Comments
-
@Thatbright, exactly
-
@Thatbright, I mean - a lot of advancements in history came from Christians; public libraries, colleges, architecture, etc.
-
@Thatbright, yeah I'd say you nailed it on the head with that one.
-
@GiantDwarf01, oh I was being sarcastic since that's the joke that goes along with almost EVERY atheist picture it feels like
-
@Thatbright, that's how I feel when I hear that kinda stuff too. I mean I get it, not everyone is going to believe what I believe, and that's perfectly fine. But I'm tired of people attacking my intelligence for believing there is a higher being that cares about me. Maybe I'm wrong there's really no way for me to know, but I believe in right.
-
@Thatbright, ah I see. Well, the more you know!
-
@jklyt1, exactly. I saw on Facebook earlier people blaming all sorts of ancient wars on Christians, and all sorts of other stuff for things that happened hundreds of years ago but fail to realize the church is the only thing that kept alot of knowledge around during the dark ages. And I don't really see Christians "holding science back" today either
-
@GiantDwarf01, They destroyed a lot of them, too. I'm not trying to be rude, just saying that they don't have a perfect history. No group does.
-
@GiantDwarf01, The Romans made all that waaaaaay before the Christians did. Just saying.
-
@Ryjaki, most public libraries, hospitals, and colleges were built by Christians. I'm not saying who built it first - but Christians did a lot of them and made the mainstream versions where some still exist today
-
@GiantDwarf01, Be that as it may, your statement that "a lot of advancements in history came from Christians" is incorrect.
-
@Thatbright, European Christian churches weren't the only institutes that safeguarded knowledge. The Arab world made a better effort to preserve Roman teachings when Europe fell into the dark ages. While Europe declined in science, the Middle East was in a golden age of science.
-
@Darth Something, sure. That's fair. Every group that's large and lasted for years has bad subsets in it and stuff.
-
@Ryjaki, but they have - they are advancements, and there's a lot of them, and they're from Christian groups so...
-
@Thatbright, The way I see it is if religious folk keep it in their pants, so to speak, and not teach kids in schools that evolution is wrong or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and not try and apply their religion to the laws I have to follow, we're cool. That includes every religion. Keep it out of my life and my family's lives, do what you want.
-
@UmActually, I'm pretty sure that only happens in backwoods places though. I've never heard any of my teachers (or anyone I know's teachers) say that evolution isn't true or that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Also the Vatican's stance on evolution is that yeah it's true and they even say that Genesis isn't a exact documentary on how everything happened. So it's not even the religion itself that is saying these things it's people
-
@Thatbright, Most American congressmen on the right (Ted Cruz, as an example) believe that evolution should be given as much weight as creation. While I'm ok with people believing in creationism, the only real evidence for it is a percieved lack of evidence and general understanding for evolution. And, yeah, it's the people saying these things and trying to make these laws because a religion cannot exist without followers.
-
@UmActually, my point is the official ruling body of catholicism (though I'm not Catholic but still it's the main Christian ruling body) says that that's what the belief is. Saying a religion can't exist without followers is true but those specific people are even wrong about their own religion
-
@Thatbright, I'd say that that's a narrow view of Christianity, most Christians don't listen to the Pope or agree with Catholicism in any way. Eastern Orthodox has the archdiocese, Baptists have that council thing, etc. The Pope is to them what the London Mayor is to me, maybe a member of a government that is similar to my government, but not involved in any way, you know? In addition to that, geo-political climate influences religious interpretation. Baptists gained legitimacy in the Southern US, thus are more socially conservative and run by the community. Mormons gained a foothold in an empty land in the Western US, thus polygamy was accepted to populate the area and priesthood of the believer/missions formed to bring people in, Catholicism came up during the end of Roman Empire and was funded by the State, meaning it needed a leader, whereas every other sect of Christianity did/does not need/want a person to interpret their text of choice.
-
@Thatbright, just a heads up there is a movie called gods not dead and even a gods not dead 2 and they are pretty popular and literally are about how terrible it is that a teacher can't teach religious scripture in school. People are stupid and crazy and they will follow religion has started a lot of wars specifically from different beliefs. Also and lastly there was literally a pope called the war pope who started on average huge amounts of wars and restricted and helped ruin the development of Persia the most developed country at the time even discovering the world is round way before Galileo and there was a pope from 1890s-1950s who brokered a treaty with nazi Germany's and supported them. That is all please believe whatever you want just don't follow hypocrites
-
@Thatbright, religion is wrong. Same as feminist
-
@jklyt1, speaking as someone who has had a large number of arguments with people about religion (and as someone who is pleasantly surprised by how civil this debate has been), I don't mock or insult or attack people for having faith in a higher power. To me religion has always been a way to find and answer for the questions that we can't answer ourselves. "Why are we here?", "what happens to us after we die?", etc. The part where I butt heads with religious ideology is when faith is used instead of fact. Creationism bothers me because it is ignorance. There is empirical evidence disputing nearly every part of the theory, and yet many people fight for it. Believing in a story that COULD be true can be admirable. Believing in a story that CANNOT be true is lunacy and should not be respected. Let me put it this way: if someone preached at you from a 'Holy Book', and it was Harry Potter, would it really matter to you what the message was? It's coming from either idiocy or insanity...
-
@I Are Lebo, ...so if the message is a good one, it's almost definitely by accident. Look, all I'm saying is, I don't care what people believe. Whatever helps you get through your life is fine and not really my business, whether it's Jesus, Muhammad, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But when people preach BS and try to influence other people's lives with their own beliefs, that's when I get angry. The whole gay marriage issue is why I dislike Christianity as a whole. It's a non issue, because it's nobody else's business. Religion can be a good thing. It builds communities. But it also preaches ignorance (do you have any idea how many people think that Noah's Ark was a true story?!), and it oppresses people based on faulty (or non existent) logic. Anyone that thinks they can speak for God, and claims to know what God wants or doesn't want, can just fück straight off.
-
@Thatbright, stem cell research
-
@TheDoctorsTARDIS, I think the whole argument against stem cell research came from morons who thought that the scientists were aborting healthy babies specifically to use the stem cells. They didn't understand that the stem cells being used would've otherwise been incinerated, not brought to term and raised as children.
-
@GiantDwarf01, You are thinking Romans and Greeks friend XD
-
@GiantDwarf01, Nevermind that, I see you already discussed it with somebody else ^^, go back to sleep
-
@Thatbright, not exactly stupid but a lot are very closed minded as you can see by the downvotes.
-
@Thatbright, during that same time there were the crusades which were entirely the christians' doing
-
@Assassinator2399, yeah but I feel the close minded ones are the minority. Alot of people I know and I see are pretty open minded about a lot of things. The close minded ones are the ones that get on TV and stuff because they bring in the views. Also I'm fairly certain that other religions start wars too, and there have been plenty of wars started for non religious reasons
-
@Thatbright, that may be so, but you have to remember it doesn't matter if they're the minority if the majority keep silent. The radical Muslims murdering people are definitely a minority. Doesn't make them not a threat. The Christian minority who oppress freedom have been quite successful at doing so. That's why in spite of gay marriage being legalized at the federal level it's still illegal in something like half the country. It's a false victory for freedom.
-
@I Are Lebo, well people get mad when we say that all Muslims are terrorists (definitely not what I'm personally saying) but then we can say all Christians are science hating idiots and everyone agrees, when alot of Christians promote science, today at least, but since in ancient times they did try to hinder some scientific advances that's what the whole group gets labeled as. I don't call every buff Norwegian a murderous viking, even though that's historically what Scandinavians did. I'm just annoyed at the hypocrisy that these jokes have. Also the states thing ignoring the federal law is different since they're directly going against the was federalism is set up
-
@Thatbright, I'm not saying Christians are perfect by any means. I'm just saying I think people are exaggerating a little bit too much sometimes
-
@Thatbright, the Muslims kept knowledge around during the dark ages... The church did nothing to preserve knowledge. They burned down libraries and set Christendom back hundreds of years. If it weren't for the crusades and the knowledge that was stolen from the Muslims, Europe wouldn't be what it is now.
-
@jklyt1, the problem now is people are to quick to assume and judge before listening. But also people are so bitter towards Christians. The common belief is that Christians hate gays. I am a Christian and I do not hate gays. I have friends that are gay and they know I am Christian. I do not like the sin, but we all send and even Jesus loved the sinner. So for those that are confused why some (and realize not all) so called Christians openly hate gays, they have not considered applying what the scripture says to their life. DO NOT VIEW GOD BASED ON WHAT SOME CHRISTMAS say. My church is quite different from some churches, and there are plenty of churches that believe it. Our pastors has had a sermon on gays and how we need to love the people who are homosexual. Also why there is controversy amongst some churches is due to so many people just claiming they are Christians and completely ignoring or caring about what Christians are called to do. LISTEN TO MY APOLOGY by MATTIE MONTGOMERY
-
@Thatbright, I find many atheists like vegans. No one asks, no one cares, but they fvcking tell you anyway and then spend an hour on why they ate superior and others are stupid... and often have no idea wtf they are talking about.
-
@Darth Something, Muslims. Other people of faith. Certainly not fvcking atheists
-
@UmActually, you mean like, don't murder, don't steal, don't commit fraud? Damn pesky religion getting up in the things I want to do
-
@TheMonkeyGod, Yeah, of course I mean that.
-
@UmActually, just three picked from the bible... if you're talking about stopping gay marriage etc, there is no biblical basis for that. Those are just shyt heads hiding behind belief.
-
@TheMonkeyGod, Not necessarily, but there is a passage that says homosexuality is an abomination in the NT, and it says it should be punished by death in the OT. As I said, I don't care what people believe as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. Back when I lived in the states, when me and my wife first got married, we were living in California, she got pregnant, we couldn't financially handle it at the time, so we terminated the pregnancy. If I lived in Mississippi at the time, Christian lawmakers had restricted abortions based on their religion. That's a problem. To me it doesn't matter what the book says, if the vocal group believes a certain way and claims it is because of their religion, even though they might be incorrect, it still effects me and they believe that way.
-
@UmActually, yeah, but the thing with shyt heads is they will justify bring that way by whatever means. Also the OT says if you have sex with a man you should be killed. Blow jobs, beating the meat etc is fine. The NT doesn't say gay, it says about sexual deviance, it's not specific. Also that's Paul's work. Paul was a douche nozzle imho. I think religious folk do need to keep that shyt to themselves and not impose their beliefs on everyone. I'm pro choice, pro gay marriage and pro equality... I'm not a Christian. Not a Buddhist. But both Jesus and the Buddha have simple messages that the best thing to do is just love everyone and let the universe sort the rest of the shyt or.
-
@TheMonkeyGod, Hateful rhetoric is being mixed with religion, to the point where most outsiders can't see the difference, that's all I'm saying.
-
@UmActually, sadly true... Funny how a system based on love seems to be do hateful.
-
@Ryjaki, America?
-
@ExtraGFromNiger, ???
-
@Thatbright, I have the same attitude towards people that say all Muslims are terrorists that I did towards people that say all Christians are homophobes. It's ignorance and profiling.
-
@honestliar, the big reason why I dislike Christians is because even the 'good' ones are like "Homosexuality is wrong, but I love you anyway." That's not acceptance. It's tolerance, and it comes across as condescension. The whole problem is that the Bible is WRONG about homosexuality. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon present in EVERY mammal species on Earth. It is not genetic, as gay parents can have straight children and vice versa. Most importantly, it is not a choice. But Christians refuse to see that. All they see is "the bible says it's a sin, therefore it's a sin. The bible says sin is bad, therefore homosexuality is bad." This lack of critical thinking and refusal to come to one's own conclusions frustrates me to no end. If someone is going to be so much of a sheep that they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, then there's no talking to them. Any evidence brought up that challenges their worldview will simply be disregarded.
-
@I Are Lebo, and for the record, I know I'm generalizing. There's exceptions to every rule, but this is a majority thing
-
@I Are Lebo, you're generalizing Christians pretty hard with the homosexuality thing, not all of us believe it's a sin. Maybe the majority but that's even starting to change as more are willing to discuss the topic. I mean I'm pretty openly bisexual, obviously I don't think it's a sin.
-
@I Are Lebo, 19 of the homosexual cadavers had died of AIDS, a disease known to affect the neurological system. It could be that the disease had shrunk the hypothalamus. Also scientists who study brain biochemistry know that the way a person thinks affects the way his brain functions; specifically, it affects the neurochemicals (I think that's who you spell it) released in the brain and the way certain pathways grow and change. Could the structural brain differences have started with the difference in thoughts between homosexuals and heterosexuals, rather than with genetics? Third, there is no proof linking hypothalamus size with homosexuality, either as a cause or effect. Now regardless of these claims, there are many people claiking they Christians that do not lie
-
@I Are Lebo, Christians are called to love the sinners. I do. It does not mean I have to approve of their life choices. If I were to be overly passive then I would loose my morals. However, I can sit down with my gay friends and tell them my side of gay standpoint. If they do not accept it, then it is there life and I will not control it.
-
@honestliar, two things. First, what are you quoting from? Second, please rewrite your second statement and you typo'd so hard I don't understand what you were trying to say.
-
@honestliar, then answer me this: without resorting to simply saying "the Bible says so", explain to me why homosexuality is a bad thing. What is "your side of gay standpoint"? Also, being overly passive about things that aren't any of your business risks you losing your morals? That's a flimsy excuse.
-
@I Are Lebo, sometimes the question is difficult but the answer is simple. The bible indeed said so. Homosexuality undermines God's natural order when he created Adam and Eve. Our mandate is to "fill the earth and subdue it". Romans 1 26-28 explains this
-
@honestliar, couple responses. Firstly, you are aware that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, right? It's not literally true. Humanity did not descend from a single pairing of one male and one female. Also, homosexuals are capable of reproduction. Furthermore, we're overpopulated. We need, NEED less humans to reproduce, or we will drive ourselves to extinction.
-
@honestliar, and "the bible said so" is not an answer. It's sidestepping the issue. It's saying "the answer is provided for me, so I don't have to think for myself".
-
@I Are Lebo, both of us are not following each other, so we can agree to disagree.
-
@honestliar, it's like I said. Religious people frustrate me because they absolutely refuse to show any empathy. Try to see the world from another persons point of view and think for yourself for once. But fine. Move on. "Agree to disagree", or whatever excuse you need to avoid thinking about a topic that challenges your precious bible.
-
@honestliar, and for the record, I'm following you just fine. I asked you defend your stance without simply resorting to "the bible said so", but actually make an argument for your viewpoint. Instead you just said the bible says so. That just means you either have no argument, or are refusing to make one.
-
@I Are Lebo, also sorry I didn't see your reply to yourself saying almost exactly what I did lol
-
@honestliar, I don't want to have a fight with you. I know you stopped responding but honestly, I demand an answer on this. You said "I can sit down with my gay friends and tell them my side of gay standpoint. If they do not accept it, then it is there life and I will not control it." What is your standpoint? I legitimately want to know it. I swear I am not trying to bait you or insult you. You've refused to answer this though. Because "the bible says so" isn't a standpoint. It's not a defence or a reasoning any more than a father telling their kid to do something "because I said so". It's an evasion, not an answer. I truly honestly would like an answer. Please.
-
@I Are Lebo, my standpoint is, though I don't support gay rights, I also am not wanting to shame them into feeling like they have made a life mistake. I would not hold up signs protesting and insulting homosexuals. But if I am friends with gay people and comfortable enough to discuss it, I am ok with telling them my standpoint, which is that I am not for gay marriage. Some Christians have come to the point where they know the Bible stands for traditional marriage, so they begin to insult and ignore carrying for gay people. This is not right. Though Christians shouldn't walk around supporting gay rights, they still need to be friends with gay people and treat them like normal people.
-
@honestliar, thank you for sharing your point of view. I must ask, what do you mean about not supporting gay rights? Do you feel like people who are gay do not deserve as many rights and freedoms as other people? You get that being gay isn't a choice, right? You can't choose your sexuality.
-
@GiantDwarf01, Well that's because everybody in that time was a Christian...
-
Can we stop capitalizing atheism pls. It is not a proper name, it is a descriptor. Sincerely like 90% of atheists or other nonreligious folk
-
Well hes not wrong
-
I don't like the word atheist. It just sounds so...negative. And evil. I just say not religious and leave it at that.
-
@Smegma, how does it sound negative at all? It's just the prefix "a" on theist. Anti-theist sounds negative, but atheist?
-
@Smegma, you could try agnostic if it suits you better. And it's a more middle stance
-
@Smegma, same. I don't think it's a bad word - maybe an unnecessary one - but it seems to carry this negative connotation that puts people off, so it's easier just to say "I'm not religious." Ruffles fewer feathers that way.
-
..... I GUESS
-
Atheism is more hated than Islam. True story
-
@mattswife, because it doesn't have tons of apologists
-
@Cpzombie, I'm sorry
-
@mattswife, by who? Cuz I'm calling BS on that.
-
@I Are Lebo, by 90% of the people I tell I'm an atheist. The mild ones say they'll pray for my soul, the aggressive ones try to convert me. I even had a Jehovah's Witness kick in my door after I told them. Hating Muslims is outspoken and overt; hating atheists is passive aggressive and covert. I don't hate on any religion, I just don't have one for me. Some people just can't wrap their heads around that and freak out
-
@mattswife, that sucks. It's probable that's a trend where you live. It is certainly not the case here. Hatred can be found anywhere, it's the unfortunate truth.
-
@I Are Lebo, that's why I take the penguin approach. Smile and nod, boys, smile and nod
-
@mattswife, I'm Jewish, although I'm not religious. I look at Judaism as my culture, not my religion. I'm proud of where I come from, but I'm not going to follow rules that don't make sense for a God that I don't believe in. To do so would be the worst form of hypocrisy. It'd be lip service. I was recently at a Christian funeral for a friend's mother. It was pretty uncomfortable, especially with how often they kept going on about Jesus. I just kept my mouth shut and let them sing/pray.
-
@I Are Lebo, I have the 'when in Rome' mentality. I try to respect religious traditions when I'm with religious people. But noone respects me. Ah, whatever
-
@I Are Lebo, there's a lot of arguing going on here and I don't think any one is going to get anywhere any time soon, so I think we should just focus on the real issue here. The Institute and their damn synths.
-
@I Are Lebo, I meant to respond to your comment on my comments chain, but my message remains the same lol
-
Honestly if you aren't a creationist and you aren't hateful toward any group of people then you probably are a reasonable person
-
@TenorTwoPointO, I have a master's in mathematics and Philosophy, so I know you have a fake degree when you make such ridiculous claims. Honestly, I don't know how you got your pseudo "degree," but discrete mathematics precludes topics in "continuous mathematics" such as analysis (i.e. continuous change). And what's changing in this instance is the number of God's a theist denounces over the time that new religions are being made. But you were saying... xD
-
Fvck religion. Especially fvck Islam.
-
@averagestuckpixluser, as a Christian, fvck you. Leave Islam alone
-
@Tyrellious, You have no idea what you are defending. Of course, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, your Christian books, are some of the most barbarous out there, but there are many reasons why Islam is much worse, not including the fact that Islam is at this point in our history the cause of the vast majority of the world's violent terrorism.
-
@averagestuckpixluser, I have a pretty good idea what I'm defending. I've been taught everything that is wrong with it already, thanks. If you take Leviticus and Deuteronomy as anything more than a historical account, like say, a mandate from God, then yes. It's barbaric. But when you look at them appropriately in context, they are just a history, one that took place in a time when the world was barbaric and when the neighboring countries did much worse things. Attempting to apply modern morals to that is futile. Has islam caused violence? Sure. But so have bananas. Buckets. And nearly everything else. The biggest cause of violence however, is most assuredly hate. And that can be found everywhere. I'm not saying that everyone should agree or even love each other. But hatred is bad and exists on all sides. Now. Do I agree that most major terrorist groups (Boko Haram, ISIS, etc.) are Muslim? Yes. Do I believe that there are certain things in Islam/ the Quran (especially toward the end of
-
@Tyrellious, Mohammed's life) that can spark animosity? Yes. But without hate, those would fall flat. So before you think I sympathize with Islam, and before you attack me and my religion while knowing next to nothing about both, check your hate
-
@averagestuckpixluser, I do like your username though
-
@Tyrellious, I'm sorry, but even if we are to just chalk up everything bad in the Bible to historical context, then we still have to accept that this word of God advocates killing homosexuals and adulterers and does not have a commandment against slavery. I have read the Bible and have been a Christian. You're accusation of ignorance means nothing to me. As for Islam, you are defending a religion who's prophet was a warlord, pedophile, and rapist. These are just historical facts. I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with believing in a God in of itself, as some atheists believe, but if you think you are getting orders from that God and think you need to create a set of rules around those orders, you become a problem.
-
@averagestuckpixluser, I'll put down my golden plates then. Like I said, it's barbaric, but in context. Anyone who thinks that the levitical laws apply after Christ came to replace that system with a better one is misinformed. Was it bad them? By today's western standards, yes. But looking historically at the region that (still does) did practice much worse things, it seems tame. I'm not defending Muhammad as I think he was bad as well. My claim of ignorance still stands however, as being a Christian neither signifies that you know Christianity w'll nor that you know me and my personal beliefs. Would you at least agree with me about hate? Or is that a no as well?
-
@averagestuckpixluser, You do realize that a very small amount of Muslims are terrorists. Almost every single religion ha caused conflicts. The only one that hasn't is Buddhism
-
@averagestuckpixluser, I spy a trump supporter
-
@My memes are dank, Not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are Muslim
-
@My memes are dank, Wait other religions beside Islam commit acts of violence? Dear Jehovah you must be a genius for noticing that. Call the presses they must know about this. And yes, I am obviously aware that not all Muslims are terrorists. What kind of idiot actually thinks that? Regardless, a large portion of Muslims hold hideous ideas about women, gays, atheists, and apostates without being terrorists. You do realize that Islamic terrorism today commits at least 80 to 90 percent of worldwide VIOLENT terrorism right? There are specific reasons why Islam is one of the worst religions. The violent passages are far more numerous and come after the peaceful ones, the Quran is short, it's not like the Bible where Christians can just say, Old Testament bad and New Testament Good, it has a firm doctrine of Jihad that is not just an inner struggle like Islamic apologists claim it is. Combine all that with the actual ways Muhammed behaved, you a have a recipe for complete disaster.
-
@Captain Penis, I voted for Bernie Sanders. But even if I had voted for Trump, you still would have absolutely no point and made no rebuttals to my comments.
-
@Tyrellious, Everything you just said there was totally obvious information. I can't convince you via Internet posts that I know Christianity. Fine. You wouldn't care no matter what I told you. And you want me to affirm for everyone that I think hate is bad? Seriously? Yes, hate is bad, love is good, peace is wonderful, war is hideous. Have I clarified how virtuous I am for you? It doesn't change that Islam is the straight up religion of hate. And you're defending it, so what does that say about you?
-
@averagestuckpixluser, I was just saying, as a faithful Christian, that you can't hate a religion because of what some people in that group have done
-
@averagestuckpixluser, the Quran literally says that all people are equal, and it also says that you must not be violent unless you were being attacked, meaning that it would all be in self defense
-
@My memes are dank, that's basically saying all white southerners are racist, when only a couple of them are racists
-
@DeadStroke, not necessarily, there have been times when there have been Christians bombing a planned parenthood building. Terrorists are just people who aim to cause terror
-
@My memes are dank, I hate a religion based on the contents of its holy books, and what it dictates it's followers to do, especially when these dictates lead to violence and terror. Saying the Quran treats all people equally is laughably false. The Quran dictates that all Muslims can be treated equally, except when it contradicts itself by advocating rape and slavery. Also, all non Muslims, idolators, infidels, are easily justified to be killed by the sword. If you're a Jew or Christian you can pay a tax and live as a dimi. This is not equality. If you are gay or an apostate you are mandated to be killed. If you think this is equality you are dangerously deluded.
-
@averagestuckpixluser, it doesn't say what they do, it says what they believe
-
@averagestuckpixluser, it doesn't say a thing about me? If it were obvious information, then why did you dispute me on it in your previous message? I didn't want you to affirm that hate is bad. I wanted you to affirm that it was the root problem. Not any specific religion. I don't agree with Islam. Radical or conservative. But to call it a religion of hate, I believe is incorrect. Do people use it as a means to carry out their hate and an excuse to do so? Yes. I don't believe that makes the religion inherently hateful
-
@averagestuckpixluser, I agree with what you said about the lack of equality for Muslims vs infidels though
-
@averagestuckpixluser, I have many Muslims at my school, I have had family gone to the Middle East, not just the U.A.E. , but multiple countries . None of the Quran says that they should attack people of different race or gender. That is only what some of them do, because they have many different interpretations of what it says. This does not justify their actions, but I am only saying this because, obviously, you have not done enough research to reach your conclusions. The world is a beautiful place with beautiful people, but in beauty there are always flaws, and those flaws stand out the most.
-
@My memes are dank, let's just all agree to disagree. This has gone long enough and I hate arguing. Funny pics is a community, so let's just go our separate ways
-
@My memes are dank, You have not done any research on the Quran if you belive what you have just said. There are verses that are just simply impossible to interpret differently. When a line says "Kill all those you find" there is not any other way to take it. Yes, there are good and bad people of all faiths. Yes the majority of Muslims may not take these bad directives in the Quran seriously. It doesn't change the fact that they are there. You're experiences don't interest me, I am interested in facts and evidence. Anyone with Google can find out what the Quran says regarding gays, apostates, women. The world is a beautiful place, but it is also a horrifying and cruel place. If we want to maximize the wellbeing of others, we need to put dangerous ideologies to bed as soon as possible. Only then can we move forward.
-
@averagestuckpixluser, I literally just said to go our separate ways but okay. Many of the quotes are taken out of context. When they talk about fighting, it says that you do not fight against the ones who are not fighting you, but only to fight back against opposers
-
@My memes are dank, Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" opposers meaning anybody who doesn't believe in Islam. Please try to explain away verses like this?
-
That's stupid because "one" does make a difference. For example, I've met well over 2,700 women in my life, but all it took was one to show me what true love is. Dismissing the other 2,699 women doesn't mean I love my wife any less, in fact, it means I love her more. So that was a stupid argument! xD
-
@zerozero9000, I think you misunderstand his point. He is correcting people's assumption that athiests "don't believe in God." They don't believe in as many gods as all monotheists but just one more.
-
@UmActually, you're completely wrong. If you were right that he is just, "trying to show atheist don't believe in as many deities" the meme would've ended in the second frame. However, the meme continues to a third frame that attempts to make theist appear more atheistic in nature. Which is just a stupid point....but you were saying lol?
-
@zerozero9000, Because he's Ricky Gervais, and a comedian, and connections are what comedians do. You're saying it's inherently different, but not to someone who is not religious. I don't believe in what you believe, so you believing in that is like how you'd view any other religion, polythiestic or monotheistic or spiritual. To most religions, no one else's god is special in any way.
-
@UmActually, you're making a straw man argument. I also agree that "to most religions, no one else's God is special" but that wasn't the point you initially made. Your inceptive point was that the meme was made to show that atheist don't believe in as many gods as theist. Which wasn't the point of the meme. I proved it wasn't the point by directing attention to the third frame where true intent was made. But you were saying...
-
@zerozero9000, No, the 3rd frame is the joke he was making. He was saying it in response to the interviewer saying he didn't believe in God. He said he didn't believe in many gods, then went on to say that. If you don't understand the context and have extremely thin skin, then I could see how this could rub you the wrong way. To him, the one god was just a number. To you and other monotheistic deists, that one god is special and is more than a number. Purely numerically, monotheistic religions are closer to Athiesm than polythiestic religions, that is evident if you don't look at it from a position of someone who is in a religion being compared.
-
@zerozero9000, He's a comedian too so expect a joke or two after genuine arguments. You ARE misunderstanding. The point is, when not made by Ricky, that atheist have dismissed just one more god than modern religious people. Why don't you believe Zeus exists? Have you ever thought about if Zeus exists? It's called mythology now, but it was taken more seriously in previous generations. Why? Atheists take the logic everyone applies to 2699 gods, as from the quote, and extend it to the 2700th god. The same reason you don't believe in Zeus is why many atheist don't believe in your god. You are presumably an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Ra, etc... Atheists means w/o a belief in a particular god. Unless you have evaluated all 2699 gods, how do you know this one is different or the true one? Have you really "met" them all to make a proper evaluation? The amount you love your current choice is not important, the reason you dismissed the others is.
-
@UmActually, so you're saying if it's a joke it cannot be a point? A member of the KKK can joke about black lives being worthless, but by your logic, since it's a joke it won't undergird a point? Again, A+ for your attempt, but an F- for your argument. And really, how sophomoric of you to revert to ad hominems lol calling me "thin skinned" as if that makes your misconceived point any more correct? Regardless, since you brought up numbers I'd refer you to asymptotes...where despite how many Gods a theist doesn't believe in, he will never cross the threshold to 0...you must have failed math class as well xD
-
@NotCaveJohnson, atheists don't mean anything, atheism (as I'm sure you meant to write), however, is not the disbelief in a particular God; but, the disbelief in all of God(s).
-
@zerozero9000, mathematically speaking you should not even mention asymptotes when speaking about a discrete structure. Asymptotes as a concept are only defined in continuous systems. So I'm guessing you didn't do all that well in math either.
-
@zerozero9000, Asymptotes are irrelevant, this isn't a continuous system. You disagree with a point, I explained the point and the thought process behind it, you still want to be mad. To an athiest, your god is as imaginary as any other god. You disbelieve all but one, athiests disbelieve all, that's mathematically similar, 0 and 1 are pretty close. To an outsider, that 1 is inconsequential, since they don't believe in it, to you, that 1 god means something. Unless you give as much weight to Krishna and even Zeus, you can't complain about other people not "respecting" something they don't believe in. That's the bottom line. Nobody else has to respect or be reverent of your god or even your beliefs, especially when you aren't respectful to the beliefs of others. Your KKK-black people: Athiests-Christians comparison is a ridiculous attack and shows how little respect you have for Athiesm and Athiests, ergo, people don't have to respect your ideology or think about it as more than a
-
@zerozero9000, fairy tale. You're trying to make this all about the last frame, but really, the last frame makes mathematical sense, 1 is more close to 0 than any number above 2 or less than 0.
-
@zerozero9000, *Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). The definition is dependent on context. It's not necessarily applicable to all gods simultaneously. For instance Julius Ceasar was called a god upon his death, I believe Julius Ceasar was a real person. Am I an atheist when it comes to Ceasar? Maybe, it depends on the definition of god. Atheism may apply to all propositions, but it's not necessary for the definition to be applicable for specific gods. We can use the term piecewise. Atheist for gods 1-2699 Theist for god 2700 Yes that makes you a theist in a general sense, but you're one god away to being an atheist in a general sense. Hence the last frame.
-
@UmActually, you're officially retarded. A discrete/closed system LOL xD yeah because the number of deities monotheists disbelieve in with respect to time is definite? As if that number is solid and will never change over the course of time? You're actually stupid enough to claim that there hasn't been, and will never be, another religion created from now until forever; consequently, another religion for a monotheist to disbelieve. Hahaha your intelligence stoops to new lows to try and prove a stupid point. And whatever it is you do in life I pray it doesn't have anything to do with numbers; because if you reconcile 0 and 1 as being interchangeable, or one in the same, we're doomed.
-
@UmActually, What's more, English is not your strong suit either. The KKK analogy was made to show: your idea that a joke can never be a point was wrong. Tell me how you managed to bring atheism in an analogy that made no mention of it? Or is it that you have a guilty mind that automatically assumes if the KKK is being talked about, atheism is also LOL xD
-
@zerozero9000, It's not one in the same. I never said it was. You were too stupid to understand where he was coming from. I've explained it, you resort to personal attacks. You're a great representative of your religion, a real class act.
-
@zerozero9000, Hey, you call me stupid, but you believe in an omniscient being in this day and age. So... 😆
-
@NotCaveJohnson, I won't argue definitions with you more than what I have, because they are already defined. My initial comment to you was to correct your horrible English. With that said, your last sentence, "...you're one God away to being an atheist" PROVES the point I made!!!! That this "comedian" is trying to make theist appear more atheistic in nature. Which is just a stupid argument.
-
@UmActually, yup, no response to your misinterpretation of simple English. Are all atheists as confused, lazy, and retarded as you? I assume so.
-
@zerozero9000, I'm not responding to that because it had nothing to do with our discussion, you fvcking moron.
-
@UmActually, it was part of the discussion because you somehow equated the KKK to atheism. You refuse to reply, however, because you know you're wrong and you're a pathetic arrogant cunt who doesn't like to admit so LOL Typical atheist ;)
-
@zerozero9000, You compared Ricky Gervais making a joke about theists to KKK members making a joke about black people.
-
@zerozero9000, your lack of understanding of mathematics disturbs me. At no point in this entire discussion has there been any mention of the number of deities being finite. Only that it's discrete. Those words do not mean the same thing. Not even remotely. Also, the whole point of the joke, and the subsequent discussion, is that in comparison to 2700 the difference between 0 and 1 is statistically negligible. In addition, you're incredibly rude and arrogant. You obviously think that your opinion is better and more important than others despite having no real argument to back it up. Someone called you 'thin skinned' and you immediately started being condescending and calling people names. If there is a god out there I highly doubt that he is impressed with you right now.
-
@zerozero9000, Are you ten? I'll assume you meant theists instead of the singular "theist". What a stupid argument. XD What a terrible grasp of the English language. Go pray to your imaginary friend. Haha, what a dolt!? XD See how unproductive this is? Grow up. So theists aren't athiest??? No shjt. How astute. You want to know a profound observation? Most people in the world who still believe in a deity have rejected other gods for no good reason, and have accepted one for no good reason. You are more "atheistic" than you think. You stand with atheist in the rejection of almost all other god claims. That's the point of the post and why your argument against it is a trivial misunderstanding. When you gripe on grammar, you have weak arguments. It demotes the conversation to a childish level of discourse. Stop being immature, you poopy head.
-
@NotCaveJohnson, atheists*
-
@UmActually, again don't be a retard. Go back if you need to, and read what I wrote. But since I can tell you're lazy I'll go ahead and copy/paste my exact words to show you how stupid you are and were. And I quote..."so you're saying if it's a joke it cannot be a point?" Then I continued with the analogy to prove a joke can be a point. What's more, I was nice enough to even preface my analogy with what it aimed to prove, and yet your small mind took it elsewhere. You can't even read, and yet I'm supposed to adopt your erroneous beliefs in things xD
-
@zerozero9000, Holy shjt. You are so stupid.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, in regards to your first sentence UmActually claims the number of dieties/time is finite, because he makes the claim that it's a discrete system. You atheist need to stop being lazy and learn to read. Additionally, you atheist need a deeper appreciation of numbers if you assume 0 and 1 are identical.
-
@zerozero9000, ok. I have a master's degree in mathematics. So I'm pretty sure I have a pretty good understanding of numbers. As I said before, which evidently you're to lazy to read, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCRETE AND FINITE! Discrete means that it is what's called countable, that the numbers can be divided into chunks, finite means less than infinite. It is not only possible but common to have a discrete infinity i.e. the natural numbers or the integers or the rationals. So if you don't understand the mathematical difference of the two words then maybe you should try to use them in a sentence. Furthermore, a brief analysis of the system in question, the number of deities, yields that this is clearly an additive abelian group. Which then says that the number 1 has no real mathematical significance. (Continued)
-
@zerozero9000, As one is the multiplicative identity it only really has actual meaning when one is talking about multiplication, which is entirely irrelevant to the material being discussed.
-
@zerozero9000, you do realize that just down voting my comments is not a response right?
-
@TenorTwoPointO, I have a master's in mathematics and Philosophy, so I know you have a fake degree when you make such ridiculous claims. Honestly, I don't know how you got your pseudo "degree," but discrete mathematics precludes topics in "continuous mathematics" such as analysis (i.e. continuous change). And what's changing in this instance is the number of God's a theist denounces over the time that new religions are being made. But you were saying... xD
-
@zerozero9000, I just graduated this may from the Montana State University. The degree is about as real as it gets. This is not a situation for analysis, because the number of gods is not a continuous variable. You can't have half a god or pi gods. They are divided into natural numbers. i.e discrete. So any argument based on analysis is wrong by simply because you don't satisfy the axioms necessary for analysis.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, dude look up "mathematical analysis" because you have no idea what it means. Oh wait, you have a fake Montana degree in something xD Mathematical analysis studies the context of REAL numbers. So gtfo of here with your God's divisible by pi?!?!?
-
@zerozero9000, I know what mathematical analysis is. It is the conceptual step above calculus. I have taken a grad total of four analysis courses not including Topology, Algebraic Topology, and Measure Theory which all have heavy analysis elements. Evidently you don't understand what I mean by pi gods. What I'm saying is that in order to apply analysis principles one needs to first have uncountability or completeness. Which then, in the context of real positive numbers, necessarily says that all the irrational numbers are possibilities in the system. For instance having some traction or irrational number of gods would be required and as that doesn't make sense then proof by contradiction states that the initial assumption, that we can apply analysis ideas, is an incorrect one. That's rather basic logic. With math and philosophy under your belt that should be easy for you to understand.
-
@zerozero9000, ITS FVCKING RICKEY GERVAIS, THE FACT THAT YOU CANT GRASP THAT FACT ALONE AND JUST DROP THIS IS WHAT MAKES YOU WRONG, WHAT MAKES EVERYONE HERE DISAGREE WITH YOU, AND WHAT MAKES YOU A FVCKING IDIOT.
-
@Pious Augustus, @Pious Augstus, the only idiot I'm fvcking is that whore you call a mother, and if you ask me that bitch charges 2 pennies too much xD @TenorTwoPoint0, they must be giving fake diplomas out like they give out Pious August's mom LOL. Seriously I told you once I don't like debating definitions, because they're already defined. If you're having trouble grasping the idea that religions are not a fixed number (continuously changing), and that new ones can and are being made; then you're too blind to carry on a conversation with.
-
@zerozero9000, Keep talking, pal, doesnt make you any less wrong. Maybe when you grow a little, you know, when your balls drop some, youll come back and cringe at how infantile you sound here.
-
@Pious Augustus, I don't need to hear you go into detail about little boys dicks', you sound like a pedophile fvcking troll. Isn't there a playground you need to be at stalking kids?...take your exist LOL
-
@zerozero9000, And no one needs to hear you go into deatil about a three panel rickey gervais joke like its your college thesis. But like a retard, you still did. "Take your exist" Retard says what?
-
@Pious Augustus, no one told you to read what I wrote you dumb fvck. Not saying that you did, because a sh!t faced loser like you probably can't even read. Hell, I'm surprised you can text; don't you need both hand to blow little kids dicks? Creepy pedophile fvck, this thread isn't a child's penis you don't have to be all over it...this wasn't even your conversation to begin with LOL Tell your slutty a$$ mom I don't owe her those two cents because you keep giving me yours, you retard cum stain xD
-
@zerozero9000, *hands *retarded everything else is true lol :)
-
@zerozero9000, My jabs at you being a prebuscent cvnt werent about pedophilia in the least, but since your so obsessed with pedos you can keep blathering on like a sperglord with 13 plus downvotes on every retarded thing you say.
-
@Pious Augustus, I wish you'd talk more, but your mouth is probably full of little kid dick. Haha you're the one that initially started to describe a child's penis so nice try turning it around...you know how you turn little boys around ;) I could care less about a down vote, your bitch a$$ cum dumpster of a mom goes down on me enough ;) but it's good to know you can count to 13, which is still older than the kids you fvck xD
-
@zerozero9000, Youre a joke.
-
@zerozero9000, This was fun, we should do it again some time.
-
@zerozero9000, I will continue to throw definitions at you until such a time as you actually use them. There is nothing in the definition of discrete that says unchanging. It says it's divided into chunks. You can add more chunks to infinity if you want. It doesn't matter. It is still not continuous. Literally no one but you in this entire thread has said anything about there being a fixed number of religions for all time. Literally no one. Again I iterate you are rude and arrogant. Your god hangs his head in shame at you.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, you can't be serious? The premise I put fourth is that Mathematical Analysis deals with a changing variable. Literally, if you go back and read any of the comments I've left, I predicated my point around the fact that the number of religions isn't finite. Go back and read if you please. As far as I know, Funny Pics doesn't let you edit old posts, so if I'm lying you'll be able to point out where. But how convenient of you to finally agree with me that the number of religions is continuously changing. On a side note, don't tell me what my God thinks. Appealing to an ad baculum. Do I tell you that there's nothing out there that loves you?
-
@zerozero9000, no you didn't but I'm fairly certain you would. I have never said that the number of religions isn't changing. I said it isn't uncountable, so the concepts of analysis don't apply. You cannot apply analysis principles on conventional countable sets. The only one that you can apply even some ideas on is the rationals, and that's only because they are dense in the reals. So you can exploit the uncountability of the reals. But that is not applicable to this situation as the set 'number of religions in existance' is always a subset of the natural numbers. Which you cannot apply ANY concepts of analysis to.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, I'm glad you agree the number of religions is countable. Now would you agree that with respect to time the number of religions will change? Because if you accede that proves I'm right. The number of religions is continuously changing. And something that is continuously changing is the focus of continuous mathematics, a study that's EXCLUDED from discrete systems (that have no change).
-
@zerozero9000, discrete systems can change. They're called stochastic systems. There is literally a whole field dealing with that. It is not the realm of analysis. Analysis is the study of how continuous variables change. Stochastics are how discrete variables change. It's a whole different field.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, why am I not surprised you've managed to include a field of study that has nothing to do with the subject itself. I've told you before I hate debating definitions since they are already defined, yet you're trying your hardest to redefine them. Once more, discrete systems CANNOT include change...yet you're redefining them to somehow include change to falsy prove your misguided agenda. Simply put, you have two options. Option (1) the number of individuals who believe in God is finite and will not and cannot change; or option (2) the number of individuals who believe in God is continuously changing. Option 2 denotes continuous mathematics, whereas option 1 is just a ridiculous idea.
-
@zerozero9000, that was 25 days ago, you still haven't gotten over this. Do you actually know what a stochastic system is? Change is not a property inherent in only continuous variables. Otherwise most of statistics is wrong. You can have change in discrete variables. You cannot have CONTINUOUS change in discrete variables. Analysis as one of it's fundamental axioms requires continuous change. Also finite doesn't mean unchanging. Imagine if you will a variable that takes on values between 10 and 20 but only in integer steps. That is a discrete variable. It is changing and it is finite. But you cannot apply the ideals of analysis. You need to use a different tool, name stochastics or statistics.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, I didn't care to reply to you, if you must know, because I honestly don't care for you. But again your terrible with definitions which undergird concepts. Namely, change CANNOT exist in a discrete system. If change exists you are not dealing with a discrete system. Discrete variables, once more since this is getting old, can ONLY have a finite number of values. Parameters! You yourself gave the example of integers between 10-20 where there are fixed parameters. So answer my simple question: Is the number of people who believe in God confined in a parameter like your 10-20 example? And if so then TELL me the parameters; from 1 to what is the number of people who believe in God confined to? From 1 to 10, 1 to 1,000...you tell me since you claim to know the parameter to which it's confined. Because I guarantee you, since new people are populating this earth every second of the day, those "parameters" you give will change, and change, and change.
-
@zerozero9000, seriously dude. A discrete variable can change. That is the entirety of statistics. I think where you may be getting hung up is that you are considering change with respect to a continuous time variable. But that is in no way required. In fact in the real world it is flat out not the case. I made no claim as to what the boundaries of the variable are. But it doesn't matter. The value can never BE infinity therefore it is finite for all time. Also, there is absolutely no component of the definition of discrete variables that gives reference to them being unchanging. What being a discrete variable means is that the values that it can take have space between them. For example the space between the integers of the number of people who believe in a god. A continuous variable needs to include EVERY value between two points. That's what the difference between continuous and discrete is.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, that is the classic corrupt politicians move of ignoring the question I asked, and answering one I never asserted. I did not ask you if the number of people who believe in God can reach infinity. I asked if the number of people who believe in God is restricted to a numerical parameter. From 1 to what? I ask because if you gave me a parameter, which I doubt you can, that parameter will change with respect to time; because new people are populating this Earth every second of the day. So answer the question. Just like you CLEARLY and exactly gave a value of 10 to 20 I'm asking you to do the same for the number of people who believe in God. I'm asking you again, to answer the simple question of: from 1 to what is the number of people who believe in God?
-
@zerozero9000, a parameter doesn't have to be known. Just because we don't know what it is doesn't mean there isn't one. That's really bad logic of you think that. I don't know what the upper parameter is. But for an in depth look at the system it's totally unnecessary. It doesn't change the type of variable being discussed. Which in turn doesn't change what field of mathematics can be applied and what can't.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, and that's really bad grammar of you think that lol. But yes, the parameter does matter; because discrete systems deal SPECIFICALLY with what is numerically fixed, and countable. You gave the example of 10-20 which is countable because of its, again, countable number of states. But since you can't possibly answer my question, answered a question I never asserted, and now avoided answering altogether...I'll assume you're either too stubborn to admit your lapse, or just don't know math. Either way, a continuous range proves a continuous system. But close the system for me, tell me the parameter from 1 to what is the number of people who believe in God?
-
@zerozero9000, you should look up the definition of stochastic. It explicitly states that you don't need to know the boundary parameters. I'm not refusing to answer any question. I have said three times now that I don't know what the upper boundary is. It still doesn't matter. Also, you should look up the differences between discrete and continuous variables as you seemed to be very misinformed. Really just take like five minutes on Wikipedia.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, you might Wikipedia your information, but my text books have served me far better. Nevertheless, I'm glad you admit you don't know the "upper boundary," which means you're one step closer to agreeing with me. Now that you've admitted that you cannot close the system, and that there's a continuous range...you'd be wise to conclude that a continuous range proves a continuous system.
-
@zerozero9000, you do realize that wikipedia is actually one of the best places on the internet for math right? The only better place is the stack exchange, and only sometimes. I have literally said that I don't know what the upper boundary is four times now. That's not a new thing. You really don't seem to understand what a continuous variable means. So here's a definition: A continuous variable over a particular range of the real numbers is one whose value in that range must be such that, if the variable can take values a and b in that range, then it can also take any value between a and b. The number of permitted values is uncountable. Whereas a discrete variable is defined thusly: A discrete variable over a particular range of real values is one for which, for any value in the range that the variable is permitted to take on, there is a positive minimum distance to the nearest other permissible value. The number of permitted values is either finite or countably infinite.
-
@zerozero9000, Your supposition that not having a definite upper bound therefore means it's continuous is quite false becsuse, as listed in the definition, a discrete variable can take an infinite number of options , just so long as it's countable.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, a discrete system cannot take on an infinite number of options. The amount of wrong in that claim you made is unheard of. But that's all semantics, and as I said before I don't like debating definitions. Continuous systems deal with a continuous range that changes, again, continuously over time. You agreed that the number of people who believe in God is continuously changing, and that the range of people is also continuously changing. Take it one step further and admit that it's not discrete.
-
@zerozero9000, a discrete system explicitly can take an infinite number of values. Just so long as it's countably infinite. Do you know what that means? The fundamental difference between discrete and continuous is countability. Continuous variables can take an uncountably infinite number of values, whereas a discrete variable must remain countable, finite or countably infinite. Countably infinite is the case we are dealing with in this scenario. As in the number of people is always a natural number. It can get bigger, just like natural numbers, but it is still countable. Even if it runs to infinity it is still COUNTABLE. You say that you don't want to debate definitions but that is precisely where you are mistaken.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, you're wrong once again, and it's getting old. Discrete systems are countable and not infinite. An example being rolling a die, where you'll get a countable value from 1 to 6, not 1 to infinity? Again, the amount of wrong you're speaking makes me think you're just out trolling.
-
@zerozero9000, you really should look up discrete mathematics. A discrete variable can take on ever increasing values. It can go to infinity. As long as it does so countably. Look up the definition of discrete variables in ANY of your textbooks. It can be infinite. Just not uncountable. As for trolling, I think the person who has stooped to insults, calling degrees fake, and downvoting every comment is more the troll here.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, facts don't care about your emotions. The fact is your grammer sucks, your loose understanding of math is bad, and you're tenacity to show otherwise is evincive of trolling. y[n]=1/M{M-1/∑/k=0}x[n-K] illustrates discrete systems, and both x[n] and y[n] are bound not infinite. Again the amount of wrong you speak is overwhelming.
-
@zerozero9000, *your
-
@zerozero9000, there are more than one discrete system. You can literally make an infinite number of them. And some go to infinity and others don't. Are you getting info from a comp sci textbook? Because that could maybe explain how your so galactically wrong on your definitions.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, I told you before my degree is in math not science?...which ironically shows how weak your insight is. The formula is straight from my textbook Mathematical Proofs-3rd 13 edition ISBN13:978-0321797094. Which again CLEARLY states that with respect to both x[n] and [y] they are BOTH bound NOT infinite. Meaning, you're wrong but refuse to admit it, for who knows what reason...trolling maybe?
-
@zerozero9000, ok so that ONE system is finite so therefore all discrete systems are finite? Is that what you're saying? Because that is ludicrously false. There are examples of both finite and infinite cases.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, no again you are attempting to tell the authors, people so smart they wrote an entire textbook of mathematical proofs, that somehow they're wrong. I'm inclined to believe you're wrong. Once again, given y[n]=1/M{M-1/∑/k=0}x[n-K] both x[n] and y[n] are bound not infinite.
-
@zerozero9000, http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/206/what-is-the-difference-between-discrete-data-and-continuous-data Literally the first answer says that discrete can be infinite.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, Mathematical Proofs-3rd 13 edition ISBN13:978-0321797094 page 438 under discrete systems specifies y of n and x of n as being bounded. Your 2 minute Google knowledge cannot undercut the authors of my textbook. Unless you care to display how with respect to x and y of n they are infinite.
-
@zerozero9000, I'm not saying that they're wrong about that system. I'm saying that you probably missed something that they said. Because if you follow that link to the stack exchange page or if you go to the wikipedia page or if you look it up in an analysis book or google "discrete math definition" and click the first response, the definition of discrete does NOT exclude the possibility of infinity. The ONE example that you found in your book does. But that is one example. If you fail to see that then I may as well be talking to a wall.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, The textbook specifically deals with mathematical proofs. Since you claim your wrong answer is right, show me how given y[n]=1/M{M-1/∑/k=0}x[n-K] the upper and lower bounds are unbounded.
-
@zerozero9000, well to do that you need to define M and x(n). As it stands you are displaying a function of n that involves the definition of x(n) and M. Depending on what those are you'll get wildly different things.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, see this is how I know you're a fraud pretending to "understand" a subject you've really never even studied. I don't need to define anything for you. Just like the middle-school formula of y=mx+b where anyone knows m is the slope and b is the y intercept, you should be able to look at the formula I generously provided, and not only know the components, but be able to use proofs to show its validity. But since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, cough-fraud-cough, here's a hint...the M-point moving is the average of the system.
-
@zerozero9000, says the guy who doesn't seem to understand the difference between countable and uncountable. An extremely basic mathematical concept. Just because I don't know what that particular formulas components mean doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. So it's the average? Meaning your discussing probability and statistics. But you should still know the difference between countable and uncountable. Also you can't prove things with a formula just by know what it's pieces are. You need to know what kinds of things the different parameters stand for and what they can be.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, yet again, you're wrong, wrong, wrong. You don't need inputs to use proofs? All the work is done conceptually. M isn't the average, M isn't even anything...if you meant the M-point moving, it's like I generously told you, the M-point moving is the average of the system. Figure the rest out using your fake math degree, and show how y[n] and x[n] are both unbounded as you claim. Forget words just use good-old-fashioned math to prove your point.
-
@zerozero9000, I don't know enough of that formula. And I still don't accept that it has any connection to literally anything about this conversation. What this conversation is, at it's core is that you don't understand that discrete can go to infinity. Which is a massively important idea in math.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, why am I not surprised you COMPLETELY avoided the question. You have a fake math degree, and since you claim to know about discrete systems you should be able to prove both x and y of n are unbounded as you claim knowing y[n]=1/M{M-1/∑/k=0}x[n-K]
-
@zerozero9000, not if I don't know the other theorems in the field. Also you have a very poor definition of avoid. As I explicitly said that I don't know. Where the really interesting this is, is that you have now three times avoided, actually avoided, the fact that you don't understand the difference between countable and uncountable. Which is the crux of the matter being discussed. Watch the VSauce video about infinity it'll maybe give you some kind of idea.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, vsauce and Wikipedia aren't my references, tenure professors and the textbooks they made me read cover to cover are. But it honestly sounds like a bunch of bs from you at this point, "[you] need the other theorems in the field?" Anything to avoid using math to a sweet that question, right? Definitions are boring because they're already spelled out black and white, use your fake math degree to illustrate the truth to your argument. x[n] and y[n] are both bounded, but show me how they are not bounded as you claim using math. But I guarantee you 100% your next reply wont use math AT ALL to prove the claim you made, just more semantics for the fake math major. Watch, I'm calling it now 0% math 100% talk in your next reply.
-
@zerozero9000, *answer
-
@zerozero9000, are you serious. Fourth time to avoid the question of uncountability. And for the third time, I don't know how one would show that because I don't know the theorems that came before that formula that you assert applies in this situation, but have provided no proof as to why that is the case. Also, do you really think that any amount of knowledge suddenly gives you enough knowledge to suddenly prove all other fields of math? Are you really that obtuse? Ok by your incessant pseudo-argument you should be able to prove for me right here and now the existance of an unmeasurable set. Don't worry about not know definitions or previous theorems. According to you even the basest knowledge of a totally different field will help with that.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, the fact that you don't know the formula I generously provided deals ONLY with discrete systems and nothing to do with "other fields of math," as you claim, shows the amount of fake in your fake math degree. But boy did I call it 0% math and 100% talk for the fake math major. Numbers don't lie, and your inability to use, really, entry-level math to justify your wrong belief is laughable. Again, enough words use math in your next reply. SURPRISE me and back what you're saying mathematically NOT verbally.
-
@zerozero9000, you really are retarded aren't you? Can you prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Can YOU prove Fermat's Last Theorem? Can YOU prove the Banack-Tarski Paradox? I highly doubt it. Also, you're saying that every single use of discrete numbers uses that formula but that is patentedly false. You've obviously never taken an Abstract Algebra course, or a Measure Theory course, or an Analysis course, or Complex Analysis, or Dynamics, or a Stochastic Processes course, or a Math Biology course, or Functional Analysis, or Applied Math, or Topology, or Probability Theory. You're math education must be nearly nonexistent if you've never even touched those fields. Which I am inclined to think that is the case as you evidently don't understand how infinities work. Let me ask you something do you know what Natural numbers are? Their the standard numbers that people use to count things. They are literally defined as being discrete. Yet, they have infinite cardinality
-
@TenorTwoPointO, @TenorTwoPointO, are you sure you weren't an English major? Joking, you suck at that too. But typical that a retard like you would resort to name calling when I call you out on your fake math degree, where all you need to do is math to prove your worth, and like a coward pice of sh!t you play more semantics. But since we're name-calling :) you atheistic dipsh!t I'm sure you gave up on numbers when there wasn't a ruler small enough to measure your dick. You're the a$$-clown of trolling who claims fake degrees, and takes it up the a$$ (probably literally too) when someone calls you out on it. My impression of you, "oh sh!t, he's asking me to prove my fake math degree, better try using big words to sound smart, that'll show him." Fu
-
@TenorTwoPointO, Fu
-
@TenorTwoPointO, pathetic and representative of your kind to, to display arrogance, ignorance, lies, lies and more lies lol. You and your youtube degree should do what your slut mother does to my dick and beat off hahaha xD
-
@zerozero9000, I'm resorting to name calling? You past that barrier almost a month ago. And truthfully you are much more the troll here. Up voting yourself, downs voting every comment of mine, critiquing English and spelling, refusal to get off a point that literally has nothing to do with the conversation. You blatantly refuse to actually hear or understand the simplest of ideas. Also, I'll have you know that I'm not an atheist. I was just calling out your awful arguments.
-
@zerozero9000, also, you're incredibly rude, juvenile, and ridiculous. I would suggest that you think before you talk, but I doubt you're capable of that.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, I kept it cordial with you until, as usual, you got butt hurt and resorted to name calling when you couldn't back you're fake degree up with math. You're as uneducated as your cvm guzzling mother who doesn't have the clap, that b!tch has the applause lol. Both of you have been face fu
-
@TenorTwoPointO, ked only yours resulted in apparent brain damage. I'm sure you get your f@g father as hard as those math books you claim to have studied. Trolling my original post, lying about your degree, avoiding math when asked to prove things mathematically...at least you and your slut mother have one thing in common, you're both little b!cths
-
@zerozero9000, you are the worst of hamanity. I was hoping that maybe you were misguided and mistaken. But now I can see that you are clearly a troll, or at least a vapid petulant manchild. When you start insulting someone's family you show you true colors as a troll. You're not fooling anyone. I shan't respond after this you odious excuse for an adult.
-
@TenorTwoPointO, yes you try use big words you must be smart...you dumb fu
-
@TenorTwoPointO, uck sophmoric dolt who ebbs from intelligible math. Trolling my original post like the f@glord troll you are. Haven't you noticed I'm complimenting your diseased riddled family, by giving them time of day. Nutting in your trashy whore of a mother anally does humanity the favor LOL. Trolling my original thread like the cvnt you are ;)
-
I am the exact opposite, I believe they all exist or have existed. Just my views on it, though. No need to give me downvote hell just because of my cock speaking to you guys
-
@Grandfather Cock, Oh look, two dislikes. Seems my erectus dickus spell pissed some people off.
-
To all those who believe in religion. How do you explain the evil that God lets happen? How do you explain starvation, war, rape, murder, disease? How do you explain Ebola, AIDS, the black death? How do you explain a God who let's his people rape children, rape babies? A God who let's people burn others alive? How do you explain this? You can't. You know the answer. All we know for certain is that we have each other, other humans. All we can do is be kind and help each other as best we can. https://youtu.be/dG-fxbEdOAU
-
@averagestuckpixluser, 🤔 God is an asshole?
-
Ricky Gervais on politics? *sigh intensifies*
Yes yes Christians are stupid holding everyone back blah blah blah