WHY IS EVERY THIRD THREAD ABOUT RELIGION?

husker wrote:

I don't think google cares if they are in R & S or not

The thesis is that the majority of threads started in R & S are by the non-religious, so any other sample is meaningless.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
Quote:
Now even Im posting about religion. Face it people, Im pretty sure that we made God up to keep us from freaking out at the concept of being alone with a finite life. The whole concept seems good enough for the Jews, so why cant the Christians of the A2k family just live a good life , keep their rules and SHUT UP.

Well Farmerman,

It could just as easily be said by the "christians", I'm pretty sure that people deny God because they don't want to take responsibility for the bad things they do. So by denying God's existence they are free to do whatever they wish with a clear conscience. So why can't the non-christians of A2K just live a good life, don't follow any rules, and shut up.

However, what's the point of that? If there were never any opposing opinions. There would never be anything to debate.

You're quite wrong, you know. We atheists are exactly who must, and do, take responsibility for the things we do - both bad, and good. The devil didn't make us do anything, God didn't tell us anything was okay to do, and nobody's standing around expecting to be forgiven because we subscribe to certain beliefs.

oh no no Roger. I was not implying that is what I actually think. Or even that that is what christians in general think. I was making an opposite statement of equal offensiveness, to what farmerman said just to make a point.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

husker wrote:
I don't think google cares if they are in R & S or not

The thesis is that the majority of threads started in R & S are by the non-religious, so any other sample is meaningless.

Yeah tell the people at google they are meaningless - they are becoming a religion (new topic)

0 Replies

husker wrote:

it is figure of speech involving the bringing out of a contrast in the ideas by an obvious contrast Wikipedia vs where you think my source was at or even religious vd nonreligious

My remarks about the so-called Pareto's principle don't refer to religion at all--they refer to suckers and those who exploit them. Pareto only ever made observations on land ownership. Joseph Juran extrapolated it to analyzing sales data. Richard Koch has applied it to other situations.

Hucksters who try to sell "management principles" courses to businesses and individuals have taken an obscure and fairly meaningless statistical principle, which is simple a method of analysis, and sold it successfully as a "rule of life" to any number of the credulous. If that includes you, you have my sympathy.

0 Replies

trying to get a rise out of me with Hucksters -you are funny boss!

0 Replies

husker wrote:

Setanta wrote:
husker wrote:
I don't think google cares if they are in R & S or not

The thesis is that the majority of threads started in R & S are by the non-religious, so any other sample is meaningless.

Yeah tell the people at google they are meaningless - they are becoming a religion (new topic)

I guess you really don't understand statistics. You are not obliged to rely on google to find a sample for this thesis. But Intrepid claimed that most threads in R & S are started by the non-religious, so that is the only valid locus for proving or disproving the case. Google has nothing to do with it.

0 Replies

husker wrote:

trying to get a rise out of me with Hucksters -you are funny boss!

Don't let your ego run away with ya . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Unlike you, I would rather not label the posters as to their beliefs.

Another typical sneer from of the hypocritical christian type. If you don't identify the belief of the author, your sample is meaningless.

Quote:
However I would say that at least 55% of my list are non religious. This list was not a random sampling...it was a list of the past 36 threads.

What you "would say" in such a matter, absent proof, is also meaningless.

Say what you will, Setanta. The posters know where they stand and most members know from my list that I am right. I really don't care about being right, but I intend to prove that you are wrong. You come on and throw your horsey poop around as if you were the lord of the manor.

Your style of name calling when you are bettered is rather tiresome. You do seem to have your targets but it seems not few are immune from your stinging barbs.

It is quite amusing that you provide 9 selective items and boast of your superiority in the matter. When you are challenged with 36 you go into a rant to take attention away from your weak argument.

If you can't use my name correctly... Don't use it at all.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

husker wrote:
it is figure of speech involving the bringing out of a contrast in the ideas by an obvious contrast Wikipedia vs where you think my source was at or even religious vd nonreligious

My remarks about the so-called Pareto's principle don't refer to religion at all--they refer to suckers and those who exploit them. Pareto only ever made observations on land ownership. Joseph Juran extrapolated it to analyzing sales data. Richard Koch has applied it to other situations.

Hucksters who try to sell "management principles" courses to businesses and individuals have taken an obscure and fairly meaningless statistical principle, which is simple a method of analysis, and sold it successfully as a "rule of life" to any number of the credulous. If that includes you, you have my sympathy.

just read this one and enjoy please link

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

There has been an influx of very religious people lately. It's annoying as hell, ain't it?

Yes.

I blame it on the skill Craven has with search engine optimization (and I wonder if some of 'em brung their friend from christian sites).

Still, live and let live....all part of the great warp and weft of life on A2k.

Dammit.

0 Replies

Quote:

You're quite wrong, you know. We atheists are exactly who must, and do, take responsibility for the things we do - both bad, and good. The devil didn't make us do anything, God didn't tell us anything was okay to do, and nobody's standing around expecting to be forgiven because we subscribe to certain beliefs.

Bravo, Roger, that was well said.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

husker wrote:
trying to get a rise out of me with Hucksters -you are funny boss!

Don't let your ego run away with ya . . .

don't you ever worry about yours? :wink:

0 Replies

Oh. Sorry, hephzibah. Didn't see your tongue in the cheek, and regret that the converse may have been taken to apply to a large number of Christians

0 Replies

Most of us already knew this, Husker. But, it may be useful for Setanta.

0 Replies

I find it interesting that farmerman started this thread, however we have yet to see any imput from him on this topic. Are we then to assume that farmerman is one who likes to stir up the pot and then sit back and watch it boil?

0 Replies

You will also find that this is not unusual for many of these threads

BTW.... Bravo, that was well said

0 Replies

farmerman is sitting back laughing and coming up with some sort of profound thing to say that will stun everyone

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

You will also find that this is not unusual for many of these threads

BTW.... Bravo, that was well said

Thanks intrepid Smile

0 Replies

nice going, husker. good link. ;-)

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Say what you will, Setanta. The posters know where they stand and most members know from my list that I am right.

This is yet another unfounded assertion on your part.

Quote:

I really don't care about being right, but I intend to prove that you are wrong.

You just wrote that "most members know from my list that i am right." Rather incoherent of you, Bubba.

Quote:

You come on and throw your horsey poop around as if you were the lord of the manor.

This is, i take it, your style of name calling.

Quote:

Your style of name calling when you are bettered is rather tiresome.

To know that, you'd first be obliged to "better" me--i'll await that day, and see what you have to contend then. You do quite a lot of name calling yourself, and have your occasional hissy fits about just how rotten America is--you're hilarious.

Quote:

You do seem to have your targets but it seems not few are immune from your stinging barbs.

People who lash out at me get it back in spades, go weep to your wife, i'm not interested. You get from me what you deserve based upon the snotty attitude you've taken since the "faith healing" thread when you came in here with a chip on your shoulder as big as your head--oh, wait, maybe that was your head. You hate America, and i suspect you hate Americans--so your venom does not surprise me.

Quote:

It is quite amusing that you provide 9 selective items and boast of your superiority in the matter.

I simply went to page one of "new posts" at that time stamp. I have no burden of proof here--you made a claim, and you have not proven it. I didn't boast of anything, i just pointed out that i attempted to apply the criteria, and you didn't.

Quote:

When you are challenged with 36 you go into a rant to take attention away from your weak argument.

No rant at all, i simply pointed out that you haven't proven your case, because your sample is mute on who are and who aren't the non-believers. You not only proved nothing, your thirty-six threads won't even come close.

Intrepid wrote:

In truth, most of the religious threads are started by the non-religious.

When you fling the word "truth" around, you assume a large burden. You won't make your case unless and until you have examined every thread that's ever been posted in R & S. Until that time, you're just whistling past the graveyard with a bullshit thesis.

Quote:

If you can't use my name correctly... Don't use it at all.

You have not authority in the matter, Lack of Intrepidity, you can't enforce your will.

0 Replies

WHY IS EVERY THIRD THREAD ABOUT RELIGION?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know