[Serious]Why are you not a believer of the existence of God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

according to einstein, that depends on your point of view. It's all relative in space. This thread is giving me a headache. (unsubscribing to keep sanity)

---

Maybe ... the sun and the entire universe, is really rotating around the earth while the Earth is stationary.

The other planets are rotating around the sun that rotates around the earth.

Quote:

---

Maybe ... the sun and the entire universe, is really rotating around the earth while the Earth is stationary.

The other planets are rotating around the sun that rotates around the earth.

---

Is that a question or statement ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

Because you know that by simple math it can be shown that approximately half the people on the world are stupider than the average.

---

Only when the population's Intelligence is linearly distributed on a person by person basis.

For example, if you had 4 people in the world, You would think that 2 of them would have an IQ lower than their cumulative average. However, if they had as their IQ's : 60, 145, 146, and 147, then the average IQ is 124.5, but obviously only one-quarter of that population has a below average IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Only when the population's Intelligence is linearly distributed on a person by person basis.

For example, if you had 4 people in the world, You would think that 2 of them would have an IQ lower than their cumulative average. However, if they had as their IQ's : 60, 145, 146, and 147, then the average IQ is 124.5, but obviously only one-quarter of that population has a below average IQ.

---

Median is the value where half the people are below, half above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Only when the population's Intelligence is linearly distributed on a person by person basis.

For example, if you had 4 people in the world, You would think that 2 of them would have an IQ lower than their cumulative average. However, if they had as their IQ's : 60, 145, 146, and 147, then the average IQ is 124.5, but obviously only one-quarter of that population has a below average IQ.

---

Excellent point. Unfortunately, the Lord has left da room

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Only when the population's Intelligence is linearly distributed on a person by person basis.

For example, if you had 4 people in the world, You would think that 2 of them would have an IQ lower than their cumulative average. However, if they had as their IQ's : 60, 145, 146, and 147, then the average IQ is 124.5, but obviously only one-quarter of that population has a below average IQ.

---

Sorry, i had to come back for this one:
So what you are saying, is it only takes a couple of dullards to bring the average down for the whole world? I figured that.

However don't forget something: With a larger sample, the scenario you gave becomes more and more unlikely. What if the sample were ... six billion? Obviously i have no way to prove it, but i would say that rounding to the nearest percent it would almost split down the middle.

I seriously doubt that. For the average so split the population down the middle, you would have to have a normally distributed population of intelligence. I would suggest that the distribution is not symetric, and the majority are below average in the actual population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I seriously doubt that. For the average so split the population down the middle, you would have to have a normally distributed population of intelligence. I would suggest that the distribution is not symetric, and the majority are below average in the actual population.

---

you are suggesting that MORE than half the population is below average in intelligence?

There are a couple of things to consider here:
One: Do you believe this to make your ego bigger? LOL
Two: Who is quantifying the intelligence? As you are no doubt aware, anyone of civilized society would fail any kind of test written by a plainsman or aborigine, and especially one checking for common knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

you are suggesting that MORE than half the population is below average in intelligence?

There are a couple of things to consider here:
One: Do you believe this to make your ego bigger? LOL
Two: Who is quantifying the intelligence? As you are no doubt aware, anyone of civilized society would fail any kind of test written by a plainsman or aborigine, and especially one checking for common knowledge.

---

I agree, intellect is very hard to measure.

IQ is a very rough measure of only the logical side of Intelligence.

But the biggest problem is most people assume IQ scores are mostly genetic.

So a region with a low IQ average is considered inherently stupid, even though it's explained by a combo of lack of education or a local culture that doesn't care about education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

you are suggesting that MORE than half the population is below average in intelligence?

There are a couple of things to consider here:
One: Do you believe this to make your ego bigger? LOL
Two: Who is quantifying the intelligence? As you are no doubt aware, anyone of civilized society would fail any kind of test written by a plainsman or aborigine, and especially one checking for common knowledge.

---

Actually, I've been pondering this since I made that post (not doing any research, mind you, just pondering it). Initially, it seemed obvious that the majority had to be below average because the scale appears to have a finite lower boundary without a finite upper boundary. This would lead to a non-normal distribution, so the average would be unlikely to be centered at the midpoint of the scale, and would probably be below the midpoint.

However, that assumes that just be cause the scale is 0->infinity, the range of values is similar to the scale, which it clearly isn't on the upper end. The question is what happens on the lower end of the scale. I believe that the only people with an IQ of 0 are those who are dead, and they don't count.

Leaving aside the absurdity of such a measurement as IQ, what is the actual distribution on the scale? If it is normally distributed, then the mean and the median will probably be almost identical. If the distribution is not normal, then the mean and the median will probably differ. I would guess that the mean would be above the median (and thus the majority would be below the mean), simply because the tail out appears to be more extended in the upper end (an IQ of 180 is rare while an IQ of 20 may not be measurable). Is that a valid assumption? I have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Actually, I've been pondering this since I made that post (not doing any research, mind you, just pondering it). Initially, it seemed obvious that the majority had to be below average because the scale appears to have a finite lower boundary without a finite upper boundary. This would lead to a non-normal distribution, so the average would be unlikely to be centered at the midpoint of the scale, and would probably be below the midpoint.

However, that assumes that just be cause the scale is 0->infinity, the range of values is similar to the scale, which it clearly isn't on the upper end. The question is what happens on the lower end of the scale. I believe that the only people with an IQ of 0 are those who are dead, and they don't count.

Leaving aside the absurdity of such a measurement as IQ, what is the actual distribution on the scale? If it is normally distributed, then the mean and the median will probably be almost identical. If the distribution is not normal, then the mean and the median will probably differ. I would guess that the mean would be above the median (and thus the majority would be below the mean), simply because the tail out appears to be more extended in the upper end (an IQ of 180 is rare while an IQ of 20 may not be measurable). Is that a valid assumption? I have no idea.

---

it's a reasonable theory, but due to the scale involved, completely unprovable.

Let us just rephrase the original statement and it will fix all:

"Half of the population is stupider than the other half"*

*= assuming there is a definable difference in each and every person's intelligence and no one matches anyone else

It really depends on what you call intelligence. I have worked with people who have Phd's. They know their field very well but can barely tie their own shoelaces let alone do anything else. I live in a town considered a very low socioeconomic group and very limited educationally. They consider me very smart but when it comes to taking care of day to day life they have taught me more over the years than they could possibly imagine. This is why I chose to live here and why I will be here to protect them if ever some so called smart person even attempts to take advantage of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AsmIscool

It really depends on what you call intelligence. I have worked with people who have Phd's. They know their field very well but can barely tie their own shoelaces let alone do anything else. I live in a town considered a very low socioeconomic group and very limited educationally. They consider me very smart but when it comes to taking care of day to day life they have taught me more over the years than they could possibly imagine. This is why I chose to live here and why I will be here to protect them ...

---

Bruce wayne, is that you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Orwell

Bruce wayne, is that you?

---

I was going to say something like that, but nowhere near as elegantly as you just did.:lol::lol::lol::thumb:

Unfortunately I was never bitten by a bat so I do not have super powers. However I at least am not a complete imbecile. To my idiotic neighbours "If you are going to plot and sheme against me then do not do it right outside my bedroom window. I will hear that you morons and counter accordingly"

Back to the subject and who could possibly believe in a God that allows oxygen thieves.

You've got your superheroes mixed up. Batman wasn't bitten by a bat, that was Spiderman, and he was bitten by a spider. Batman was just batty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AsmIscool

Back to the subject and who could possibly believe in a God that allows oxygen thieves.

---

Oxygen thieves?

Oh yeah, atheists, tell me this then - if you don't believe in a god, how do you explain Adam and Eve? :afrog:

Oh yeah, theists, tell me this then - how do you explain the Bible? There were no printing presses and laser printers back then. :afrog:



(Yes, I've been spending time on 4chan)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Oh yeah, atheists, tell me this then - if you don't believe in a god, how do you explain Adam and Eve? :afrog:

Oh yeah, theists, tell me this then - how do you explain the Bible? There were no printing presses and laser printers back then. :afrog:

(Yes, I've been spending time on 4chan)

---

http://i26.tinypic.com/1621mwl.jpg

Homer

Awesome !!

human rights? I am unfamiliar with those terms. Unless you are referring to the U.S. constitution's Bill of Rights? Those only apply in the U.S.

Actually if you look into it very carefully Bruce Wayne was bitten by a bat. Showing my age here but it is not in the movies. They did include the spider bite in the spiderman ones though.

If I hadn't thrown the stupid comic book out years ago I could upload it as proof. If I still had it I would rather put the thing on EBay and retire comfortably from the proceeds. bugger! Where was God when I made that decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Oh yeah, theists, tell me this then - how do you explain the Bible? There were no printing presses and laser printers back then. :afrog:

---

Scrolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

Scrolls.

---

I know, I was attempting humor. Did you really not see it at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

I know, I was attempting humor. Did you really not see it at all?

---

I saw it actually, but I ignored the humor. :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

I saw it actually, but I ignored the humor. :afrog:

---

i dont believe in it.

While I've been on my fast from Chit Chat I see that Shaggy Hiker has passed me up and taken over the number 3 spot among posters for this thread. It's been almost a month since my last post or I should say since the last post that hasn't been deleted. The last post I made in Chit Chat previous to this one was in the Photo contest thread. After I made it I thought to myself, "MartinLiss may very well delete that post." MartinLiss deleted that post(or perhaps another moderator) thus the last post prior to this one of mine that can be seen is Feb 10. Any moderator that feels like deleting any of my Chit Chat posts for whatever reason go right ahead. You have my blessing.

OK.. I give up. How did you get that Who Posted? listing?

I regret my ranking on that list.

D'OH!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoo

OK.. I give up. How did you get that Who Posted? listing?

---

When you have the Chit Chat or whatever section listed before you with all the threads for that section you have a replies column and a views column. In the replies column if you click on the number of replies for a particular thread you get the Who Posted mini-window.

Thanks, man.

I had originally done a search, and found nothing. Boy, it was
just staring me in the face .. so that's why all Replies have an
underscore.

You just may have given me a reason to believe in God afterall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

When you have the Chit Chat or whatever section listed before you with all the threads for that section you have a replies column and a views column. In the replies column if you click on the number of replies for a particular thread you get the Who Posted mini-window.

---

Thanks...:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I regret my ranking on that list.

D'OH!!!!

---

By making that needless response you are just more firmly entrenching yourself in the position on that list that you occupy. Maybe you could make another trivial response and then I'll reply to that and then we could bounce back and forth with a bunch of trivial garbage(or perhaps very meaningful garbage or very meaningful non-garbage) and before you know it we'll both pass up Lord Orwell on the list.

Since Shaggy is very uncomfortable in the position on that list that he occupies perhaps I should attempt to retake third position with some more posts in this thread.

Here's a curiosity that perhaps someone can shed some light on. The Who Posted list for Post Race shows a no-name in second position. Does anyone know who the nameless member is and why he is nameless. Banned perhaps or no longer a member?

Attachment 76775

This thread is now up to the 20th spot on the list of most posted in Chit Chat threads. Pardon me for being like most of the other posters in this thread by posting off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

Since Shaggy is very uncomfortable in the position on that list that he occupies perhaps I should attempt to retake third position with some more posts in this thread.

Here's a curiosity that perhaps someone can shed some light on. The Who Posted list for Post Race shows a no-name in second position. Does anyone know who the nameless member is and why he is nameless. Banned perhaps or no longer a member?

Attachment 76775

This thread is now up to the 20th spot on the list of most posted in Chit Chat threads. Pardon me for being like most of the other posters in this thread by posting off topic.

---

Ask a mod(si, hack, pino, mendhak, etc...) about this.... :wave:

I'm not going to bother them but they can answer here if they like. I'm just making an unneccessary post. I'm in my restless posting unneccessary posts in Chit Chat mode right now and moving closer to retaking 3rd place on the Who Posted list for this thread while I'm in it.

Could it have been (ahem) the subject of this thread?

If so, that just shows He's human afterall -- doesn't always have to
be the Top Dawg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EntityX

Here's a curiosity that perhaps someone can shed some light on. The Who Posted list for Post Race shows a no-name in second position. Does anyone know who the nameless member is and why he is nameless. Banned perhaps or no longer a member?

---

People who are banned do not get shown.

If a member was removed (which doesn't happen), their posts would almost certainly be removed too.

I strongly suspect that the user was one of the many (including mine) that was "lost" in our big DB crash several years back... most of their posts still exist, and the username is shown next to their posts, but as a Guest, and no signature or link to their profile etc (and you can't search for them either).

my program yotamarker has free will which negates the claim that free will is this magical religios related thing

I believe in God. I am Mormon.