Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The probability of the existence of the Christian God

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-09-2024, 10:39 AM)neutral Wrote: There are a lot of things that I am sure you don't agree with until that part.

I'm a mathematician, I went straight for the probability that was advertised in your title. I'm willing to have a private discussion about it; but you posted that non-sense publicly and I felt I had a duty to publicly point out that you are a crackpot, at least when it comes to calculating probability.
The following 1 user Likes rocinantexyz's post:
  • brewerb
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
@neutral 

For example:

The following sentence appeared in your probability calculation.

Dividing the number of people with six or more coincidences by the global population leads to the desired probability.

Why did you use the number 6 here; instead of 5, or 7, or maybe 352?
The following 1 user Likes rocinantexyz's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-05-2024, 10:52 PM)Astreja Wrote: No, you don't get to dictate how I react to you.  I will not tolerate you and I will not ignore you either.

(04-09-2024, 10:36 AM)neutral Wrote: You don't get to dictate what or if I post in my thread.

Huh  Why would I want to dictate the contents of your posts?  If I have something to say, I say it in my own posts.
The following 1 user Likes Astreja's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-09-2024, 10:36 AM)neutral Wrote: You don't get to dictate what or if I post in my thread.
Feel free to keep embarrassing yourself. I never understood the urge/kink of some for public humiliation.

Si tacuisses....
R.I.P. Hannes
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-09-2024, 10:50 AM)OakTree500 Wrote: The problem simply isn't this black/white - unfortunately people are constantly proving that various politicians are lying/are actual criminals and nothing seems to happen, because they have support from complete morons. Despite the idea of "removing politicians and replacing them with intellectuals" being ideal, its also on the same level as dictators telling you whats good for you - while are system has flaws, its still up to the people to choose who is in charge.

Replacing politicians with intellectuals is not ideal solution, far from that. Lenin was an intellectual and I imagine no one needs to be told what happened during his rule. Chomsky supposedly is an intellectual yet he is spouting crap about Russia acting with restraint in Ukraine.

We don't need intellectuals in charge. It's citizens who think and not just believe dumb crap that are needed.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
The following 6 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Deesse23, Cavebear, OakTree500, pattylt, epronovost, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-07-2024, 06:32 AM)Rhythmcs Wrote: You've got a friendly audience here.
Thank you.

(04-07-2024, 06:32 AM)Rhythmcs Wrote: What's next?
If the American state controls most of the organized crime then the dominant ideology of the world, liberal democracy, is false. If the state controls organized crime there is no rule of law because there are no laws for the powerful. There is no democracy because there is an unseen side of the state (the one that is involved in illegal activities) that remains unchanged regardless of the result of the elections. Capitalism is a system where the most immoral, criminal individuals are those who lead society.
The "Western values" become the values of organized crime. A state that controls organized crime has no right to talk about human rights. Many American wars were justified by saying they were for spreading democracy and human rights. If democracy is a lie (a political system in which criminals get to rule), How would our leaders justify those wars?

America can continue controlling organized crime and militarism and become the worst nation that ever existed, the criminal of the planet. Worse than Nazi Germany. A hidden criminal who pretends to be good is worse than a known evil. You can fight a known evil, but you cannot fight a hidden criminal. This path will eventually lead to their judgment, and most countries will condemn America.
The people in power in the US have a choice to avoid judgment by renouncing militarism and start the transition to a new society, a knowledge society ruled by intellectuals. The first nation to start the transition to a knowledge society will always be remembered in history as a force for good, regardless of what happened before. The people in power in the US have to choose between continuing to be the worst nation that ever existed or to begin to change. There is only one rational choice.

What can we do next? You tell me, in private, how you imagine this information can be used and I will do the same. If you want to help, we will try everything until we find something that works.
Our job is "simple". Improve the ideas that we have, find new ideas, and find people to help. If we are successful, the theory will eventually reach the men in power and will see what they chose to do.

First, we have to understand why a few accept that hundreds/thousands of illegal billionaires cannot exist and the majority believe that they do exist. How would you convince them that we are right?
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-07-2024, 12:07 PM)Charladele Wrote: And what do you expect the members of this forum in particular to do about it?

We debate the theory, and the few people who will support it, we will decide together what to do next.
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-10-2024, 06:21 AM)Szuchow Wrote:
(04-09-2024, 10:50 AM)OakTree500 Wrote: The problem simply isn't this black/white - unfortunately people are constantly proving that various politicians are lying/are actual criminals and nothing seems to happen, because they have support from complete morons. Despite the idea of "removing politicians and replacing them with intellectuals" being ideal, its also on the same level as dictators telling you whats good for you - while are system has flaws, its still up to the people to choose who is in charge.

Replacing politicians with intellectuals is not ideal solution, far from that. Lenin was an intellectual and I imagine no one needs to be told what happened during his rule. Chomsky supposedly is an intellectual yet he is spouting crap about Russia acting with restraint in Ukraine.

We don't need intellectuals in charge. It's citizens who think and not just believe dumb crap that are needed.

Everyone thinks. "Politics" is a balance between geniuses, regular people, charismatic leaders, and power-mad psychopaths. Some of the best leaders have been near-pyscho yet were precisely who were needed at the time. Some were mild-mannered thoughtful types. Some never wanted the job. As Shakespeare said "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them".

To determine what kind of leader is needed at any given time is a voting citizenry that understand the issues of the near future. And that is difficult. But I fear we are getting worse at that. Too many citizens just want someone to tell them how to think in an increasingly-complicated world.

So the world gets Trump, Putin, Orban, Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, etc.

And "yes", it is thinking citizens we need more of. Anything less leads to authoritarianism.
A bully hides his fears with fake bravado. That is the opposite of self-assertiveness.
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
"We debate the theory, and the few people who will support it, we will decide together what to do next."

Hoo boy! Thanks for the laugh!!!
Formerly WiCharlie Sun
The following 1 user Likes Charladele's post:
  • brewerb
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-10-2024, 09:36 AM)neutral Wrote: What can we do next? You tell me, in private, how you imagine this information can be used and I will do the same. If you want to help, we will try everything until we find something that works.
Our job is "simple". Improve the ideas that we have, find new ideas, and find people to help. If we are successful, the theory will eventually reach the men in power and will see what they chose to do.

First, we have to understand why a few accept that hundreds/thousands of illegal billionaires cannot exist and the majority believe that they do exist. How would you convince them that we are right?

Who is we? Is there a clubhouse where 'we' all meet an plot the overthrow of the illegal billionaires? Maybe you and the hamster in your pocket?

And why do you need to be told in private? I can only assume you think it needs to be kept secret until 'we' deliver the devastating death blow. Or maybe it's let the crazy continue to blossom.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • pattylt
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-06-2024, 01:45 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: Except that isn't how economics works. 3.6% is how much of the pie they managed to steal this year. Next year we bake a whole new pie and they steal a little more or a little less.

There are 2 pies. One pie is global GDP, and that's a whole new pie each year. Another pie (the real pie) is market capitalization, all the publicly traded companies in the world. The real pie is not each new pie each year. You buy a factory, next year you still have that factory. Take a slice each year from the real pie (market capitalization), add the profits from the slice you already have for long periods of time, and you will own most of the real pie.

(04-06-2024, 01:45 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: And unless you want me to believe that some Archfiend runs all of the crime in the world, neither are the crooks.
Organized crime can be seen as a single entity, because it is the illegal character that matters, and the criminals are united by a single goal: to make more money. It does not matter that the organized crime is ruled by 10, 100 or 1,000 criminals, the important fact is they are all criminals. If you prove that organized crime is the dominant force of the global economy, their number is not important.

And drug trafficking is most likely an oligopoly or even a monopoly. (see reply #133) The organized crime in the US does not compete against each other. In the capitalist system, competition ensures that, in the long term, the price of products is not much higher than the cost of production. Because the price of drugs in the US, are much higher than the production cost, for long periods of time, we can say that is a monopoly.
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-06-2024, 01:45 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  - Drug trafficking isn't a single company. As a sector it's less than agriculture.
Let's say sector A is $2,000 billion and profits 1,400 billion(70%).
Sector B is $4,000 billion and profits 400 billion(10%).
It matters how profitable the sector is, and less it's size.

If you want to compare a sector with organized crime:
- you have to know how much profits it makes;
- you have to prove that the profits concentrate, belong to a few. If the profits from the agriculture sector are split between hundreds of millions of individuals, there is no point to talk about the sector;
- you have to prove that the profits from the sector can no longer be invested in that sector and are invested in another sector (in an attempt to take over the global economy);
- you have to prove that the most profitable corporations of that sector do not already belong to organized crime.

(04-06-2024, 01:45 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  - Drug trafficking isn't even the most profitable branch of organized crime. White collar crimes such as fraud, embezzling, and insider trading are much more lucrative.

wiki Wrote:The term "white-collar crime" ... It was first defined by the sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of their occupation".
"Organized crime, complex of highly centralized enterprises set up for the purpose of engaging in illegal activities."

I will not think that all white collar crimes such as fraud, embezzling, and insider trading are part of organized crime. I believe that many white collar crimes are not part of a network of organized crime. Unless you have facts and statistics, we cannot include all white collar crimes as part of organized crime.

White-collar crime is not "traditional" seen as organized crime. Studies that research organized crime usually do not include white-collar crime.

People seem to be more indulgent towards white collar crimes because nobody dies. Because of drugs, hundreds of thousands of people die annually. That is a serious crime.

(04-06-2024, 01:45 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: Or, and I know this is going to sound whacky, the profits of organized crime are spent by the criminals.

No. We are talking about individuals who should have hundreds of billions of dollars in personal wealth.
Let's consider that a criminal spends $50,000 every day (about the amount earned by a person in a year). That will be approximately $1.5 billion during his life. And every physical thing he buys increases his personal wealth. Let's say he has 20 houses, 20 cars, 10 yachts, 5 private jets, etc. Compared to hundreds of billions of dollars, that is a small proportion.

Let's consider that a very rich criminal likes to eat in a luxury restaurant. Why spend a large sum of money every day when you can buy the restaurant or make a similar restaurant? Similar to a luxury hotel or anything he likes to spend his money on. Instead of spending, you could invest, so anything you like doing makes you even richer, and it does not cost you anything.

"The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) estimated that in the late 1980s, sales of cocaine, heroin and cannabis amounted to approximately US$124 billion per year in the United States and Europe 1 , of this total some US$85 billion or 70% was considered to have been available for money laundering and investment."
https://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_chap2.pdf p. 123.
Very rich criminals invest, profits are too large to be spent.
Reply

The probability of the existence of the Christian God
(04-10-2024, 09:36 AM)neutral Wrote:
(04-07-2024, 06:32 AM)Rhythmcs Wrote: You've got a friendly audience here.
Thank you.

(04-07-2024, 06:32 AM)Rhythmcs Wrote: What's next?
If the American state controls most of the organized crime then the dominant ideology of the world, liberal democracy, is false. If the state controls organized crime there is no rule of law because there are no laws for the powerful. There is no democracy because there is an unseen side of the state (the one that is involved in illegal activities) that remains unchanged regardless of the result of the elections. Capitalism is a system where the most immoral, criminal individuals are those who lead society.
The "Western values" become the values of organized crime. A state that controls organized crime has no right to talk about human rights. Many American wars were justified by saying they were for spreading democracy and human rights. If democracy is a lie (a political system in which criminals get to rule), How would our leaders justify those wars?

America can continue controlling organized crime and militarism and become the worst nation that ever existed, the criminal of the planet. Worse than Nazi Germany. A hidden criminal who pretends to be good is worse than a known evil. You can fight a known evil, but you cannot fight a hidden criminal. This path will eventually lead to their judgment, and most countries will condemn America.
The people in power in the US have a choice to avoid judgment by renouncing militarism and start the transition to a new society, a knowledge society ruled by intellectuals. The first nation to start the transition to a knowledge society will always be remembered in history as a force for good, regardless of what happened before. The people in power in the US have to choose between continuing to be the worst nation that ever existed or to begin to change. There is only one rational choice.

What can we do next? You tell me, in private, how you imagine this information can be used and I will do the same. If you want to help, we will try everything until we find something that works.
Our job is "simple". Improve the ideas that we have, find new ideas, and find people to help. If we are successful, the theory will eventually reach the men in power and will see what they chose to do.

First, we have to understand why a few accept that hundreds/thousands of illegal billionaires cannot exist and the majority believe that they do exist. How would you convince them that we are right?
If I wanted to dissuade someone from believing that there were hundreds or even thousands of "secret billionaires" whose wealth came from organized crime - I'd point out that we'd have to come up with a novel math to account for how a 1.5% segment of a gdp that creates around 3000 "public billionaires" contains even more billions than the other 98.5%.  Hell, I'd be willing to call it 15%, even, and we'd still run into that problem.  However, as I explained, I think that much of the worlds illicit proceeds end up where most of our money ends up....which isn't in the hands of convicted criminals.

If I wanted to convince someone of the content of your assertions...well......  First, I have to point out that none of your conclusions follow even if we assume the premise.  However, I do think that the content of those assertions could each be competently argued for on their own.  So...if the goal is to convince people of the validity and urgency of that content...I don't think any discussion of the value of crime or a government conspiracy helps.  

In the us, you get as much law as you can pay for.  We don't need to make any assertions about organized crime to demonstrate that we have many tiers of justice.  

In the us, faithless representatives and gerrymandered districts mean that it is often the case that the will of the people..even directly and officially expressed...can be and has been overruled.  I wouldn't say that means that there's no democracy....and the us isn't a democracy....but I think it's certainly a flaw worth looking into.  

It get's less concrete from there.  

I think it's true that what's good for money may not be good for people.  I don't think that means that western values would then be the values of organized crime.  I suppose this one likely comes down to us referring to different content when we use the term western values.  I would suspect yours is employed for criticism, while mine is an aspirational goal, lol.  I think that hypothetically controlling some tiny sliver of overall wealth would be the least of the us's hiccups with respect to international authority in human rights.  I'd likely refer to any number of incidents and entanglements in our history.  We say many things about our wars.  Most of them untrue.  I do think that our oligarchy saw a huge profit opportunity in our fervor to spread democracy - and that if we're going to stick with that...we might want to cut the oligarchy shit out of the loop.  I, personally, look forward to a future where our leaders can justify no wars whatsoever.  

I think we probably use the term militarism differently too, just like western values.  I would assume that you're referring to foreign adventurism.  I'm not a fan.  I don't think that we should abandon other democracies or fledgling democracies on account of this, though.  I think we're at a low point for our national project - the core of our civil identities for some time.  Valid objections and criticisms are plentiful, none of which require us to invoke a conspiracy theory - or even begin to delve into hypotheticals.  I think that the only way to regain confidence in it (if that's something we want to do) is by putting in the hard work.  Demonstrating, as we have at least some of the time, that we can be a global force for good.  I think it's worth a try - personally.  I don't know if we already beat the nazis...but like joe said, only suckers bet against america!  We're some way along the road to being condemned by a great many countries.  Worse, I think, in the context of our potential to do good.

You'd have to tell me what a knowledge society run by intellectuals would look like for me to have any idea how (or if) I'd try to persuade someone else.  What's the rational choice, explicitly and directly?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)