Quote:I guess you'll believe anything he says. Richard Dawkins is a fraud, but more on that shortly.

Dawkins is a "fraud" but you swear by a book written to keep goat herders in line 2,500 years ago.

Really, man....you are really starting to look foolish.


Run into any talking snakes lately?

(May 7, 2010 at 7:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I guess you'll believe anything he says. Richard Dawkins is a fraud, but more on that shortly.

Dawkins is a "fraud" but you swear by a book written to keep goat herders in line 2,500 years ago.

Really, man....you are really starting to look foolish.

You've been saying that for like 70 pages, and in two different threads.

Minimalist Wrote:Run into any talking snakes lately?

Your comments are so silly they're starting to make me laugh. I guess that's a good thing.

(May 7, 2010 at 3:37 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Again showing your lack of brain power. Notice that I said believers, not Christians. Let's examine those numbers...

49% Christian
3% Unitarian
9% Jewish
7% agnostic
Total: 68%

3.6% atheist
9% no religion
Total: 12.6%

Total so far: 80.6%

Which means that 19.4% belong to other religions not mentioned, such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints and Seventh-day Adventists.*

I'm going to start being nice to you now, because you just went off the deep end. How the hell do you just make up statistics?

Do you realize the answers were incomplete, which leads to a figure less than 100 percent? Hmm, perhaps they didn't answer questions because they felt none of the categories fit their belief/lack thereof.

Nope, they had to necessarily be religious!

(May 7, 2010 at 3:37 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: As demonstrated, only 12.6% of Mensa members are either atheist or have no religion. The final tally: More than 80% of Mensa members are believers, and another 7% are agnostic. Which is what I said in the first place.

1. Your math is seriously lacking. You can't just fabricate statistics blatantly and expect to have a coherent point.
2. Who cares?

(May 7, 2010 at 3:37 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: *All of these are Abrahamic religions believing in the same God. Like Unitarians, the mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints and Seventh-day Adventists are Christian religions with beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.

Wipe if off first before you pull it out of your ass, it's stinking up the other threads.

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

"Well OBVIOUSLY the other people believe in something! They must be Unitarians or Jehovah's Witnesses! It makes perfect sense!"

Please quit life.

Quote:Really, man....you are really starting to look foolish.

What a charitable person you are Min.

tavarish Wrote:

AngelThMan Wrote:Again showing your lack of brain power. Notice that I said believers, not Christians. Let's examine those numbers...

49% Christian
3% Unitarian
9% Jewish
7% agnostic
Total: 68%

3.6% atheist
9% no religion
Total: 12.6%

Total so far: 80.6%

Which means that 19.4% belong to other religions not mentioned, such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints and Seventh-day Adventists.*

Tavarish Wrote:I'm going to start being nice to you now, because you just went off the deep end. How the hell do you just make up statistics?

Do you realize the answers were incomplete, which leads to a figure less than 100 percent? Hmm, perhaps they didn't answer questions because they felt none of the categories fit their belief/lack thereof.

Wrong again!! You'll notice how Muslims and others were left off the list. Doesn't it make sense that there would be Mensa members who are Muslim? But they don't usually list all categories, especially if they make up smaller numbers. The atheist and none-religious members were covered in the categories which were listed for that. The remaining ones were part of smaller religions which were not listed (e.g. Islam). That's how these lists usually go.

You're just an arrogant kid who loves to argue, and throws temper tantrums when confronted. I'm done talking to you. You're ignorant and nasty to boot.

(May 7, 2010 at 3:37 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: As demonstrated, only 12.6% of Mensa members are either atheist or have no religion. The final tally: More than 80% of Mensa members are believers, and another 7% are agnostic. Which is what I said in the first place.

Tavarish Wrote:1. Your math is seriously lacking.

Maybe you should look at your own retarded math??! 100% minus 12.6% (atheist and non-religious) = 87.4%

Tavarish Wrote:"Well OBVIOUSLY the other people believe in something! They must be Unitarians or Jehovah's Witnesses! It makes perfect sense!"

First of all, Unitarians were listed. And I was listing other possible religions which were separated from Christians (as were Unitarians.) It makes perfect sense.

(May 7, 2010 at 7:12 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: But you said that people who believe in God are stupid.

No, he said:

I'm calling people that think that god is the explanation for things like a rainbow or the birth of a baby stupid. I'm calling people that think god created the entire universe in 7 days only 6000 years ago stupid. You twit. Don't be stupid.

(May 7, 2010 at 7:12 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: If the results turned out in your favor, then you would consider it accurate. Now you're just dismissing my evidence with no evidence of your own.

(May 7, 2010 at 7:12 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Right. Because to you people only question faith when they think negatively upon it. If someone thinks hard about God, as did I, and the results are a positive embracing of the Lord, then he hasn't really questioned faith. This is a biased standard. Plenty of people question God, and as a result they turm towards him, including highly intelligent people.

Yes, but this isn't representative of the people Paul referred to. A group of people with high IQs have nothing to do with whether people who necessarily attribute God to things such as childbirth and the sun rising and embrace creationism are relatively intelligent.

(May 7, 2010 at 7:12 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: That's your evidence? You and your wife? Since when did the two of you become a complete and reliable poll to gauge the validity of Christianity? What you're offering here is an opinion based on the experiences and beliefs of one married couple. Couples often come to think as one in these matters, anyway.

He said nothing about the validity of Christianity. He was offering an example of people not giving religion much thought.

(May 7, 2010 at 7:12 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: It is a general consensus among atheists that believers are stupid. It was you who brought it up, remember? So I do have a point.

1. Please demonstrate this consensus.
2. He didn't bring it up. He made specific examples of who he considered to be stupid, nowhere did he say "people who believe in God are stupid"
3. You don't have a point. You never did.

---

(May 7, 2010 at 11:47 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Wrong again!! You'll notice how Muslims and others were left off the list. Doesn't it make sense that there would be Mensa members who are Muslim? But they don't usually list all categories, especially if they make up smaller numbers.

It doesn't matter if they don't list something, you can't MAKE SHIT UP when you have a lack of information. Unless you can show me another set of credible statistics reflecting your numbers, you can't make the claim that the other 20 percent is necessarily theistic.

(May 7, 2010 at 11:47 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: The atheists and none-religious members were covered in the categories which were listed for that. The remaining ones were part of smaller religions which were not listed. That's how these lists usually go. You're just an arrogant kid who loves to argue, and throws temper tantrums when confronted. I'm done talking to you. You're ignorant and nasty to boot. Why don't you take that stupid crocoduck of yours and jump off a cliff?

I love how you call me ignorant, then proceed to fabricate statistics. Good shit.

(May 7, 2010 at 11:47 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: First of all, Unitarians were listed. And I was listing other possible religions which were separated from Christians (as were Unitarians.) It makes perfect sense.

It makes perfect sense when you're making shit up to fit a conclusion which is largely irrelevant in the conversation.

(May 7, 2010 at 11:47 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Why don't you look at your own retarded math??! 100% minus 12.6% (atheist and non-religious) = 87.4%

I'll give you an example:

There are 100 items from a supermarket in a bag, you tell someone to count them and tally them to make an accurate percentage.

However, they don't count them all. You end up with this figure

20% fruit
30% meat
20% vegetables
10% non-food items

Now, since you have a partial tally for non-food items, can you safely say that the other 20% of items are necessarily food items?

Please see the folly in your argument and quit this shit.

AngelThMan Wrote:Why don't you look at your own retarded math??! 100% minus 12.6% (atheist and non-religious) = 87.4%

tavarish Wrote:I'll give you an example:

There are 100 items from a supermarket in a bag, you tell someone to count them and tally them to make an accurate percentage.

However, they don't count them all. You end up with this figure

20% fruit
30% meat
20% vegetables
10% non-food items

Now, since you have a partial tally for non-food items, can you safely say that the other 20% of items are necessarily food items?

I'd say you should move to another cashier.

Let me give you an example:

When public opinion polls are conducted, and only 100 people are questioned, the results don't say: .01% of the population is pro-choice, and .003% is anti-abortion, and 99.987% did not answer the poll so we don't know how they feel. The 100 people questioned represent the entire nation in that poll. So obviously, in the Mensa poll, those who were questioned represent the entire society, not the amount of members which were questioned. Since there were categories for atheists and members with no religion, then the 19.4% remaining members are indeed theistic, but part of religions which represented smaller percentages and which were omitted from the list.

Sweet Lord, give me patience with this child!

(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: When public opinion polls are conducted, and only 100 people are questioned, the results don't say: .01% of the population is pro-choice, and .003% is anti-abortion, and 99.987% did not answer the poll so we don't know how they feel.

1. How would a survey of 100 people get fractions of a percent in anything?
2. Public opinion surveys rarely EVER have all people answering all questions. This does not give you the right to speak for them and speculate what they could have been or make calls based on limited information.

(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: The 100 people questioned represent the entire nation in that poll.

Ridiculously small sample size for a nation.

(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: So obviously, in the Mensa poll, those who were questioned represent the entire society, not the amount of members which were questioned.

Wrong. The results are representative of 80.6 percent of the population, not its entirety, as there is missing data. What don't you get about the phrase "You can't make up statistics when there is no information present"?

(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Since there were categories for atheists and members with no religion, then the 19.4% remaining members are indeed theistic, but part of religions which represented smaller percentages and which were omitted from the list.

Where the hell did it say ANY OF THAT, ANYWHERE on the site? Please provide some sort of demonstration of your assertion. I noticed you glossed over my example when it deals with the direct fallacy of your claim. Re-read it.

Here's ANOTHER example:

http://stason.org/TULARC/self-growth/men...Mensa.html

* MENSA DEMOGRAPHICS (USA)
64.4% male, 35.4% female (0.2% won't say)

Following your reasoning, the .2 percent necessarily can't be male or female, as there already were categories in place.

Does that make sense to you?

(May 8, 2010 at 12:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Sweet Lord, give me patience with this child!

Assumptions aren't evidence of anything. Loose and muddy associations aren't evidence for anything. You come here trying to form coherent arguments and you fail miserably time and time again. Either fix your modes of reasoning or stop posting garbage.

(May 8, 2010 at 1:38 am)tavarish Wrote: * MENSA DEMOGRAPHICS (USA)
64.4% male, 35.4% female (0.2% won't say)

Following your reasoning, the .2 percent necessarily can't be male or female, as there already were categories in place.

This only proves my point. As you see, the 0.2% that won't say is listed in its own category. There was no such listing in the religion category. They could just as easily have said 19.4% didn't say, or didn't respond. They didn't because that's not the case. Listing one category to say that 0.2% didn't reveal their sex* is no big deal. But listing 10 more religions was likely too cumbersome, and they instead omitted them. Haven't you ever seen an incomplete list? This is what it usually means. They are giving you the highlights of the list, not the whole thing.

Regardless, this is a pointless discussion. Even by your math, the majority of Mensa members are believers. So let's stop it right here.

*Probably trannies or in that family. (Not judging, just guessing.)

Quote:You've been saying that for like 70 pages, and in two different threads.

You keep feeding people the same straight line over and over. You do not deserve variety for that performance.