A History of Statistics, 17th Century. Have fun with all the links.

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/verduin/stathist/sh_17.htm

(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: . . . you would put a question mark at the end of a question.

Nah the exclamation point was just fine, like you would know in the first place, you purposely quote people out of context.

(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Why would I have continued after that? It was pretty much, "science hates religion." Get yourself a binky, Stat and get on with the debate.

Again, you didn’t quote me correctly. It was science hates religion but arose from religion, hence the use of the terms PARADOX and AS STRANGE AS IT MAY SEEM. Is that really that hard to understand?

(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Perfect logic, as always.

I just regurgitated your same reasoning back at you, if you don’t like it what does that say about your original reasoning? Lol.

(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Whatever you say.

Take a course in logic, you will be taught exactly what I said, Ad Hominem is a last ditch desperation that proves nothing.

(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: You then said just science in like ten posts! Fuck your op. Follow the goddamn debate without slipping up so much and this shit won't fucking happen. Type what you mean and mean what you type. I wasn't being dishonest. You're a prick for suggesting it when it is obvious you said science in other posts and only resorted to your op because you knew you had done so. You see how something as simple as rereading your posts can avoid all kinds of confusion.

It’s called telescoping. If I am writing a piece of work on “Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists” I would refer to them as this in my introduction and then it is completely legitimate to only refer to them as “terrorists” later in the work in order to be efficient. This whole time it has been very clear I have been addressing modern science, it was in my OP and all of my quotes were referring to it. You are just grasping at more straws.

(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: I imagine that you do not read much, do you? When do you think the first census was taken? Now, don't be a lazy asshole. Actually Google census and find the oldest reference of a census being taken. I'll wait here. While you're at it, think about where your bullshit Inquisition death toll statistics came from.

How on earth would a census have anything to do with science (modern science) arising from religion? Red herring.

(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Get fucked.

Mature.

(August 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Why would I? You made the claim.

Using the word battle just implied you had actually responded with some quotes. Yes, I made the claim, and I supported it.

---

(August 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A History of Statistics, 17th Century. Have fun with all the links.

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/verduin/stathist/sh_17.htm

Yet science (modern science) and religion are mentioned in there not once.

Doesn't a census result in statistics? I'm sure it does. Furthermore, you have quoted, repeatedly, statistics deduced by modern scholars. You fucking know that your argument that they didn't have statistics back then is bullshit. Fucking troll.

Science is science Statler. Statistics was a lively area of study, and statistics were kept. I'm not nice like Shell, I'll laugh at you, and reduce your positions to the absurd until you give up...and you know it.

(August 4, 2011 at 2:37 pm)Shell B Wrote: Doesn't a census result in statistics? I'm sure it does. Furthermore, you have quoted, repeatedly, statistics deduced by modern scholars. You fucking know that your argument that they didn't have statistics back then is bullshit. Fucking troll.

You wanted statistics about science (modern science) arising from religion, even if this were possible I am not sure what they'd even look like (x-y scatter plots of the number of people reading Bibles while simultaneously shaking test tubes? Lol). I pointed out that statistics were not used much back then; you made some red herring point about the census. You really think you are proving your point effectively? That's scary if you really do pseudo-mod.

---

(August 4, 2011 at 2:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Science is science Statler. Statistics was a lively area of study, and statistics were kept. I'm not nice like Shell, I'll laugh at you, and reduce your positions to the absurd until you give up...and you know it.

Actually one thing I do know is that you are all talk. You talk a good game, but we all know what that is worth. I assume you were trying to be funny when you said you were not nice like Shell? If so, that was pretty amusing, I will give you that.

(August 4, 2011 at 3:21 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You wanted statistics about science (modern science) arising from religion, even if this were possible I am not sure what they'd even look like (x-y scatter plots of the number of people reading Bibles while simultaneously shaking test tubes? Lol).

I didn't even say I wanted statistics. I said massive quoting will only be feasible as "proof" if backed up by something like statistics. What I asked for was an outline leading from religion to the origins of modern science.

(August 4, 2011 at 3:21 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I pointed out that statistics were not used much back then; you made some red herring point about the census.

Not a red herring, dude. I was demonstrating that statistics were used back then and as far back as the earliest civilizations.

(August 4, 2011 at 3:21 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You really think you are proving your point effectively? That's scary if you really do pseudo-mod.

I don't have a point to make. You do. Call me a pseudo-mod all you want, Stat.

(August 4, 2011 at 3:38 pm)Shell B Wrote: I didn't even say I wanted statistics. I said massive quoting will only be feasible as "proof" if backed up by something like statistics. What I asked for was an outline leading from religion to the origins of modern science.

I don’t remember you ever asking for this outline. I would think that the actual founders of modern science’s word that it was their religious views that fueled their science should be all the proof anyone needs. Unless of course you believe they were just lying and were secretly atheists whose atheistic worldviews drove their scientific endeavors? I could see you believing something along these lines.

(August 4, 2011 at 3:38 pm)Shell B Wrote: Not a red herring, dude. I was demonstrating that statistics were used back then and as far back as the earliest civilizations.

Ok…whatever..dude. :-P I think we have beaten this dead horse enough. I will just take the founders at their own word, you can keep believing they were liars. It doesn’t make a difference to me. I just can’t believe I got the chance to use Dawkins as a source against an atheist; the universe must be out of tilt or something. :-P

(August 4, 2011 at 3:51 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I don’t remember you ever asking for this outline.

Serious, Stat? I only did like four times.

(August 4, 2011 at 3:51 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I just can’t believe I got the chance to use Dawkins as a source against an atheist; the universe must be out of tilt or something. :-P

Therein lies one of the problems. You have a book that you believe in. My lack of belief in god has nothing to do with anybody's book or opinion. If you want to use other people's opinions to prove a point, I suggest you choose sheep to have discussions with.

(August 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm)Shell B Wrote: Serious, Stat? I only did like four times.

Really? Could you please show me where? I just can't seem to find you asking for an outline anywhere in your other posts.

Quote: Therein lies one of the problems. You have a book that you believe in. My lack of belief in god has nothing to do with anybody's book or opinion. If you want to use other people's opinions to prove a point, I suggest you choose sheep to have discussions with.

I wasn't appealing to just an opinion, I was appealing to an expert on such matters. There is a difference. I don't see how the fact that your belief in the non-existence of God has no foundation outside of yourself has to do with anything.

(August 4, 2011 at 7:44 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Really? Could you please show me where? I just can't seem to find you asking for an outline anywhere in your other posts.

Whatever, Stat. It's there. You know it is. You responded to it.

(August 4, 2011 at 7:44 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I don't see how the fact that your belief in the non-existence of God has no foundation outside of yourself has to do with anything.

Of course you don't. You keep making statements about how shocked you are that not all atheists bow down to Dawkins. I'm not sure how you could still hold that position in this forum, but hell, think what you want. The reason I mention that my disbelief has nothing to do with a fucking book or someone else's opinions is because you keep up with the Dawkins shit. How many goddamn times does one person have to tell you that they don't read Dawkins before you figure it the fuck out and get off that horse?