|
Post by Vegas on Jan 14, 2019 17:42:07 GMT
One thing I appreciate from this thread and the other one is once again stats suck as an argument since there is such a massive need to round up to 100%. I’m not sure I’ve seen so much wrong in so few pages. Why can't you see that we are now 29% more happier than when we were 62% more miserable than when we were.....?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 14, 2019 17:53:08 GMT
What are you talking about? Who can tell. Seems to be that if there are rounding errors the numbers are wrong...? 100% is the entirety of the sample. Therefore in statistics, you don't have to round up to 100%. You always have 100%. Not to mention: Nobody on this thread mentioned "rounding up to 100%" before. So I'd like to know what CoolJGS☺ meant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 18:07:21 GMT
Who can tell. Seems to be that if there are rounding errors the numbers are wrong...? 100% is the entirety of the sample. Therefore in statistics, you don't have to round up to 100%. You always have 100%. Not to mention: Nobody on this thread mentioned "rounding up to 100%" before. So I'd like to know what CoolJGS☺ meant. But when quoting numbers people sometimes round them. If 3/9 of a sample are A and 3/9 are B and 3/9 are C, it's not uncommon for somebody to describe that as 33% A, 33% B and 33% C - a total of 99%. And indeed no matter how many decimal places you went to, you'd still have the same issue. Anyway, who can tell. The takeaway from this thread is that even though it's 70 years since we've had a major global war, and the wars we do have tend on average to be rather small and limited affairs compared to those we have had historically... some people are daft enough to interpret this as being proof positive that the world is choking in unprecedented wars, and this is a sure sign that the end of the world is coming soon. It's stupid, but then if religious people were sensible about things they wouldn't be religious for long.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 14, 2019 18:17:24 GMT
Who can tell. Seems to be that if there are rounding errors the numbers are wrong...? 100% is the entirety of the sample. Therefore in statistics, you don't have to round up to 100%. You always have 100%. Not to mention: Nobody on this thread mentioned "rounding up to 100%" before. So I'd like to know what CoolJGS☺ meant. i meant that the rounding is to the thing we believe the most. Thus when some goober says there is a direct correlation between “theism” and climate change they are completely wrong in that overly broad assessment . When some goober says that a religious group is poor and poorly educated, they are lying about the stats they are posting. The stat is what it is, the error is in the interpretation meaning more than it should in order to justify a point not proven by the stat.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 14, 2019 18:34:10 GMT
i meant that thenrojnding is to the thing we believe the most. Thus when some goober says there is a direct correlation “theism” and climate change they are completely wrong in that overly broad assessment assessmentt. When some goober says that a religious group is poor and poorly educated, they are lying about the stats they are posting. The stat is what it is, the error is in the interpretation meaning more than it should in order to justify a point not proven by the stat. As this chart shows: 78% of people who use stats in an argument misinterpret their meaning. 20% of them don't think that's funny. 1% of them think that a blue Pac-Man looks pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 14, 2019 18:53:09 GMT
All these numbers and statistics are so confusing and misleading, so shut up and be obedient to God.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 14, 2019 19:22:23 GMT
All these numbers and statistics are so confusing and misleading, so shut up and be obedient to God. thats the funny part. The stats are so incredibly easy to grasp that it is an amazing display of stupidity that the people who post them don’t get what they’re saying. I guess they are more in love with their typing skills than accuracy...
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 14, 2019 20:03:44 GMT
When I first began reading this thread I thought picking a date like 1914 seemed kind of arbitrary, being ignorant of JW history. But I just ran across this quotation which seems to indicate that that date has special significance to JW's and their Biblical calculations. Charles Taze Russel 1894, responding to a question about whether the world could last until 1914. I guess "God's dates" didn't go exactly according to plan.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 14, 2019 20:10:44 GMT
Thanks for making me smile.
I'm sure dangling keys in front of you would have that same effect. When your main line of defense is being defended by Goz... you need to rethink your path in life.. Hell.... According to your own dumbassed standard: You failed to show evidence that you wouldn't do exactly as I said if the religious person's outlook was more cheery... so, you're still wrong. I am sincerely flattered, considering the total irrational illogical garbage crapola that the religious ( and you who flip flops in a most embarrassing way) bring to the table of discussion on these Boards.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 14, 2019 20:19:39 GMT
When I first began reading this thread I thought picking a date like 1914 seemed kind of arbitrary, being ignorant of JW history. But I just ran across this quotation which seems to indicate that that date has special significance to JW's and their Biblical calculations. Charles Taze Russel 1894, responding to a question about whether the world could last until 1914. I guess "God's dates" didn't go exactly according to plan. This is another head scratcher. Theophobiacs sthink they are uncovering a mystery that is as simple to uncover as going to jw.org lol. They have never been shy about their mistakes although 1914 is not one of them. They have an entire book about them and routinely mention them in their magazines and videos.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 14, 2019 20:23:44 GMT
100% is the entirety of the sample. Therefore in statistics, you don't have to round up to 100%. You always have 100%. Not to mention: Nobody on this thread mentioned "rounding up to 100%" before. So I'd like to know what CoolJGS☺ meant. i meant that the rounding is to the thing we believe the most. Thus when some goober says there is a direct correlation between “theism” and climate change they are completely wrong in that overly broad assessment . When some goober says that a religious group is poor and poorly educated, they are lying about the stats they are posting. The stat is what it is, the error is in the interpretation meaning more than it should in order to justify a point not proven by the stat. Reading this really stupid post, I was much struck by your last sentence,... THAT aside however for the moment as it could be seen as a red herring in this thread.... Please give me a list of areas where you ( as a quasi JW ) think that mankind is worse of now than before 1914 or in the past, with evidence. It's going to be hard without statistics that aren't rounded, butt give it your best shot. Things like health, education, child death rates, people starving, housing, numbers involved in war, technology making lives easier happier and more pleasant, leisure time, travel ( evidence for which all you have to do is look at WHO website etc ), however the floor is yours. How is life so much worse that you lot will welcome the 'End Times'?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 14, 2019 20:25:18 GMT
When I first began reading this thread I thought picking a date like 1914 seemed kind of arbitrary, being ignorant of JW history. But I just ran across this quotation which seems to indicate that that date has special significance to JW's and their Biblical calculations. Charles Taze Russel 1894, responding to a question about whether the world could last until 1914. I guess "God's dates" didn't go exactly according to plan. This is another head scratcher. Theophobiacs sthink they are uncovering a mystery that is as simple to uncover as going to jw.org lol. They have never been shy about their mistakes although 1914 is not one of them. They have an entire book about them and routinely mention them in their magazines and videos. … and yet like REALLY stupid people, they never learn from their 'mistakes'?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 14, 2019 21:53:29 GMT
100% is the entirety of the sample. Therefore in statistics, you don't have to round up to 100%. You always have 100%. Not to mention: Nobody on this thread mentioned "rounding up to 100%" before. So I'd like to know what CoolJGS☺ meant. i meant that the rounding is to the thing we believe the most. Thus when some goober says there is a direct correlation between “theism” and climate change they are completely wrong in that overly broad assessment . I don't think anyone claimed that here on this thread; but even if someone did, they would not be wrong in pointing out a correlation. If such a correlation did exist. The fun part with statistics starts when people start implying causation from correlation. This is usually false. But I don't think I've ever heard someone implying a causation between theism and climate change. EDIT: I just reread parts of the thread. I pointed out a correlation between denying global warming and theism. This correlation was found out by others. But I didn't mention causation. And I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of the study didn't either. When some goober says that a religious group is poor and poorly educated, they are lying about the stats they are posting. They are not wrong when they are pointing out a correlation between educational level and religiosity; if such a correlation exists. Implying causation is something else. See above. The stat is what it is, the error is in the interpretation meaning more than it should in order to justify a point not proven by the stat. That would be correct; but you have so far failed to prove that it happened on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2019 0:59:12 GMT
You said, "Everything is relative and based on perspective.." in defense of personal experience as a valid counter argument to global statistics in a thread that set out to make global assertions. All the sneering and name calling that you can dish out doesn't change what you have been trying to argue.
No.. Klingon cited a quote from his grandparents... a very common sentiment held by many... and Al June cited statistics as if K's grandparents were wrong because his statistics said they should be. I'm pointing out the fact that THEY MIGHT NOT BE WRONG... in spite of the statistics. ed: (They might have to lock their doors now, when in the past, they didn't) But... Once again, because this conversation was started by a religious person... We have the same dumbassed fucknuts crying "THIS CAN NOT BE!!" But it is... and you're just a fucknut of the dumbassed variety. It is clear that you neither understand the concept of statistical evidence nor that of anecdotal evidence. Not to mention an argumentum ad populum ' a very common sentiment held by many..' It would seem, in that case that the dumbarsery on show here, is your own.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 15, 2019 2:01:15 GMT
No.. Klingon cited a quote from his grandparents... a very common sentiment held by many... and Al June cited statistics as if K's grandparents were wrong because his statistics said they should be. I'm pointing out the fact that THEY MIGHT NOT BE WRONG... in spite of the statistics. ed: (They might have to lock their doors now, when in the past, they didn't) But... Once again, because this conversation was started by a religious person... We have the same dumbassed fucknuts crying "THIS CAN NOT BE!!" But it is... and you're just a fucknut of the dumbassed variety. It is clear that you neither understand the concept of statistical evidence nor that of anecdotal evidence. Not to mention an argumentum ad populum ' a very common sentiment held by many..' It would seem, in that case that the dumbarsery on show here, is your own.I'm not saying that his grandparents' sentiment overrides the statistics in anyway, ya dumb twat.... I'm pointing out that their experience doesn't cease to exist in the face of those statistics. Saying that their experience isn't real because they don't coincide with the statistics is the fallacy... Citing that they are not alone... is still a fact... You getting your crusty panties in a bunch doesn't change any of that.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2019 4:25:18 GMT
It is clear that you neither understand the concept of statistical evidence nor that of anecdotal evidence. Not to mention an argumentum ad populum ' a very common sentiment held by many..' It would seem, in that case that the dumbarsery on show here, is your own. I'm not saying that his grandparents' sentiment overrides the statistics in anyway, ya dumb twat.... Saying that their experience isn't real because they don't coincide with the statistics is the fallacy... Citing that they are not alone... is still a fact... You getting your crusty panties in a bunch doesn't change any of that. No-one is saying that it isn't, just that anecdotal evidence is not relevant. Individual can and do claim ANYTHING, true or not. e.g. Cody claimed his relative was 'faith healed'.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 15, 2019 5:14:58 GMT
I'm not saying that his grandparents' sentiment overrides the statistics in anyway, ya dumb twat.... Saying that their experience isn't real because they don't coincide with the statistics is the fallacy... Citing that they are not alone... is still a fact... You getting your crusty panties in a bunch doesn't change any of that. No-one is saying that it isn't, just that anecdotal evidence is not relevant. Individual can and do claim ANYTHING, true or not. e.g. Cody claimed his relative was 'faith healed'. There is a difference between an experience that should be doubted because it seems to rely on fanciful thinking/gullibility and experience that one presumes is inaccurate just because it doesn't coincide with their numbers. One is based on the presumption of the experiencer and the other is based on the presumption of the observer of the experiencer.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2019 6:10:01 GMT
No-one is saying that it isn't, just that anecdotal evidence is not relevant. Individual can and do claim ANYTHING, true or not. e.g. Cody claimed his relative was 'faith healed'. There is a difference between an experience that should be doubted because it seems to rely on fanciful thinking/gullibility and experience that one presumes is inaccurate just because it doesn't coincide with their numbers. One is based on the presumption of the experiencer and the other is based on the presumption of the observer of the experiencer. AGAIN no-one is querying the content of the experience as being true or relevant, just it's relevance to anyone butt the individuals involved.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 15, 2019 14:03:41 GMT
There is a difference between an experience that should be doubted because it seems to rely on fanciful thinking/gullibility and experience that one presumes is inaccurate just because it doesn't coincide with their numbers. One is based on the presumption of the experiencer and the other is based on the presumption of the observer of the experiencer. AGAIN no-one is querying the content of the experience as being true or relevant, just it's relevance to anyone butt the individuals involved. Jesus Christ, twat... This was aspect of the discussion was started because their experience was being questioned... and it over/settled 2 days ago... Do try to keep up... Tell the nursing home attendants to up your meds... You're getting confused and crotchety, again. Edit:And... I'd like to think that we'd like to think that everybody's negative experience is relevant to everyone.. even if they aren't in the statistical majority.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 15, 2019 20:32:50 GMT
AGAIN no-one is querying the content of the experience as being true or relevant, just it's relevance to anyone butt the individuals involved. Jesus Christ, twat... This was aspect of the discussion was started because their experience was being questioned... and it over/settled 2 days ago... Do try to keep up... Tell the nursing home attendants to up your meds... You're getting confused and crotchety, again. Edit:And... I'd like to think that we'd like to think that everybody's negative experience is relevant to everyone.. even if they aren't in the statistical majority. I can't believe why some people on here think you 'funny' as lately you have turned into an unpleasant little man without any real views or values of your own who flip flops between the theists and atheists as if it is a popularity contest. Re your edit. Again irrelevant to the question of whether belief in the last days or even faith healing has any veracity ( the topic remember?) Everyone has bad things happen and not all of us resort to delusion to fix our problems, let alone believe that we are everyone else is so bad that they must die butt due to belonging to a cult you will live. BTW re your edit: there ARE no stats on Armageddon or faith heaing because there have never been any evidence to collect.
|
|