what humanity has accomplished for itself.Bias is always present as human error cannot be entirely removed from a human study, but there are methods that statistics use (such as random sampling or double-blind studies) which bring the potential for bias down to an acceptable level. A good statistcical study ensures that its results have less than a 5% chance of happening by chance, and those studies are often repeated many times regardless, so there is a complete certainty of their results.

You also seem to be overlooking the point I'm trying to make. I never said that atheism CAUSES wealth, low crime rates or anything of the sort. Neither did he. I can most definitely say that an atheist is less likely to commit crime or be poor because of the negative correlation between the two. This prediction is only based on the correlation between the variables. This is not a generalization and in no way does it imply that NO atheist would commit crime.

Let's use a different example.

Consider a study where students' GPA and the hours they watch TV are compared. Let's say that the study finds a strong negative correlation between Hours of TV Watching and GPA (more hours of tv = lower GPA). From this data, assuming it was taken with a randomly collected sample of students and biases were minimized, I can predict that a student who watches a lot of TV will have a low GPA. Yes? However this does not mean that watching TV CAUSES bad grades. There could be a third unknown variable which is causing both the high amount of TV watching AND the low GPA, such as inherent laziness.

 

Now let's move on to your use of the term, "real christian." Can you actually define to me right now what a real christian is? I seriously doubt it. I find it funny that you call my arguments shallow and them use terms with no operational definition. There are a thousand sects of christianity that don't agree with one another. Are you so vain as to say that your church has a monopoly on morality? Your statements are uninformed, narrow-minded and arrogant.


I survived the Apocalyps3

pizzahut451 on 27 September 2010
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
ManusJustus said:
pizzahut451 said:
ManusJustus said:

If anything, Atheists are more 'moral' than the rest of society as we have the lowest crime rates of all 'religious' groups, though that probably has more to do with atheists tending to be more educated and wealthy, which are better predictions of likelihood to commit crime.

just a fiiiiiiine example of arrogance that is so incredibly high among atheists

Its not arrogance if its a fact.  Look at statistics on the matter, you'll find that atheists tend to be more educated and wealthier than the rest of society and that atheists have lower crime rates.

As I said before, I think economics is the biggest predictor of crime, and it makes sense that wealthy people aren't going to be knocking up banks and jacking cars.  Thus, atheists commit less crime but aren't necessarily more moral than the rest of society, though its ridiculous that people would consider atheists less moral when they are the best behaved members of society.


Oh yeah? The fact that you generalize everything in that post makes me wanna puke. First of all, a group of people CANT be more educated than the other. You'll find atheists who are smarter than christians and christians that are smarter than atheists. And statistics werent done on ALL christians and atheists, so its pretty stupid to say that ''atheists tend to be more educated and wealthier than the rest of society''. That is incredibly arrogant

Oh, now I see why you don't want to talk to me. It's clear you have some prejudice going.

Education has nothing to do with intelligence. If the statistics are reliable and say that atheism and low crime rates/wealth are correlated, you can reasonably come to the conclusion that an atheist is less likely to commit crimes or make little money than other people. That is incredibly stupid. That is like saying a white person has a less chance to comitt a crime than a black person. Atheisam and religion have nothing to do with those people comitting crime. To tie those people with the fact that they are atheists or religious and say thats the reason for their high or low crime rates is dumb. Thats why that statistic is retarded and biased. And if someone was a REAL christian, he or she wouldnt comitt a crime and thats another reason why that statistic sucks.And another thing...unless the statistic is used on a whole group of people, we cant really say that the other group is less likely to comitt a crime and to make little money than other

This isn't arrogance. I think what you read his post looking for arrogance. You wanted to believe this guy was arrogant because of your inherent prejudice against him. Nowhere in his post was anything "generalized."

I'm sure you thought he was implying that atheism and wealth and all that are CAUSEATED, when in fact he only stated that they are CORRELATED. In other words, you can use the data to make predictions about atheists, non-criminals, and wealthy people, but you can't say that the variables of the study are directly causing one another.EXACTLY!!!!

If you were EDUCATED in Probability and Statistics you would have known that of course. The fact that you haven't taken the course (or just didn't really retain what you learned) has no bearing on your intelligence, however.

In short, you need to calm down. Im not sure about that, i posted that post a while ago, and im sure i was calm back than as i am now.

Statistics are constantly being used for the betterment of mankind and are a huge component of all the developements which make your life easier. For you to say that they are 'stupid' or 'biased' is quite frankly an insult to what humanity has accomplished for itself.Bias is always present as human error cannot be entirely removed from a human study, but there are methods that statistics use (such as random sampling or double-blind studies) which bring the potential for bias down to an acceptable level. A good statistcical study ensures that its results have less than a 5% chance of happening by chance, and those studies are often repeated many times regardless, so there is a complete certainty of their results.

You also seem to be overlooking the point I'm trying to make. I never said that atheism CAUSES wealth, low crime rates or anything of the sort. Neither did he. I can most definitely say that an atheist is less likely to commit crime or be poor because of the negative correlation between the two. This prediction is only based on the correlation between the variables. This is not a generalization and in no way does it imply that NO atheist would commit crime.

Let's use a different example.

Consider a study where students' GPA and the hours they watch TV are compared. Let's say that the study finds a strong negative correlation between Hours of TV Watching and GPA (more hours of tv = lower GPA). From this data, assuming it was taken with a randomly collected sample of students and biases were minimized, I can predict that a student who watches a lot of TV will have a low GPA. Yes? However this does not mean that watching TV CAUSES bad grades. There could be a third unknown variable which is causing both the high amount of TV watching AND the low GPA, such as inherent laziness.

 

Now let's move on to your use of the term, "real christian." Can you actually define to me right now what a real christian is? I seriously doubt it. I find it funny that you call my arguments shallow and them use terms with no operational definition. There are a thousand sects of christianity that don't agree with one another. Are you so vain as to say that your church has a monopoly on morality? Your statements are uninformed, narrow-minded and arrogant.

I never insulted ALL statistics ever made. I just said that that one statistic sucked. I have absolutely nothing agaisnt the statistics as long as they are good, accurate and unbiased.

And i understood what you wanted to say. But you still cant say that an atheist is less likely to comitt a crime either. An individual atheist is less likley to comitt a crime? Probably. Atheists as a group of people are less likely to comitt crime and are more richer than other people? HELL NO! Thats why that argument is dumb IMO.  To say that atheists are less likely to comitt a crime than christians or muslims or jews is wrong.

And let me put that really simple for you: A good christian is a good person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. A person who steales, rapes, kills, aussaults people is NOT a real chrisitan, regardless if he believes in Jesus or not. Thats the way God sees things, and thats the way i see them too.



Around the Network
dib8rman on 27 September 2010


I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

ManusJustus on 27 September 2010
pizzahut451 said:

An individual atheist is less likley to comitt a crime? Probably.

Atheists as a group of people are less likely to comitt crime than other people? HELL NO!

That doesn't make any sense.

Oh, and...

http://pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/



kowhoho on 27 September 2010
pizzahut451 said:
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:

Statistics are constantly being used for the betterment of mankind and are a huge component of all the developements which make your life easier. For you to say that they are 'stupid' or 'biased' is quite frankly an insult to what humanity has accomplished for itself.Bias is always present as human error cannot be entirely removed from a human study, but there are methods that statistics use (such as random sampling or double-blind studies) which bring the potential for bias down to an acceptable level. A good statistcical study ensures that its results have less than a 5% chance of happening by chance, and those studies are often repeated many times regardless, so there is a complete certainty of their results.

You also seem to be overlooking the point I'm trying to make. I never said that atheism CAUSES wealth, low crime rates or anything of the sort. Neither did he. I can most definitely say that an atheist is less likely to commit crime or be poor because of the negative correlation between the two. This prediction is only based on the correlation between the variables. This is not a generalization and in no way does it imply that NO atheist would commit crime.

Let's use a different example.

Consider a study where students' GPA and the hours they watch TV are compared. Let's say that the study finds a strong negative correlation between Hours of TV Watching and GPA (more hours of tv = lower GPA). From this data, assuming it was taken with a randomly collected sample of students and biases were minimized, I can predict that a student who watches a lot of TV will have a low GPA. Yes? However this does not mean that watching TV CAUSES bad grades. There could be a third unknown variable which is causing both the high amount of TV watching AND the low GPA, such as inherent laziness.

 

Now let's move on to your use of the term, "real christian." Can you actually define to me right now what a real christian is? I seriously doubt it. I find it funny that you call my arguments shallow and them use terms with no operational definition. There are a thousand sects of christianity that don't agree with one another. Are you so vain as to say that your church has a monopoly on morality? Your statements are uninformed, narrow-minded and arrogant.

I never insulted ALL statistics ever made. I just said that that one statistic sucked. I have absolutely nothing agaisnt the statistics as long as they are good, accurate and unbiased.

And i understood what you wanted to say. But you still cant say that an atheist is less likely to comitt a crime either. An individual atheist is less likley to comitt a crime? Probably. Atheists as a group of people are less likely to comitt crime and are more richer than other people? HELL NO! Thats why that argument is dumb IMO.  To say that atheists are less likely to comitt a crime than christians or muslims or jews is wrong.

And let me put that really simple for you: A good christian is a good person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. A person who steales, rapes, kills, aussaults people is NOT a real chrisitan, regardless if he believes in Jesus or not. Thats the way God sees things, and thats the way i see them too.

You have no basis for the underlined. It isn't "wrong" to use statistics to predict the character of a person. Please explain to me how these statistics are anything but "good, accurate and unbiased." Without any reasoning behind that comment it sounds like you're just trying to find details that will support your argument and ignore anything that doesn't.

"Good" is also a subjective term. My "good" is likely to be very different from your "good." It is not an objective term to be used for definition.

And how do you know how God sees things? It's wonderful that you think that you share a kind of "holy vision" with him/her/it, but where do you get this statement from? Please don't use the word bible in your answer. >_>



I survived the Apocalyps3

im_sneaky on 27 September 2010
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

Statistics are constantly being used for the betterment of mankind and are a huge component of all the developements which make your life easier. For you to say that they are 'stupid' or 'biased' is quite frankly an insult to what humanity has accomplished for itself.Bias is always present as human error cannot be entirely removed from a human study, but there are methods that statistics use (such as random sampling or double-blind studies) which bring the potential for bias down to an acceptable level. A good statistcical study ensures that its results have less than a 5% chance of happening by chance, and those studies are often repeated many times regardless, so there is a complete certainty of their results.

You also seem to be overlooking the point I'm trying to make. I never said that atheism CAUSES wealth, low crime rates or anything of the sort. Neither did he. I can most definitely say that an atheist is less likely to commit crime or be poor because of the negative correlation between the two. This prediction is only based on the correlation between the variables. This is not a generalization and in no way does it imply that NO atheist would commit crime.

Let's use a different example.

Consider a study where students' GPA and the hours they watch TV are compared. Let's say that the study finds a strong negative correlation between Hours of TV Watching and GPA (more hours of tv = lower GPA). From this data, assuming it was taken with a randomly collected sample of students and biases were minimized, I can predict that a student who watches a lot of TV will have a low GPA. Yes? However this does not mean that watching TV CAUSES bad grades. There could be a third unknown variable which is causing both the high amount of TV watching AND the low GPA, such as inherent laziness.

 

Now let's move on to your use of the term, "real christian." Can you actually define to me right now what a real christian is? I seriously doubt it. I find it funny that you call my arguments shallow and them use terms with no operational definition. There are a thousand sects of christianity that don't agree with one another. Are you so vain as to say that your church has a monopoly on morality? Your statements are uninformed, narrow-minded and arrogant.

I never insulted ALL statistics ever made. I just said that that one statistic sucked. I have absolutely nothing agaisnt the statistics as long as they are good, accurate and unbiased.

And i understood what you wanted to say. But you still cant say that an atheist is less likely to comitt a crime either. An individual atheist is less likley to comitt a crime? Probably. Atheists as a group of people are less likely to comitt crime and are more richer than other people? HELL NO! Thats why that argument is dumb IMO.  To say that atheists are less likely to comitt a crime than christians or muslims or jews is wrong.

And let me put that really simple for you: A good christian is a good person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. A person who steales, rapes, kills, aussaults people is NOT a real chrisitan, regardless if he believes in Jesus or not. Thats the way God sees things, and thats the way i see them too.

You have no basis for the underlined. It isn't "wrong" to use statistics to predict the character of a person. Please explain to me how these statistics are anything but "good, accurate and unbiased." Without any reasoning behind that comment it sounds like you're just trying to find details that will support your argument and ignore anything that doesn't.

"Good" is also a subjective term. My "good" is likely to be very different from your "good." It is not an objective term to be used for definition.

And how do you know how God sees things? It's wonderful that you think that you share a kind of "holy vision" with him/her/it, but where do you get this statement from? Please don't use the word bible in your answer. >_>

Pizzahut, basically you are saying that the only way to be a Christian is to not cimmit crimes, and therefore the vast majority of people who believe they are Christians are in fact not?



 

 

GameOver22 on 27 September 2010
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
kowhoho said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

Statistics are constantly being used for the betterment of mankind and are a huge component of all the developements which make your life easier. For you to say that they are 'stupid' or 'biased' is quite frankly an insult to what humanity has accomplished for itself.Bias is always present as human error cannot be entirely removed from a human study, but there are methods that statistics use (such as random sampling or double-blind studies) which bring the potential for bias down to an acceptable level. A good statistcical study ensures that its results have less than a 5% chance of happening by chance, and those studies are often repeated many times regardless, so there is a complete certainty of their results.

You also seem to be overlooking the point I'm trying to make. I never said that atheism CAUSES wealth, low crime rates or anything of the sort. Neither did he. I can most definitely say that an atheist is less likely to commit crime or be poor because of the negative correlation between the two. This prediction is only based on the correlation between the variables. This is not a generalization and in no way does it imply that NO atheist would commit crime.

Let's use a different example.

Consider a study where students' GPA and the hours they watch TV are compared. Let's say that the study finds a strong negative correlation between Hours of TV Watching and GPA (more hours of tv = lower GPA). From this data, assuming it was taken with a randomly collected sample of students and biases were minimized, I can predict that a student who watches a lot of TV will have a low GPA. Yes? However this does not mean that watching TV CAUSES bad grades. There could be a third unknown variable which is causing both the high amount of TV watching AND the low GPA, such as inherent laziness.

 

Now let's move on to your use of the term, "real christian." Can you actually define to me right now what a real christian is? I seriously doubt it. I find it funny that you call my arguments shallow and them use terms with no operational definition. There are a thousand sects of christianity that don't agree with one another. Are you so vain as to say that your church has a monopoly on morality? Your statements are uninformed, narrow-minded and arrogant.

I never insulted ALL statistics ever made. I just said that that one statistic sucked. I have absolutely nothing agaisnt the statistics as long as they are good, accurate and unbiased.

And i understood what you wanted to say. But you still cant say that an atheist is less likely to comitt a crime either. An individual atheist is less likley to comitt a crime? Probably. Atheists as a group of people are less likely to comitt crime and are more richer than other people? HELL NO! Thats why that argument is dumb IMO.  To say that atheists are less likely to comitt a crime than christians or muslims or jews is wrong.

And let me put that really simple for you: A good christian is a good person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. A person who steales, rapes, kills, aussaults people is NOT a real chrisitan, regardless if he believes in Jesus or not. Thats the way God sees things, and thats the way i see them too.

You have no basis for the underlined. It isn't "wrong" to use statistics to predict the character of a person. Please explain to me how these statistics are anything but "good, accurate and unbiased." Without any reasoning behind that comment it sounds like you're just trying to find details that will support your argument and ignore anything that doesn't.

"Good" is also a subjective term. My "good" is likely to be very different from your "good." It is not an objective term to be used for definition.

And how do you know how God sees things? It's wonderful that you think that you share a kind of "holy vision" with him/her/it, but where do you get this statement from? Please don't use the word bible in your answer. >_>

The point being made is that in order to be a Christian, a person must follow Christian doctrine. In terms of crime, the obvious example here is the Ten Commandments . I would not go so far as to say a person is a bad Christian if they committ a crime because humans are not perfect, but a Christian does need to generally avoid breaking the law in order to be in compliance with Christian doctrine. If someone told me they were a Christian and then proceeded to habitually steal from others, I would question their Christianity because their actions are in direct conflict with Christian teachings. I am not saying that general adherence to Christian doctrine is a suffiecient condition for saying someone is a Christian, but it is a necessary one.

Just as another note, while Christian denominations and sects disagree on some things, I think you will find that they are in agreement with each other on the major issues. For example, they will believe that God created the universe, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and they will agree on the Ten Commandments. Also, asking pizzahut to present God's view without referring to the Bible is asking a bit too much. Without the Bible, he would just be making up his own vision or alludicating someone else's vision. I am not an expert on the Bible, but I think most Christians consider the Bible to be the best source for interpreting God's intentions and God's vision of the world.