sees_all1

I read the above, but there's nothing shocking or out of the ordinary. You'll see the exact same thing happens with Boeing, or GM, or any other large American corporation.

That's exactly what happens [/sarcasm] Edit: Clearly you're the expert on religion now, so I'm going to defer all questions to you.

Uh, no, it isn't.

When it's in the Bible it's called the Old Testament... Meaning what? Many, many Christians support the Old Testament. [spoiler=A quick Google search for dirt on the New Testament] I praise you for being faithful in remembering me. I also praise you for staying true to all my teachings, just as I gave them to you. Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. And the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame on his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame on her head. It is just as if her head were shaved. What if a woman does not cover her head? She should have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave it off. So she should cover her head. A man should not cover his head. He is the likeness and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 The man did not come from the woman. The woman came from the man. Also, the man was not created for the woman. The woman was created for the man. 10 That's why a woman should have her head covered. It shows that she is under authority. She should also cover her head because of the angels. .... -1 Corinthians 11 Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10 Corinthians With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28 Romans Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24 Matthew Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9 Matthew Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9 Luke Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47 Luke In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27 Luke Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14 John Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we want to have eternal life. This idea was just too gross for "many of his disciples" and "walked no more with him." 6:53-66 John [My own note: lawl messianic complex with cannnibalistic mood - this guy's a real gem] Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23 Acts Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32 Romans God is planning a messy, mass murder in "the wrath to come" and only Jesus can save you from it. 1:10 Thessalonians "The Lord destroyed them that believed not." 5 Jude [Don't make it bad] Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth's population. 9:15-19 Revelation God gave the saints and prophets blood to drink. 16:6 Revelation With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful in heaven into holy war on earth. 19:14-15 Revelation The short ones are from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/, the first was just a random search result. I hope you read that, as it's exactly what people have been asking for all along in these religious debates. As a Catholic, I believe that every Sunday when I go to mass, I eat Jesus' body and drink His blood. Why does that bother you so much?

When it's in the Bible it's called the Old Testament... Because that clearly doesn't apply to Christians at all. At any rate, I've always found it curious how Christians don't keep kosher or celebrate Jewish holidays. Seems like they should, according to scripture. Oh and also, if you don't think Christianity ever started war, you should take a look at Northern Ireland, the Crusades, 30 Years War, and most of European politics from the 16th and 17th centuries. Protestants versus Catholics. Maybe you should look at Matthew 15:10-20.

That you in the commercial? Nice legs. :mrgreen:

When it's in the Bible it's called the Old Testament...

Then I have to disagree with something in that string of logic...

I think you just contradicted yourself in the same post #-o Think again. Maybe the wording is a bit difficult, but you get what I'm saying, right? I mean, you're just picking it apart because I disagreed with you. Terrorism is independent of religion Religion is a huge factor in politics in the Middle East Do you disagree? Terrorism can be independent of religion, but it isn't independent of politics...

I think you just contradicted yourself in the same post #-o

A more rational thing to do is to point this out, or point to the crusades then try and make some blanket statement about all of Christianity in its present form without proof...

Yeah, but does God really want a person that's just hedging their bet? :mrgreen:

Christians did behave in a similar manner at one point, during the crusades. That was also when you couldn't get your hands on a Bible and the Catechism wasn't widely available... Whats nice about technology is we've all got access to the Bible, the Catechism, the Qu'ran, and Hadith. One set says "turn the other cheek", the other set says Jihad...

If only wikileaks could leak the World's conspiracy against it :rolleyes:

Statistically speaking, you can determine a percent and a standard error for any sample size over 2. It won't mean much if your margin of error is 100% though. You're also not supposed to use a binomial distribution if n*p < 10 (in this case, it isn't). If there were a trillion Muslims, and you (truly) randomly selected 1000 of them, asked them the question "Are you a terrorist?," and everyone answers honestly, you would come up with a percentage of your sample that are terrorists. Since the sample was truly random, you'd expect the percentage that you polled to be somewhere close to the true value. If you took repeated samples of that size, averaged all of them together, you'd eventually come up with the actual percentage of terrorists, or have an error so small it approaches zero. You don't need to poll every single one to get an estimate that's "good enough". Anyhow, I'm straining what I remember from my stat course, but I believe this study's application of statistics is not flawed, and I believe their poll numbers.

I get it as my third result... Persist! EDIT: what the hell? Where'd we go?

I'm of the opinion that Jamflex should have made base experience and prestige fixed numbers. A better math equation would have been: (Floor * 100) + (Prestige * 100) = level experience level experience * Size multiplier (1 for small, 2.5 for med, 6 for large) * Complexity multiplier (.5 to 1) * Team multiplier (total players / recommended) = floor base experience floor base experience * (percentage of monsters killed / expected percentage of monsters killed) * (total rooms unlocked / total unlockable rooms) = team experience team experience * death multiplier * title multiplier * percentage of time active in dungeon / average team active time in dungeon = personal experience.

Drivel.

If only Gillette didn't support the Patriots... <_<

FYI I siggied that first part... "my good man" really was the cherry on top that sold me.

I'm not talking about the study but those who will twist its words. Already one prominent media figure tried to do it, who is next? No matter how many people will advocate what you just said, because the news thrives on negativity any correction and truth is downplayed. These studies are destined for misuse. Sorry, I misread what you were trying to say. I read it in the context of "why the study was done in the first place," more of questioning the motive of the source and not the motives of the media. My bad, I'll try not to read through this thread so hastily next time. Seems like everyone else was questioning the source and not the delivery. Woops. :???: EDIT: I see Glenn Beck using this more of a "See, I was right, you were wrong!" or "I'm NOT THAT crazy" type of thing rather than "10% of all Muslims want US Civilians to die! We should carpet bomb the middle east!" That's how the commentary surrounding the numbers was originally portrayed.

Terrorism and Terrorists are two different things. The first definition given defines Terrorist - people that commit or support acts of terrorism. The second definition given, terrorism, includes harming civilians (among other things) to achieve political goals. People that support terrorism, under the first definition, are terrorists. That's because you haven't look at the source at all. (emphasis mine) In most cases, 500-2000 Muslims were polled in each country. These sample sizes are more than adequate for the claims they're making. 500k is a ridiculous sample size, and I hope you never use that as an answer on a standardized test on statistics (unless the expected or known probability is extraordinarily low). Judging by the language of the study, I'd say they're biased in the other direction, that Muslims denounce terrorism. Notice the numbers they're highlighting in the study. Their language highlights that a "Large majority denounces", rather than a "small minority supports".

Opinion surveys have control groups? Not to say I agree with the implication of the thread, but I'm not sure surveys work that way. He keeps referring to it as a study. And if you're going to make claims like 10% of Muslims are terrorists, then you'd better have a control. What's the opinion of non-Muslims, or other religions? How do you know there aren't more "terrorists" (LOL at calling them terrorists) in other religions? What were their methods? "Random" isn't specific enough. Why do they think a few thousand is good enough to generalize to hundreds of millions? That's not a representative sample IMO. Which statistic are you extrapolating this "10% are terrorists" claim? Because they never state that in the survey It is a study because they've compared two sets of data taken at different times.