Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I took a college level class on formal statistical methods, and an advanced course during my MA program. That is how I know that these formulas work.
How is it that you know that they do not? It is obvious to me, and to several other participants in this thread, that you do not have an understanding of formal statistics, something you have made obvious by your posts.
I think that the remedy here is not further incorrect statements from you in the absence of a proper background, but rather for you to enroll in a class on formal statistics. Then you too will learn how they work and that they work.
If after taking such a course, you still retain objections, well then at least you would have some basis for them. Right now you are just contributing noise and noise is boring/annoying.
I took college class, blah, blah, blah, you have no idea what you are talking about.
That's all you said here. No argument against what I said, no debating the point, just ad hominem to deflect from the topic at hand
And yet, those of us who do are peppered with the well -poisoning, loaded ad hom of 'If you don't believe, why do you keep talking about it?' The Religious apologists has a grab bag of cunning responses to anything we put to them. The one thing they don't have is any good reasons for their beliefs.
If anything, the older generation (like myself) have land -lines rather than cellphones because that is what they are used to. That would tend to cut out the younger ones who all seem to have cellphones. I reckon that you are just looking to reasons to reject unwelcome findings.
Well, we shall have to wait and see, but there is certainly no results coming out that suggests that the rush to 'Nones' (Regrettably I wasted effort establishing copyright to "The Atheist avalanche" ) is not happening, though Russia, with a huge gallop to the Russian Orthodox church, was a disappointment, I admit.
The bolded sentence showed, that not only have you not read my responses, but it also shows that you are likely disagree with me not because of what I said but because of who I am.
You know, all this prattling about the "unscientific" basis of the Pew's study reminds me of Stephen Colbert's coinage of the word "truthiness". The Pew study doesn't feel "truthy" to JT and his objections to the study DO sound "truthy". This is the degenerate standard for substantiation and assessment of factuality that many theists and social conservatives have sunk to. It's like they have a little "truth detector" inside them which must give them a certain subjective pleasant feeling before they can accept even sound, substantiated statements as truth. In other words for them, truth (or actually, Truth) is a subjective feeling, completely untethered from reality. Such folks use words like "can't" and "must" a great deal, as in, "that obviously can't be true" or "there must be something more". And that choice of words is telling ... it points to a rigid, imposed dogma which must be satisfied ahead of mere facts in evidence. "Let god be true and every man a liar".
I have never been under the illusion that someone like JT would recognize simple facts if they could be made into a 2x6 and I could smack him in the head with it. I suspect that folks like him are largely beyond the reach of reason unless, like with me, something really earth-shattering happens to them personally in a way that permanently ruptures the bubble in which they live -- something I would not wish on my worst enemy, much less poor JT.
The value of these exchanges is not in freethinkers enlightening the actual interlocutors, it is more that it hones and focuses our grasp of the arguments and provides an archive -- a treasure-trove, really -- of material for the people who pass through here who are really seeking to be their best selves. Those folks can see that there is a rational basis for living as a freethinker and can see the holes in thought systems whose constraints are not reality-based.
Blah blah blah, I don't know why you are wrong so I will just go on an irrelevant rant to make it seem like you are wrong but I really can't prove that.
The bolded sentence showed, that not only have you not read my responses, but it also shows that you are likely disagree with me not because of what I said but because of who I am.
You're electrons on a screen as far as I can tell. So why should anyone give you any more credence than any other set of electrons on a screen?
Those who have no answer must resort to characterization of the argument directed their way.
It is unfortunate that we have not the means to operate under cross examination rules where an actual response may be compelled, and where one may not get away with "blah, blah, blah."
Those who have no answer must resort to characterization of the argument directed their way.
It is unfortunate that we have not the means to operate under cross examination rules where an actual response may be compelled, and where one may not get away with "blah, blah, blah."
I can't respond to you not saying anything. Saying you went to college for something proves what? Saying I'm wrong proves what? You have no evidence to support your point. If you said, well here's why I disagree with your last response....instead all you said, is I was wrong. Okay.
I can't respond to you not saying anything. Saying you went to college for something proves what? Saying I'm wrong proves what? You have no evidence to support your point. If you said, well here's why I disagree with your last response....instead all you said, is I was wrong. Okay.
You were provided with the evidence, did you read the links referenced? Apparently not for you show no indication of having learned anything. To say that you have not been provided with evidence does not become true because you either failed to read the evidence offered, or failed to understand it if you did.
In the choice between believing what I have been taught at a University, and believing your groundless assertions, I shall side with the University. Between believing in what has been in very common use for years and years and has been shown to perform as promised to a specific mathematical degree, and believing in your groundless assertions, I shall go with that which has been proven.
You were provided with the evidence, did you read the links referenced? Apparently not for you show no indication of having learned anything. To say that you have not been provided with evidence does not become true because you either failed to read the evidence offered, or failed to understand it if you did.
In the choice between believing what I have been taught at a University, and believing your groundless assertions, I shall side with the University. Between believing in what has been in very common use for years and years and has been shown to perform as promised to a specific mathematical degree, and believing in your groundless assertions, I shall go with that which has been proven.
I made my rebuttal. You are certainly free to disagree but let's not act like I didn't state my case. I made my point clear and you didn't offer a response other than puffing up your chest about being taught these concepts in college (which again doesn't in anyway automatically make you right so why is it necessary for you to bring it up).
I made my rebuttal. You are certainly free to disagree but let's not act like I didn't state my case. I made my point clear and you didn't offer a response other than puffing up your chest about being taught these concepts in college (which again doesn't in anyway automatically make you right so why is it necessary for you to bring it up).
He's here all week folks!!
Please, don't forget to tip your waitress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) is not happening, though Russia, with a huge gallop to the Russian Orthodox church, was a disappointment, I admit.
