Civil Discussion About Religion

[MTK]

LOL this thread is hilarious

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

LOL this thread is hilarious

I'm glad you find it funny. I'm not really sure how gambling and wind entered the conversation.

Folks, this tread is about me and god and whether I'm going to hell for no longer having faith in him/her/it. A poll is perhaps in order?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm glad you find it funny. I'm not really sure how gambling and wind entered the conversation.

Folks, this tread is about me and god and whether I'm going to hell for no longer having faith in him/her/it. A poll is perhaps in order?

Yeah, I was wondering when someone would point out this went way off what the original question was.

If you have no faith, then I suppose you don't think there's a hell in which case why would you worry about going to a place that doesn't exist? Or something like that

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm glad you find it funny. I'm not really sure how gambling and wind entered the conversation.

Folks, this tread is about me and god and whether I'm going to hell for no longer having faith in him/her/it. A poll is perhaps in order?

God is a flying spaghetti-monster. Obviously.

[Hog1]

The coolest thing about it all is this. You get to believe whatever you want. If your a non-believer, or any other type of believer. You will find out what the truth is. Only problem is, if you have been wrong all these years, it may get real hot............or not..........and NOBODY can prove differently....

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

The coolest thing about it all is this. You get to believe whatever you want. If your a non-believer, or any other type of believer. You will find out what the truth is. Only problem is, if you have been wrong all these years, it may get real hot............or not..........and NOBODY can prove differently....

I'd like to believe God is more forgiving and understanding than sending the non-believers to hell.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

The coolest thing about it all is this. You get to believe whatever you want. If your a non-believer, or any other type of believer. You will find out what the truth is. Only problem is, if you have been wrong all these years, it may get real hot............or not..........and NOBODY can prove differently....

Well if everyone discovers that there isn't a God, their brains won't be functioning at that point, and they'll cease to exist. So will we even be able to think to ourselves, hey, there's no God after all?

The cool thing about all this is the questions it raises. Like was our world/universe/matter created? Or did it simply always exist?

If you think of matter relative to our human concept of time, it's hard to fathom matter always existing. Because to us, everything has a beginning and an end, a notion that comes from our concept of time.

But our concept of time may be limited to the fact that we can't travel faster than the speed of light. Imagine this: you're looking at a clock, it says 8:00 pm. The reason you see that it's 8:00 pm is because the light shining from the face of the clock travels the space between the clock and your eye, reaching your eye basically instantaneously. But now imagine that you're moving away from the clock at the speed of light. What does the clock read? The image of 8:00 pm would be traveling at the same speed as you, so from your vantage point, it would appear to be stuck on 8:00 pm until you slowed down.

That's Einstein's theory of relativity in a nutshell. Time and space are relative to your velocity as you approach the speed of light.

Isn't it possible that our definition of "time" is too limited to define a beginning to our world/universe? With so many objects moving at such vastly different speeds through space, each object would have it's own sense of time.

[MTK]

LOL this is getting good

[saden1]

Schneed10, chill out man...agree to disagree.

[Redskinhog1963]

god says he made man in his image.but he never said what that image was!
is'nt it plausable that after he created us in his image,we evolved out of his image to our current image???

[MTK]

I actually thought my undergrad was tougher to get through. Longer program, more tedious type of work/tests.

Grad school was a different challenge, mainly being time management with juggling a full time job. I felt that the profs treated you different, more like an equal and as a result the classes were much more enjoyable. I liked the emphasis on original thought vs. just memorizing and spitting back info like in undergrad.

[Schneed10]

My undergrad was a lot harder than grad school, as well. I think the professors tended to get on our asses a lot harder because they knew that if they didn't, we'd be back in our apartment playing beer pong all night. You're right, grad school professors didn't tend to push as hard.

Jsarno, there's just no way I can get through to you on your roulette system. I'll let these guys from the Wizard of Odds, with PhDs in statistics, do the explaining:

♠The Truth about Betting Systems - by The Wizard of Odds

The biggest gambling myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the "gambler's fallacy." Thousands of gamblers have devised betting systems that attempt to exploit the gambler's fallacy by betting the opposite way of recent outcomes. For example, waiting for three reds in roulette and then betting on black. Hucksters sell "guaranteed" get-rich-quick betting systems that are ultimately based on the gambler's fallacy. None of them work. If you don't believe me here is what some other sources say on the topic.

A common gamblers' fallacy called 'the doctrine of the maturity of the chances' (or 'Monte Carlo fallacy') falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities. A number of 'systems' have been invented by gamblers based largely on this fallacy; casino operators are happy to encourage the use of such systems and to exploit any gambler's neglect of the strict rules of probability and independent plays. -- Encyclopedia Britannica (look under "gambling.")
No betting system can convert a subfair game into a profitable enterprise... -- Probability and Measure (page 94, second edition) by Patrick Billingsley

The number of 'guaranteed' betting systems, the proliferation of myths and fallacies concerning such systems, and the countless people believing, propagating, venerating, protecting, and swearing by such systems are legion. Betting systems constitute one of the oldest delusions of gambling history. Betting systems votaries are spiritually akin to the proponents of perpetual motion machines, butting their heads against the second law of thermodynamcis. -- The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic (page 53) by Richard A. Epstein

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

My undergrad was a lot harder than grad school, as well. I think the professors tended to get on our asses a lot harder because they knew that if they didn't, we'd be back in our apartment playing beer pong all night. You're right, grad school professors didn't tend to push as hard.

Jsarno, there's just no way I can get through to you on your roulette system. I'll let these guys from the Wizard of Odds, with PhDs in statistics, do the explaining:

♠The Truth about Betting Systems - by The Wizard of Odds

You wrote this on a previous thread:

No not directed at you, you are quality. We may butt heads, but I enjoy the discussions because you explain yourself, you consider opposing views, and you're civil.

I appreciate your comments.
All I ask is you check out the proof I laid before you. That's it. Do you really think it's not even possible to find a loop hole in something? Just check it out, and if you still think that I'm wrong, then so be it. At least then I can honor your opinion on the subject. You say I consider opposing views, which I do...so if this is something you look for in a poster, why not practice it.
(I have seen you practice this in other areas, so why not here?)

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You wrote this on a previous thread:

I appreciate your comments.
All I ask is you check out the proof I laid before you. That's it. Do you really think it's not even possible to find a loop hole in something? Just check it out, and if you still think that I'm wrong, then so be it. At least then I can honor your opinion on the subject. You say I consider opposing views, which I do...so if this is something you look for in a poster, why not practice it.
(I have seen you practice this in other areas, so why not here?)

I was planning on checking it out, but I didn't want to do it from the office. I didn't have enough time in my workday to devote to it.

I looked over your system and did what you said. I started with 5000. I put 5 on 2nd 12, 5 on 3rd 12, 5 on red, and 5 on odd. I repeated this exact betting pattern for 8 straight rolls. I was exactly breakeven after those 8 rolls. Then I began betting patterns like you said. The board shows the last 9 numbers to come up. So whenever I saw 6 or more blacks on the board, I doubled my money on black. Did the same thing when I saw 6 evens, 6 odds, or 6 reds. If I didn't see more than 6 of anything in the betting history, I went back to your original betting configuration.

After 40 rolls, I finished down 95 dollars. Reason? The wheel hit 00 or 0 three separate times, causing me to lose 25 on each one. So I was basically treading water aside from those hits on the green slots.

That's what happens. If you're going to tell me that you have to quit before 40 rolls, then you've proved my point. Over the long haul, the more spins you take, the more likely it is that you'll lose money.

If you don't like the system I used, give me another one and I'll try it. I won't try anything for less than 40 rolls, I'm looking to give it a real good test. If I rolled say 5 times and left the table up 20, I wouldn't be convinced at all. With only 5 rolls, I could have just simply gotten lucky. But if your system can win me money over the course of 40 rolls, then I'll be convinced.

[724Skinsfan]

The debate simplified:

A person of science wants to know where they came from, not where they are going.

A person of religion wants to know where they are going, not where they came from.