May 21 2011

[LJRoX]

Re: May 21 2011

Nowhere in the Bible says it ends on May 21 2011... end thread.

[Toshi-Kun]

Re: May 21 2011

Well seeing how the weather has been a little weird, I would suspect that maybe something could happen, but I think the world will end after we are long gone

[rushyrulz]

Re: May 21 2011

The weather has nothing to do with the end of the world.

Fact: Every 13,000 years the Earth precesses (kind of like a top wobbling) so it's not any shocking news that climates change over time. I'm sick and tired of hearing all this global warming shit when it's scientifically proven to not be true..

There's also El Niño / La Niña to take into account.

[Toshi-Kun]

Re: May 21 2011

The weather has nothing to do with the end of the world.

Fact: Every 13,000 years the Earth precesses (kind of like a top wobbling) so it's not any shocking news that climates change over time. I'm sick and tired of hearing all this global warming shit when it's scientifically proven to not be true..

There's also El Niño / La Niña to take into account.

I'm not saying global warming, but I didn't know that, it was just what I thought

[ddrxero64]

Re: May 21 2011

doesn't help that Religion Very Important (%) isn't descriptive and anyway izzy took the picture from a site that was trying to disprove it

Now assume that each person in this experiment answered a questionnaire asking how important religion is on a scale of 1-10. And assume the people were chosen at random.

Not to say that this is true, but is there any other part of the diagram you would find illogical or biased?

[customstuff]

Re: May 21 2011

Now assume that each person in this experiment answered a questionnaire asking how important religion is on a scale of 1-10. And assume the people were chosen at random.

Not to say that this is true, but is there any other part of the diagram you would find illogical or biased?

Pretty sure it would show a similar pattern. I'm not bashing religion, but Atheists generally tend to think more logically than religious people. Einsten was religious, however there were many more intelligent people that were Athiests around the same time period. I personally find that what we learn has an affect on our view of religion. Science seems to lean towards the big bang theory making more sence, while most Christians I know reject science. There haven't really been any studies that I know of that show evidence of God existing.

What seems to happen when people argue about how everything was created is this:

Christians: "Big bang can't be real. You think nothing just exploded to create something for no reason? Yeah right"

Atheists: "You believe a supernatural entity created everything from nothing. So tell me, how did that being appear from nothing?"

Again, not meaning to offend anyone, but about half of Christians seem to either believe so because their relatives shoved that thought into their heads while they were young, or they just "believe" because they're afraid of death and look to Christianity as a way to hopefully get to heaven if it actually exists.



To answer ddrxero64, the results wouldn't necessarily follow that pattern if taken at random concidering that random doesn't show accurate results for the entire population. If everyone in the world managed to participate in the test, however, I believe that it would follow that general pattern (with some exceptions, of course)

[Aldentron]

Re: May 21 2011

I'm sick and tired of hearing all this global warming shit when it's scientifically proven to not be true.

Are you living in the stone age? The precession and global warming are two separate things, and both are real.

[ChesterDalton]

Re: May 21 2011

Can you prove that atheism is accurate and correct.

[ddrxero64]

Re: May 21 2011

To answer ddrxero64, the results wouldn't necessarily follow that pattern if taken at random concidering that random doesn't show accurate results for the entire population. If everyone in the world managed to participate in the test, however, I believe that it would follow that general pattern (with some exceptions, of course)

Haha yes, this is what the practice of statistics is based on. Statistic is what I Izzy shared, and can never completely accurate. The goal of every experiment involving statistics is to make it as close to the parameter is possible. Things that can do this are making the selection as random as possible, making the number of people tested as big as possible, making the people selected at random selective, meaning that each person seems to truly want to be honest on the test (which can never be 100% true unless there was a surefire way to see if someone is lying. There is a term for this type of random selecting, I forgot it though, I learned it in my stats class in high school), taking out any personal bias that could affect the experiment by removing identity and enforcing anonymity, etc. What everyone wants is the parameter, which for this case is impossible to obtain. At this point the experiment that can be as unbiased as possible will be more reputable. The more unbiased it is, the more it can be used as proper basis for a decision or conclusion.

This really is the foundation of statistics.

http://www.metagora.org/training/enc...statistic.html

[Izzy]

Re: May 21 2011

Well, the earth is slowly increasing its average global temperature. It's still causing issues even if we can prove we aren't the cause of it.

Edit: I'm still betting we are part of the problem.

[customstuff]

Re: May 21 2011

Can you prove that atheism is accurate and correct.

I don't know, can you prove that question marks are the correct way to ask a question?

I never said Atheism is 100% completely the truth and correct. However, the exact same question could be asked about Theism.

If I asked you if you believed unicorns exist, what would you say? I assume you'd say no.

Now if I asked you why not? Then if you were to answer logically, then you would probably say because there is no evidence of unicorns ever existing (or you'd just say you don't know and leave it at that).

Now place God in the place of the unicorn. It's makes sense, doesn't it?
At this point, this is the direct middle of Theism and Atheism. They're completely balanced because there is no evidence of a God existing, or not existing. I am an Atheist because I find claims from the bible absolutely ridiculous. Why is it so necessary to be circumsized if God supposedly created you that way? Why would I believe that the earth is 6000-10000 years old when science shows otherwise? Why would I believe in a book that has been written by over 40 authors over the period of 1500 years and believe that every detail is complete fact?

You can't be 100% sure of either God existing or not existing at this point, however it logically makes more sense to me that there is no God. I'd rather live the life that I KNOW exists, than to waste most of it praising something that nobody is completely sure exists.






And to stay on topic of this thread, people are always going to be ridiculous and paranoid. People have claimed that the world will end numerous times before, and it never happened. It won't happen May 21st, and it won't happen in 2012. It will most likely happen billions of years from now, after the sun burns out.

[MrGiggles]

Re: May 21 2011

the best part about always arguing that the world won't end is that when you're wrong nobody gets to say 'i told u so'

[ChesterDalton]

Re: May 21 2011

I forgot a question mark, big deal boy, as usual intellectual blackmail used to silence criticism.

Anyway another atheist fails the question, says unicorns proves atheism is true.

[MrGiggles]

Re: May 21 2011

I forgot a question mark, big deal boy, as usual intellectual blackmail used to silence criticism.

Anyway another atheist fails the question, says unicorns proves atheism is true.

gj u won the religon dbate!

[ddrxero64]

Re: May 21 2011

the best part about always arguing that the world won't end is that when you're wrong nobody gets to say 'i told u so'

Very true.

I forgot a question mark, big deal boy, as usual intellectual blackmail used to silence criticism.

Anyway another atheist fails the question, says unicorns proves atheism is true.

Completely ignoring the fact that he says Atheism can't be proven true, and neither can religion. He only says his decision is to follow Atheism. Unicorns was used as an example to illustrate his point. To put it in something you could relate to, since I assume your defending religion, look at the bible (or whatever it is you follow).

It is a form of literature. It uses examples to illustrate certain points that people follow today. I could probably find a piece of text from the bible that uses Comparison A to support Idea A. The argument is that unicorns aren't a good example, but this is no different to a comparison made in the bible. Whether or not a comparison is valid is opinion, unless it's a fact that actually isn't correct.

Once again, he didn't say Atheism is right. He only said he supports it over religion.

This is a good chance to show some holes in logic. If your post was intentionally a troll post, meant to be sarcastic or not true in order to persuade me somehow, then it didn't work. I willingly and knowingly typed this out without any influence in personal emotion. If your post is legitimate, then I'm only picking and defending customstuff's side, and pointing out the fallacies in your post.

If your response is somewhat along the lines of "tl;dr," it won't affect me. My intentions for typing this aren't so you can reply, only to defend customstuff's argument. If your reply is in anger, then you've let emotion control you and you are being influenced by my words, which was never intended. If your post is going to defend your post, which is the ideal reply, then I will either agree with it or point out any other fallacies I see. If you don't respond at all, then I won't be affected. I won't assume I'm right, and I won't bring this post up in negativity again (this doesn't mean I won't bring it up, it just means if I did it'd be in support of another argument, and wouldn't have the intentions of attacking you).

This is what goes on my head when I post in a discussion forum. I look at all the reasons why a post is posted, and what it contains in terms of points and content. I rule out facts that are incorrect, and I point out holes in the logic. When I post, I think of all the types of replies I could get, and imagine myself pointing out the holes in my own logic. Every possible outcome is something I look at, and I phrase, leave out, confess, argue against/for, and overall style my posts to leave the only possible outcomes that could be usable.