Then what is the "probabillity" of having a creator who made the universe? By the same logic, that can't be delt out of the equation as a possibillity either. Despite the low probabillity of it being the case for some, it is still as yet unproven, so must be an option.
And on another note: yes, I agree with that quote as far as cards are concerned, however the probabillity factor we are talking about here is considerably larger ie. impossibillity. Just as the house cannot build itself, which is merely an atom compared to the universe, so the universe could not do the same.
It's simple logic 
Wraith
EDIT = expanded on thought to explain better
And on another note: yes, I agree with that quote as far as cards are concerned, however the probabillity factor we are talking about here is considerably larger ie. impossibillity. Just as the house cannot build itself, which is merely an atom compared to the universe, so the universe could not do the same.
Now you're essentially basing your argument on the idea that the current scenario is somehow more special or significant than other possible outcomes. To a certain extent, you're saying that because of its percieved significance, this outcome is the only possible or acceptable one. Going by your house analogy, I could throw all the building materials in the air and achieve one of a billion different possible configurations, one of which is indeed a structure that fits your stringent definition of the word "house". However, if I achieved a "house" by randomly casting all these items, would it be anymore special or unlikely than all the other possible results? No, not really. It's just an outcome that people imbue with more significance than other outcomes.
Quote:
The house that you live in right now. Tell me, was that Okay, point accepted...Order doesn't imply conscious design.
The house that you live in right now. Tell me, was that made by anybody? Did anyone build it? Who, or what, put the briks on top of each other and cermented them together? Who or what dug the foundations?
Running purely by this logic, what is being said is that if you got all the bricks, materials, etc for a house all together and threw them up in the air a number of times, one time they would all land precisely and exactly tight, mixing together to just the right setup and digging out their own foundations etc, to make a house! Granted, you'd have to do it many many millions of times, but eventually it is inevitable!
Being completely serious here...I'm sure all would agree that that is simply a complete and utter physical impossibillity.
Now consider the universe. It is far more complex than a house. Our Earth, for example, relies on quite litterally trillions of factors all coming together in perfect harmony for life, including things like the water cycle (and all the many details contained within like evaporation of water, desalinasation from seawater, etc), to Earth's distance from the sun, to speed and angle of rotation, to content of the atmosphere, to the ozone layer, to complex balances of thousands of different chemicals and elements making countless different compunds that all have to react together in such a way as to...
As Cyc mentioned, eventually the bricks would align to form a house. It might be as one in a thousand trillion chance, but sooner or later just by sheer odds it'll happen. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and eventually they'll write Shakespeare - it might be the first monkey's first attempt at writing, or it might be the sixteen millionth monkey's thirty-second thousand attempt, but sooner or later numbers will roll into place and something will happen.
Your argument is simply a rehash of Paley's watchmaker analogy, minus the subtleties, and that's been made effectively redundant a long time ago.
Quote:
Now I am an open minded person...I am willing to hear other arguments, but I must confess that it is my personal opinion that there is no scientific theory in the universe that is quite as absurd and rediculous as unguided evolution. I do not know what methods god used to create the universe, and everything in it, but to claim all of this happened purely by chance...I'm sorry, but that is just laughable!
You believe that the universe was formed by the will of an inconcievable omnipotent being, and yet you think uncontrolled evolution is scientifically laughable?
Cyc, it is significant purely because of the sheer odds against it. The less likely it is, the more significant it becomes.
And Matt, I dissagree, however if you wish to continue believing that then that is your choice. I percive it as flawed reasoning and rediculous, but it is your right to dissagree if you so choose.
Wraith
Cyc, it is significant purely because of the sheer odds against it. The less likely it is, the more significant it becomes.
Then every other possible outcome is equally significant, because the odds against each specific outcome are equal.
No. One outcome were you to throw up a pile of building materials would be for them to fall an a particular fasion, another outcome would be for them to fall in a different fassion. The chances of them falling into a workable, propper house, with double glazing, central heating, wall and loft insulation, celar, etc, is much less likely than them falling in other formations of mere rubble.
And another note...even by throwing these building materials up to make the house, it takes someone to throw them before they'll actually become anything at all. Who threw them?
I've already posted far more here than I intended...as I said I don't want to get into a debate right now. Thankyou for the discussion, however, and although we will have to agree to differ as it seems we are both quite sure of our sides, I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did^^
Wraith
Quote:
One outcome were you to throw up a pile of building materials would be for them to fall an a particular fasion, another outcome would be for them to fall in a different fassion. The chances of them falling into a workable, propper house, with double glazing, central heating, wall and loft insulation, celar, etc, is much less likely than them falling in other formations of mere rubble.
In case you didn't realize it, you just repeated Cycle's point. EVERY possible outcome is equal. The ONLY way to make one outcome "less possible" than another is to COMBINE a bunch of other outcomes and compare it to one.
Using a simple fair die example, the probability of rolling an even number is greater than the probability of rolling a 1. However, the probability of rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 is the same.
Wonderbat (10:30 pm): Can we call that officially the worst thread in MF History?
Lighthead (10:30 pm): Indeed.
Can we place a 100 word limit on matt's posts? Please?
Ditto @ Bat
Quote:
Well, there's atheists and agnostics, so shouldn't there be a special name for the 'just in case' people?
Apatheticism?
Quote:
I dunno...Christianity sucks as a religion...
Could say the same thing here. Agnosticism sucks as a religion. Islam sucks as a religion. Sikhism sucks as a religion. Its a subjective statement, that is for sure.
Quote:
God's a funny thing, you know? In the first Testament he's raining down fire and locusts on the general population, along with the occasional plague of boils, and in the Second one he's all for forgiveness, sending down his son to die for us all.
Thats a rather bland view of both Testaments. Both Testaments contain both judgement and praise. Those archtypes are present throughout.
Quote:
The Bible's not a very good source and I really doubt that it's meant to be interpreted literally.
The entire thing? What are you talking about? The Bible as poerty and allegory, but also literal statements as well. Its rather presumptuous to make such statements.
Wonderbat (10:30 pm): Can we call that officially the worst thread in MF History?
Lighthead (10:30 pm): Indeed.
Well, I did get a rather interesting, albeit short, line of discourse on probability out of it.
*puts all the text into Word*
Taking a very rough estimate of 1,000 off the total due to non-post text (sigs, titles, Ezboard code, etcetera), this whole thread comes out to about 23,000 words.
oo;
Oh man. My face hurts from laughing so much.
Quote:
dont need to know who that is. You said enough, you said he was a historian.
Oh wow. You have just completely and utterly failed.
Quote:
If descriptions of things other than personal experience are what youre referring to, then even History classes, though not being in as much detail, also emphasize that real human beings were affected. Now what does that say about my answer to your analogy?
It shows you didn't understand it, especially since you didn't bother to look up who the person I mentioned was. Thank you for your completely irrelevent and assinine reply. With this you have no right to attempt to debate anything. Quit wasting the site's bandwidth and our time. Go outside.
Quote:
Nevertheless I didn't know about alcohol actually being good for you though.
There's a reason the French have low heart attack rates; a good number of them drink at least one glass of red wine a day.
You know what is also meant to be good for you...
Guinness and everything in moderation.
Apart from tobacco. Unless you chew it. I suppose.
*is quite glad he got his point in early*
Quote:
Well, my point was that meanings more so EVOLVE over time. Like Economics supposedly meaning "home management" or something from the Greek words it was derived from. But that evolved.
That's not evolution of words. That's just learning the roots of words. ;p
Quote:
I thought Marx meant dictatorship not necessarily as in power being shifted to one person but that people wouldn't be able to vote to change the government. Why else would he have called it a "dictatorship"?
Remember, he spoke it in a different language. One of the biggest problems with translating the Bible into English from the original Greek is that there are many different words that mean "love" (as one example) while English only has "one." Therefore, whenever dealing with a translated work, you have to take into consideration that it won't be perfect.
The other thing is that it was called "dictatorship of the proletariat" NOT a "dictatorship." There's a difference from saying "fruits of labor" versus "fruits." In other words, you have to pay attention to modifiers as well as not taking things out of context.
Quote:
Yeah, but isn't the middle ground usually still counted as capitalism, and doesn't it have to be the extreme of "everyone for each other" to be close to colectivism? It's not everyone for themself here in Canada but Canada is still considered a capitalistic society. Isn't it supposed to be everyone for each other, at least for the most part, before it's counted as Socialism?
No, capitalism isn't a middle ground. Of course, there isn't a place on Earth that practices capitalism either. All countries that practiced capitalism realized its shortcomings and have implemented some form of communism. Socialism is the middle ground between communism and capitalism. What currently goes on (incorrectly, but for most people) is that the dominant economic system is what people refer a country as being. Only if it is close to a true middle ground between the extremes then people will call it socialist.
Quote:
And I repeat: I know more about other views (views other than my own) than people here seem to think I do.
If you have to say that you do, then you either 1) don't know more or 2) don't know how to convey it.
Quote:
Didn't I make it obvious enough that my stereotyping of Christians was IN RESPONSE to what I saw as their stereotyping of Atheists? I'm not sure if I said this already, but it seemed to me like Christians made generalizations about Atheists and mine were in response to those.
That's fine, but it makes you look like an uneducated person and you get called on it, which means YOU started the whole thing UNLESS you find the Christian posting here who did it. No one here cares to answer for others, which is something you should've gotten by now--and if not, that's really sad.
Quote:
Besides, nationality is geographical and religion is cultural.
Culture IS based on nationality AND geography AND religion (and zillions of other factors).
Quote:
As I said, going by that the city attitude that people from small towns are stupid would be considered a racist attitude.
It is a "racist" attitude as there isn't another real term for it. ;p
I'M GOING TO BEAT YOU ALL WITH HAPPYSTICKS!!! 
~Rico
Quote:
As Cyc mentioned, eventually the bricks would align to form a house. It might be as one in a thousand trillion chance, but sooner or later just by sheer odds it'll happen. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and eventually they'll write Shakespeare - it might be the first monkey's first attempt at writing, or it might be the sixteen millionth monkey's thirty-second thousand attempt, but sooner or later numbers will roll into place and something will happen.
Your argument is simply a rehash of Paley's watchmaker analogy, minus the subtleties, and that's been made effectively redundant a long time ago.
Point A. Probability in itself is a theory. Statistics? All presumptions. You can flip a coin a hundred thousand times, and then wonder why the heck every turn landed on heads. Probability cannot, under any circumstances, be proven. A 100% change is as good as nothing. Unless you want to amass these monkeys, and expend the necessary currency for the aforementioned typewriters, and wait a hundred thousand trillion billion banana bana fo fana, bee, by, bonana, banana years*, for one of them to write up Shakespeare, feel free to. Logic fails to cold, hard facts. I keep trying to tell this to people, but it's been embedded in society's head, and isn't that easy to spread.
Point B. You surely cannot be trying to proove this scientifically when your simple and dull-witted science considers these monkeys nonexistant in the first place. As well, the typewriters, and the ink, everything, even existance itself; all fake. Mindless idolatries of our deprave and place-filling imaginations flitting about unceremoniously into a depthless oblivion from which there is no you.
Wait. What am I saying? We don't exist, so there is no imagination. Sad.
I honestly am at a loss as to what to do at this point. I can look ahead, and look ahead, and see nothing. A barren wasteland, choking on its own dust. I turn around, and everything is clear. Look back. You have no idea how long I've been sitting here, just thinking of what to say, or how to say it. I'm running on your own fumes, and they incite a fire deeper than you may imagine.
...What's an opiate?
~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper
Man, what?
/topiccontrol
Gah! HSW got it first!!
The Lighthead Wonderbat mentioned was a FAKE! Lighthead and I were causing chaos the time that that happened. }:D
I SHALL ALWAYS BEAT YOU
WAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Quote:
How was I supposed to know your analogy was about a particular historian?
You weren't. But how does that excuse the fact that you were specifically told to look into it and didn't? Instead you took the words at face value, which seems to be a common problem of yours, hence multiple people telling you to not take textbook info as absolute.
Quote:
Well, I consider it asinine to compare SCHOOL textbooks to the writings of 1 Holocaust denier. That's like comparing going by hospital advice to going by the advice of some sort of famous, hypothetically sold out dietitian.
But you see, it's not. For instance, there are several regions in the world in which SCHOOL textbooks (as you put it) paint certain views regardless of accuracy to promote certain ideas. There's a fairly big deal concerning school textbooks in Middle Eastern countries that promote hatred towards certain groups being re-evaluated and rewritten. Were you aware of that?
The point is to take everything you read with a grain of salt. Just about anything can be published in a nice official-looking book regardless of accuracy (hence the "historian" mention), and schoolbooks are by no means an exception. I don't know how to simplify it any more.
Quote:
First of all, who do you think you are to say who can and cant debate what?
Who are you to suggest women not be allowed to give birth to their own offspring?
Quote:
Really, making a mistake like this doesnt destroy ones credibility on absolutely everything
But several mistakes do. Do you think it's coincidence that you meet so much opposition with just about everything you post? Or that some people don't even bother to read your posts, being familiar with your history?
Quote:
I will follow what you post, and Ill make you eat those words as the SA2B Sonic would say.
Ooooh, my very own e-stalker!
Have fun, kiddo. I never claimed to be incapable of making mistakes. However, I almost always take the time to verify facts and read up on a topic before making a post concerning it. With so many resources at hand, there's no reason not to at least make the attempt. If I can't find adequate info, I don't post. If I'm even unsure of word usage (after all, most of my early schooling was in French) I check dictionary.com, which, I believe, was a site once referred to you, as well as Wikipedia and Google in general.
Quote:
So you, Crazy, have completely and utterly failed no matter HOW many people may think you "passed".
Yeah, you sure taught me.
When I make a thread online that requires people to provide corrections on social, cultural, economic, religious and even linguistic aspects all in a go, feel free to call me a hypocrite then. Right now though, you've got quite a lead there.
You yourself said you wanted to fix your reputation. Why then don't you address these apparently tarnishing qualities?
Quote:
Text doesnt take up much bandwidth
Tell that to my webhost. I use up a bit of bandwith and my sites are mostly text.
Quote:
You learn the roots of words BECAUSE words evolve, right?
No, you learn roots of words to know what a word means.
Quote:
Economics doesn't mean "home management" anymore, it means the study of how goods and services are provided, right?
If you take into consideration different time periods, you'd realize that it does mean the same thing. We express things differently at times due to technological developments. Rarely do words actually change meaning, unless getting into slang.
Quote:
Despite that I clearly stated in the first post, before the edit, that I realized that not all Christians thought the same way?
Quote:
True Red, what do you think would be more important to them, whether or not they post here, or whether or not they're Christian? 😛
Matters to whom? I'm referring to why people basically can't stand your posts and why no one really pays any attention to you. Yes, it matters more that the person posts here than whether or not they're Christian. Someone could make the same idiotic post you made and make it so that those who are White should care what White supremists think. The saddest part is that you still don't get it because you're still asking the question. I'm not even the first person to say this to you.
Quote:
How different do you think a GS Forums Christian would be from a Sonic HQ Christian?
Very. There are at least 99 different denominations of Christians that are acknowledged in the U.S. alone. Then, each different denomination has differences between them as some are more conservative while others are more liberal. Then there are Christians that don't consider themselves to be part of ANY denomination and go by whatever they feel is correct. In all honesty, other than believing that Jesus is the Son of God, there are so many differences between Christians and where they hang out (which at times is a slight factor) that it's not even funny.
Quote:
Are you sure it's racist?
Yes, that's the term most people use for it. It's not the best term as far as I'm concerned, but it's the most commonly one used whenever someone makes a comment that is stereotyping a region, a nationality, a religion, etc.
Quote:
But wouldn't the pictures take up far more space than the text?
Pictures are not uniform in size (which is why your BMP example is silly along with the fact that anyone who knows anything about the web would never use a BMP image due to it having horrible quality and 3-4 times the size of a JPG, GIF, PNG, etc. of better quality) and usually are as small as possible. So, text can take up more space when a lot of it is presented (as in your posts, for usually no reason). Also, pictures are loaded just once and after that, most browsers load pictures from the cache which saves some of the hit that pictures could cause. Text is rarely (if ever) saved in cache so text is always a factor.
Quote:
The people I'm talking about.
Are the people you're talking about here because you are saying that your post is only supposed to matter to them? If they aren't here then it's a waste of space.
Quote:
And I'm referring to how I don't think it's a good reason.
That's fine, but it's not only you posting and only getting responses from people that basically to some degree pity you.
Quote:
I guess your comment was about how I shouldn't judge Christians based on the most outspoken ones, but mine was about how I judge based on the more important factor.
Because you still don't get it and I have a little bit of time, I'll attempt to clarify it one last time. Either treat people as individuals (which means blanket comments are idiotic and making silly qualifiers such as "I know all [insert something]" at the end is ridiculous), learn to express yourself better, or stop complaining about how people respond to your stuff because your posts demand that people respond the way that they do.
Quote:
But I don't think that what message board one posts in would necessarily indicate which denomination of Christians one belongs to...
This is called "matt takes a comment out of context because he's missing the point."
Quote:
But is whatever forum you post on really something that'll tell how someone thinks?
No.
Quote:
To be fair, your comments reminded me that some key attitudes towards many things are different here than on GS ... so maybe there might be a different mindset here than on GS for some reason, so I'll try to avoid depending on comparisons between these sites.
Do you have the exact same mindset as your mother or father? Do you parents have the exact same mindset? People differ. Boards differ. If you expect the same stuff on one board as another, you're sadly mistaken. If you expect people to have the same mindset due to ANY qualifying factor, you're sadly mistaken. Can people agree? Yes, but it will rarely have something to do with "qualifying factors" as you (or anyone else) may define it.
Quote:
But I aim to judge based on the more apparently important factors than what site someone posts on, at least those that I think would matter more to them.
What you think matters to most may not matter most to others. ;p
LOCK PLZ :[)
I have an important question...
What's an opiate? =p
Even better question here:
WHY DOES THIS TOPIC STILL BREATHE?
Quote:
(Was busy for the past few days)
No one cares. There's a vacation/I'm back topic if you truly feel that you must announce this.
Quote:
it's the posts themselves more so than the text within them that take up space
Incorrect. It's the text within that take up most of the space, especially if there's a lot of text. That's one of the reasons why say, LiveJournal, doesn't limit the amount of comments (similar to message board replies) you can make, but it does limit the size of them. Also, it's silly to be "bumping" your post count to correct something or add something to a previous post, especially when no one has replied to you. It's also extremely silly to continually post after yourself, other than possibly an informational topic related to maintaining a message board (or something related to that).
Quote:
It's not like the only people we talk about on this site are people who post on this site.
Except that those people aren't the audience for the posts made by people here, unless someone specifically says "[insert member's name here]." You just said that the people you're talking about IS the audience for your post. That makes your post a complete waste of space unless you mention who here fits the audience, which so far you've been unable to accomplish.
Quote:
You say that blanket comments are idiotic. Well, I'm certainly not the only one making them... how are mine all that different?
Matt missed the point again. ;p
Because I know it's difficult for you to get things, I'll just bold the important words that you forgot:
Either treat people as individuals (which means blanket comments are idiotic and making silly qualifiers such as "I know all [insert something]" at the end is ridiculous), learn to express yourself better, or stop complaining about how people respond to your stuff because your posts demand that people respond the way that they do.
Last translation, because if you don't get it now, you are truly a hopeless cause. I'm telling you that there are three choices you have. You don't do the first one ever, which means even if you can't ever do the second option, the third one is very possible to accomplish (though it would require an attitude adjustment). Using your Jimro example, he never complains about the reaction he gets for his generalizations. You, on the other hand, complain almost as much as toddler throwing a tantrum. That's the difference. He, at least, understands what he's saying/doing and takes what comes as a result of it. You, on the other hand, act like you're innocent and don't get why people respond to you when you do stuff. While I'm sure you'll try to tell me that you do understand and other stuff, words don't mean anything. Your actions speak much louder than your words of so-called "understanding" regardless of the subject.
Quote:
How can you be so sure?
Do you think that hundreds/thousands/millions of people think EXACTLY alike when it comes to everything? The hilarious part about your "question" is that you keep talking about "different mindsets." Those happen due to people being different. Only if you find a MB with the same exact people on it could you even remotely find the same stuff--and that's only assuming rules (among other things) aren't drastically different.
Quote:
but all I was saying was that it makes more difference whether they're Atheist or Christian, (or otherwise) Canadian or American (or otherwise) etc... than whether they're on GS, NS, Perspectives, SHQ, or otherwise.
Actually, you were spouting nonsense about knowing what's best for people that you don't even know about as well as what shapes their opinions, when you don't know what shapes a person's opinion either. ;p I couldn't say what shapes a person's opinion, but at least I don't pretend to know.
BTW, guys, If you don't like the topic, just ignore it. There are plenty of topics on this board that I personally don't like or wish would die but don't. I don't waste my time posting in them. Neither should you post here if this one bothers you.
Quote:
My mention of that was a precaution in case anyone got the impression that I was too lazy to respond until now.
I repeat: No one cares. You have a mistaken impression that people are thinking about you when they aren't. No one cares why you are/aren't posting.
Quote:
not having anywhere near as much effect on the hard drive as image files, which is why I could leave so many of them saved on the hard drive despite rarely if ever needing many if any of them.
Considering you were providing BMP files as examples, that's not a surprise. Since you're obviously not used to the idea of people having images that are mostly less than 5KB, you would be confused.
Quote:
Where and when did I say that?
When I asked you whether or not the audience for your post were people here or elsewhere. You replied "The people I'm talking about." I then asked you several times to point out who here fits the description of people that you're talking about and you have failed to name one.
Quote:
So enough of one will suffice?
No, because you didn't pick the third.
Quote:
Clearly stating that I realize that not all Christians think the same way doesn't count?
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
In case you didn't notice I meant most not ALL.
That's the reason why. You don't know "most" Christians, nor do you have anything about "most" Christians. Therefore, the instant you talk about "most" [insert anything] without information to back it up, you're going to get the reaction you got--and I still find it sad that you still don't get it.
Quote:
The most obvious difference you left out is the difference in reaction we get.
I already explained that. You complain--and have always complained. He doesn't complain--and NEVER did. He understands simple Internet communication guidelines whereas you don't. I've explained them to you in as simple a manner as possible for a couple years now--and you still don't get it, which is why most won't even bother with you. Saying you've changed means nothing when you don't act like it at all.
Quote:
You say I complain as much as a toddler throwing a tamtrum? What about me are you comparing to temper tantrums?
Your posts and your constant inability to see where you have caused your own problems.
Quote:
Perhaps I should use VCP.
The reaction would be the same. He doesn't complain. He understands what he says and how people may react to it and takes whatever comes as a result of it. You never understand why you get the reaction you do and then waste time complaining about it.
Quote:
No, what makes you think I think that?
Re-read your posts. In fact, you can just re-read your last post in the topic.
Quote:
Depends on the question. ... there's not much of a reason to expect popular opinion to differ all that much, since the mention of them would be rare on each site, not leaving much room for more mention of them on one site than another.
This is precisely why you're clueless. Popular opinion will differ dramatically regardless as long as the people are different. Of course, this is why I'm sure you do believe that hundreds/thousands/millions of people think exactly alike.
Quote:
Where/when/how was I pretending to know? I meant to say I was guessing as to it.
Re-read your own posts. In fact, you can re-read just your last post to get a clue as to where.
Quote:
They would be thinking about what I'm typing when reading what I post.
From just this sentence, I KNOW that matt doesn't understand many things being said because it doesn't even relate to what I said.
Quote:
After all, for all I know I could've given them a chance to say something like "too lazy to respond until now?" otherwise.
Considering most that know of your existence either ignore you or actively wish you wouldn't post, that's not going to happen. As I said, people don't think about you that much to care--and being told several times to stop making those "announcements" should've brought that home to you. Besides, everyone knows who posts daily and who doesn't. No one cares why. ;p
Quote:
That's not what you asked. You asked "matters to whom" in response to my comment about it mattering more to them that they're Christian.
Now this is hilarious. Let me repost the thread of comments for you.
matt: Didn't I make it obvious enough that my stereotyping of Christians was IN RESPONSE to what I saw as their stereotyping of Atheists? I'm not sure if I said this already, but it seemed to me like Christians made generalizations about Atheists and mine were in response to those.
TR: That's fine, but it makes you look like an uneducated person and you get called on it, which means YOU started the whole thing UNLESS you find the Christian posting here who did it. No one here cares to answer for others, which is something you should've gotten by now--and if not, that's really sad.
matt: True Red, what do you think would be more important to them, whether or not they post here, or whether or not they're Christian?
TR: Matters to whom? I'm referring to why people basically can't stand your posts and why no one really pays any attention to you. Yes, it matters more that the person posts here than whether or not they're Christian.
matt: The people I'm talking about. And I'm referring to how I don't think it's a good reason.
TR: Are the people you're talking about here because you are saying that your post is only supposed to matter to them? If they aren't here then it's a waste of space. It's not only you posting and only getting responses from people that basically to some degree pity you.
matt: It's not like the only people we talk about on this site are people who post on this site.
TR: Except that those people aren't the audience for the posts made by people here, unless someone specifically says "[insert member's name here]." You just said that the people you're talking about IS the audience for your post. That makes your post a complete waste of space unless you mention who here fits the audience, which so far you've been unable to accomplish.
Now, you're telling me with all those comments I made that you NEVER understood what I asked or was talking about until now, particularly considering HOW I responded to your responses? Most of my comments to you in this entire thread have been critiques on your posting habits (not your point of view, which I don't care about at all) and you're saying that you never got the original question. I have ALWAYS been talking about how you need to adjust how you express yourself OR your attitude, and you didn't get it. Unreal.
Quote:
True Red, when I said "enough of one" I did NOT mean "enough of option one" I meant "enough of one of the options".
Trust me, I don't need "clarification." I gave my opinion on your comment and if you aren't going to change your attitude (option three) then it doesn't matter what you do.
Quote:
No, but I know a couple different samples of Christians ... The Christians I referred to in my example for my analogy were Canadian, and his/her comment was about Canadians...
More proof that you don't understand what you're saying and the problems it causes you here--and you refuse to get it.
Quote:
When I argue in defense of my posts, or explain myself with regards to why I did something earlier, how is that "complaining" more so than Jimro explaining the reasoning behind his stereotype?
Jimro won't say that he didn't start something that he knows he started. You have spent several posts in this topic alone trying to say that "because I put a disclaimer that I'm not talking about everyone that I didn't start anything with my comments." Either you don't realize that you did start it, or you refuse to acknowledge how you caused your own problems. Of course, what makes it worse is that you do this in most topics that you create or post in. You have absolutely no concept of your own culpability in anything--it's always the other person/people, but not you based on what you post.
Quote:
Since when was Jimro considered so "ignorant" that a lot of people thought he was "faking it"?
When he first posted here, but his personality got him the benefit of the doubt. You just don't get the etiquette of posting.
Quote:
What are you talking about?
Be happy for the ezhack because I've gotten more than enough people telling me to stop trying to explain things to you because of you never get anything even after going through several pages in various topics.
Quote:
Don't act like it at all?
Your personality in terms of understanding people--not learning how to write better sentences or how to use the quote function. Those are superficial changes. That would be like saying because I'm wearing a different outfit that I've "changed." Just because your posting style has changed doesn't mean YOU'VE changed--and that you haven't.
Quote:
It's not like I've always denied having partly caused my own problems.
Once or twice in comparison to your hundreds of posts doesn't instill confidence in people that you get anything.
Quote:
I don't recall seeing any reaction to VCP's comment
It was a locked thread, no one could respond. ;p VCP doesn't post much anymore, most things were lost during the ezhack, and I wouldn't waste time looking anyway. I know the people here well enough due to being here since 1999 to know what I'm talking about even if you don't believe it.
Quote:
People differ, but some things will be popular nonetheless. ... Need I say more? ... I wasn't saying everyone thought alike. Assuming you were referring to my analogy, it wasn't about it opinions not differing from person to person, but about it not differing from site to site.
Wow, this is called totally missing the point and it's just so hilarious.
Let's just go back a little.
matt: there's not much of a reason to expect popular opinion to differ all that much, since the mention of them would be rare on each site, not leaving much room for more mention of them on one site than another.
TR: This is precisely why you're clueless. Popular opinion will differ dramatically regardless as long as the people are different. Of course, this is why I'm sure you do believe that hundreds/thousands/millions of people think exactly alike.
Only a clueless soul could not see that I'm talking about popular opinion on sites WOULD differ IF the people are different. Your "hockey" analogy makes absolutely no sense because you're comparing nothing. If you want to use "hockey," you could say that hockey is popular where you live (or message board #1). In my area (or message board #2), hockey is not popular at all (this is a basketball/football/baseball/soccer place). However, the people that live where you are don't live where I am. That just goes to show that popular opinion will differ depending on the people involved. THAT'S a comparison. Learn to read for comprehension, matt.
Quote:
Mention of religion doesn't vary much between the sites...
How often something is mentioned has absolutely no bearing on people's opinions toward it. That's very faulty logic to think that stuff is connected.
And one last thing...
Quote:
Are you referring to my post with the post count # as 714 next to it as my last post?
That should be obvious considering I would ONLY be talking about this topic. Also, since you need a bigger hint considering your responses, I'll give you one. You mentioned in post #714 that you were speaking about the attitudes of "most Christians" in your posts though you just semi-rationalized how that was silly of you due to my comments to it. That would be an example of how you weren't "guessing" in anyone's opinion, including your own until it was pointed out that what you were doing was silly, and how you were saying "hundreds/thousands/millions of people think exactly alike."
Quote:
It relates to the comment about people not thinking about me because if they're reading what I'm typing, they would at least be thinking about the comments themselves, which would include when and why I posted them, and therefore why I posted them when I did...
Faulty logic again though you discredited this comment when you said: "I figured the timing would need an explanation, but I guess from now on, I'll keep it to the vacation thread until/unless people comment on it in the thread the timing problem was in."
BTW, rephrasing your comments doesn't negate the fact that you totally misunderstood me. Rephrasing your comments doesn't get to the point I was making--it just ignores it. Oh, but this one I just had to comment on...
Quote:
you said you were telling me why people don't bother with my posts, and I was simply expressing the view that disagree with that as a reason.
I love this one. People tell me directly (as well as you though you rarely listen or get the hints) why they can't stand your posts and you disagree with it. Absolutely hilarious. I'm glad you know the thoughts of others better than they know themselves. ^_^
Oh and this one is another hilarious comment:
Quote:
I may have "started it" as far as Christians on this site go, but I did not start the Canadians vs. Americans part...
I may have provoked it
In case you didn't realize this, matt, if you provoke something, then you started it.
Quote:
I don't recall ever claiming to deserve NONE of the reaction I get, I've said I don't think I deserved it to the extent I got (Eg. Being made fun of)
That's called "complaining." Also, it's pretty much standard knowledge that anyone who doesn't know how to handle himself/herself on any message board will become the brunt of jokes. That's just a fact of life on the Internet.
Quote:
Again, my point was that you didn't explain the same things then as now. You explained a lot of things to me, and probably too many of them I took too long to get, but not all of them
Thank you for basically proving my point about explaining things to you. Just because you don't get something until "now" doesn't mean I didn't talk to you about it before.
Quote:
No, after many things are explained well enough I get them... need I provide more examples than just the one of learning that reviews are opinions?
Uh, that only proves that you don't get things that are just common knowledge. It also proves that you don't think for yourself very well because you shouldn't have to "learn" the things you supposedly have from any message board. No one should have to spend time explaining anything to you with the exception of the rules of a board.
Quote:
I'm comparing how even when some individuals may not like popular things, those things will be popular all the same.
Now, how many non-points does this make? Oh, and because I know you won't get the sarcasm, I'm letting you know that this point has nothing to do with the discussion even if you can't see that.
Quote:
But I still find it a slightly unfair one to use. First of all, where one lives matters much more than where one posts. After all, who gives their lives for their message board? Who says when, let's say getting a needle at the hospital, "I'm a Mobius Forumer, so I can take it!"?
So says the guy who is totally unaware of the people of this message board or their personal lives.
Quote:
However, I was also saying why I don't think it would happen to the extent that people of the same religion and same nationality, etc... would necessarily be a far different group based on them going to different sites...
You haven't a clue about the lives people live on the Internet. So, it's not a surprise that you don't get it yet.
Quote:
I said it'd have a bit to do with where people express those views, and from that, what views you'd expect to differ.
I find it more logical to assume it is connected than to assume that it isn't...
Right because between the thousands of different types of Christianity that exist (not even including "individuals" who consider themselves Christian but don't follow any church), it's a good idea to assume these things are connected. Oh, and just in case you miss it, that sentence was filled with sarcasm.
Quote:
I thought I mentioned earlier in this thread that I was guessing to some extent about the Christians I knew being a decent sample. You mean that I didn't mention this?
One would think that by now you would've gotten the hint that your actions speak louder than your words. When your attitude and actions say something different than your words, don't think "disclaimers" or random comments mean much of anything.
Quote:
I meant that I thought those people thought SIMILARILY, not exactly alike, when it comes to THAT ONE THING, not all things.
LOL!!!
But thankfully you said...
Quote:
Assuming too much? Perhaps.
It only took until the 87th post of the topic but matt may finally be catching onto one of the many greater points that require attitude adjustments--not posting style changes.
Quote:
After all, isn't showing your initial thoughts when reading a quote what you're supposed to do in the quote-and-rebuttall posting style?
Just the point being made matters. Nothing else, including "initial thoughts," does.
Quote:
Saying I don't agree with that being a good reason is by no means an example of me pretending to read minds or anything, (seeing as how it has nothing to do with it) just speaking my own.
Either the point has eluded matt again, or matt just feels the need to do extra typing because this comment has nothing to do with what was said.
Quote:
what I mean by starting it is that those who insult and get insulted back started it. It's one thing to insult someone back but another to insult someone who had little to nothing to do with the first insult
Yes, the same thing I meant. If you still can't see how you insulted others who had nothing to do with anything first then you're a hopeless cause. No one here answers for other people, which you still think must be done.
Quote:
You imply that those moderate complaints are somehow similar to temper tantrums...
Moderate complaint = once, maybe twice (in the span of years)
Temper tanturm = continously
Quote:
I'm not saying they wouldnt, just saying I doubt they necessarily deserve to...
It's reality that matters, not what you (or anyone else) like.
Quote:
No, ... unless you count things mentioned within/as part of those explanations staying...
matt is semi-learning.
Quote:
Don't think for myself?
Reading for comprehension is a required skill for a message board and one that you are severely lacking. So, let me re-post what I said and bold the important part that you have neglected:
It also proves that you don't think for yourself very well because you shouldn't have to "learn" the things you supposedly have from any message board.
Oh, and your "examples" just continue to prove my point on the learning (and not thinking well) bit. If you need a further translation, then you just continue to prove the points about your inability to think very well and your lack of reading comprehension.
Quote:
How many people do you think would give their lives for a message board?
Counting the entire planet? Thousands at mininum.
Quote:
How would they consider it even worth that?
The same way some people consider many different things worth it. Everyone has things that they consider immensely important and those important things differ from person to person.
Quote:
How would they do that, for that matter? Think about it...
Give money, spend time promoting it, etc. That's not difficult in the least.
Quote:
my point was about what Id expect to differ depending on the site
Again with the non-point. You must love wasting time saying totally unnecessary things.
Quote:
How would what message board they choose indicate which branch of Christianity they follow?
This is where the hilarity comes in. There's no such thing as a "single" branch of Christianity being followed anywhere. That's why you can't credibly attribute anything religious to a message board even if you polled it b/c most people don't even get involved with it (as most people follow the idea that religion belongs in a house of worship). You have to go to individuals--and as stated several times the people who post here do not care to answer for others save themselves. ;p
Quote:
what about how when earlier in this thread I mentioned something about how I was only guessing as to them being an accurate sample?
Reading for comprehension is a required skill for a message board and one that you are severely lacking. So, let me re-post what I said and bold the important part that you have neglected:
When your attitude and actions say something different than your words, don't think "disclaimers" or random comments mean much of anything.
If you need a further translation, then you just continue to prove the points about your inability to think very well and your lack of reading comprehension.
Quote:
You claimed that I said that they all think exactly alike. ... You find that funny?
LOL!!!! Of course it's hilarious because you missed the point entirely and actually feel that you are saying something when you aren't, but I don't have time to re-post several pages worth of posts to make it more obvious.
Quote:
I was just saying that my posting style is still my first priority
Which means that my comment about matt possibly catching on was premature as he has yet to comprehend it. matt still believes that changing clothes is more important than changing attitudes. As they say, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Which means that my comment about matt possibly catching on was premature as he has yet to comprehend it. matt still believes that changing clothes is more important than changing attitudes. As they say, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
As one of my High School English teachers used to say "Attitudes are like underwear. If you don't change them, they get gross"...
>.>
I didn't think it could get better. ^_^
Quote:
What makes you think that? ... so I figured I needed to point out that that wasn't what I was saying at all.
and
Quote:
My point wasn't about what myself or anyone else would LIKE, it was more about what myself or anyone else would deserve.
and
Quote:
I believe that posting style is more important to forums than clothes are to offline conversation. The offline equivalent of a really bad posting style, would probably be more along the lines of, let's say, someone mumbling too much.
Further evidence that you really can't follow discussions at all. These are called non-points. You're not telling me anything that isn't already obvious, or has absolutely no relation to anything (except the third one which is just further proof of your lack of being able to follow a point). You're just wasting time typing.
Quote:
I assumed that .... As I said, I don't recall denying having started the comments directed at me as an individual. ...and it's another to assume that being Canadian has something to do with why I made my comments about Christians (seeing as how they could be both, as was the case with many people I was initially referring to)
The instant you started this post you started the Canadian thing because you are Canadian. You got upset over the stupidness of having to answer for other Canadians the same way others got upset for answering for other Christians. It's one of the most obvious ways of pointing the fallacy of your original statements. Most people understand this tactic because usually if the tables are turned (which several people did by introducing various forms of Canadian analogies that "upset" you), most people realize when they've done something silly--but not you. You are too busy either saying you didn't start something or trying to weakly rationalize why an analogy (the Canadian ones or most recently a clothing one) shouldn't be used instead of picking up the greater point. You need it broken down even further, which is another reason why your comprehension skills are lacking.
Quote:
I wasn't referring to the frequency, I was referring to the loudness. 😛
There's sound on a message board without using talking devices? Frequency is the main factor to determine a tantrum. Using caps and certain language are the only others.
Quote:
Are you implying that we deserve it whether we like it or not, or was your point simply about it not being a matter of what should but of what is?
Re-read my comment and no I'm not reposting it or bolding anything. If you still can't figure it out, too bad for you. Even I won't baby you forever.
Quote:
If you count the entire planet, that only makes it a smaller percentage.
Not at all. The entire planet isn't online, nor is everyone online visiting message boards as chat rooms and other stuff (such as MySpace) are a lot more popular. It's not comparing nearly 7 billion people, but somewhere in the millions. I'm only pointing this out because I'm sure you wouldn't get it otherwise.
Quote:
But my point was about the difference between how reasonable it seems for someone to say they would die in battle for their country and for someone to say they would die in battle for a message board. ... To donate money and to spend time promoting it don't come close to directly dying for your message board (Eg. With my earlier example of dying in battle)
You're totally confusing two things and trying to be practical and impractical at the same time. So let's break this down so that you can hopefully get it the second time around.
1) The online world is not the physical world (re: Earth). The people who meet in the online world are from many distinct places on Earth. You are not going to be able to rally the people who come from so many different places on Earth and line them up for battle as countries can do with people. So, if you're going to compare things in that manner, you're making absolutely no sense (on purpose) in an attempt to make another non-point.
2) Due to lovely things called denial of service, "hacking," viruses, and many other types of attacks (even as small time as spamming), it is possible for message boards to do battle online. This is something some people participate in all the time and it is something that can have the potential to kill message boards (or websites for that matter). For some people this is how they conquer others or show off a form of pride. That's a teaser of how "battle" is done in the online world. Oh, and just for the record, the "lovely" was used in a sarcastic manner in the first sentence.
Quote:
But since when is that considered reasonable?
Ever since it started happening. What is "reasonable" to one person is "unreasonable" to another.
Quote:
I meant to ask would certain branches of Christianity be more likely to post on Sonic HQ, and other branches be more likely to post on GS forums, etc...? I doubt it...
Depends on how you're defining "branches." This board has a "liberal" (as defined in the U.S.) slant (as do others). Other boards have strong "conservative" (as defined in the U.S.) slants. Every branch (of any religion) has their liberal/conservative-slants and usually you'll find religious people of a particular slant on certain boards (and it's made obvious when the topics come up)--but that's different from the way most people define a branch. Under the usual definition, it still depends on what is said on the board because certain branches can't stand one another, which will cause people of certain branches to leave creating "dominant" branches. But my experience has found the liberal/conservative-slant more accurate than a particular branch.
Quote:
I'll back that up in my rep thread, assuming I don't change my mind about making it...
"Why does everyone hate me" or "what does everyone think about me" or similar-type threads are locked on sight and create warnings for the person who started them. Admin advice.
Oh, True Red. I applaud your patience. XD
Shouldn't this be in the Marble Garden?
However, I WOULD like to say that religion is no opiate, ignorance on the subject is.
Quote:
Think about it, Christians use "where else would the universe have came from if not from god?" as a defense of the whole idea of religion.
Wrong. Many Christians simply believe that if, indeed, the 'Big Bang' occured, what caused it? And is it so far off to believe in an omnipotent being than to believe in a sudden explosion in gases that resulted in life? It's not a defense, either. It's an explanation.
Many modern archeologists these days have recovered countless artifacts and documents other than the Bible that only confirm the things the Bible talks about.
People say my faith is blind, it is not so. Nor is it misguided or misplaced.
Jesus Christ, is this thread still alive?
Putting this out to graze~
OMG, that pic is like old. but eh... yeah.
