Judging by the language of the study, I'd say they're biased in the other direction, that Muslims denounce terrorism.

 

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.

That the sky is blue? I know right.

THAT'S [cabbage] AND YOU KNOW IT@ FROM WHERE I'M SITTING IT'S GRAYISH PURPLE WITH YELLOW PATCHES STICKING OUT@! ARE YOU BLIND, STUPID, AND UGLY ALL AT THE SAME TIME MY GOOD MAN?

 

Now that I've summarized every argument that OT has ever had, let's all go to forum games. :razz:

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-banned-by-mosque-ndash-because-he-was-too-extreme-2153057.html

lulz

 

I find this to be a summation of American understanding and interaction with Islam.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-banned-by-mosque-ndash-because-he-was-too-extreme-2153057.html

lulz

 

I find this to be a summation of American understanding and interaction with Islam.

 

You of all people should understand that it's not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-banned-by-mosque-ndash-because-he-was-too-extreme-2153057.html

lulz

 

I find this to be a summation of American understanding and interaction with Islam.

I usually find myself disagreeing with your viewpoints but I love this article :thumbup:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-banned-by-mosque-ndash-because-he-was-too-extreme-2153057.html

lulz

 

I find this to be a summation of American understanding and interaction with Islam.

 

You of all people should understand that it's not.

It is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-banned-by-mosque-ndash-because-he-was-too-extreme-2153057.html

lulz

 

I find this to be a summation of American understanding and interaction with Islam.

 

You of all people should understand that it's not.

It is.

 

Clearly not or we'd have an awful lot of American TIF'ers bashing Islam here, which isn't the case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fbi-plant-banned-by-mosque-ndash-because-he-was-too-extreme-2153057.html

lulz

 

I find this to be a summation of American understanding and interaction with Islam.

 

You of all people should understand that it's not.

It is.

 

Clearly not or we'd have an awful lot of American TIF'ers bashing Islam here, which isn't the case.

Well I was inferring that by summation he meant average. In that case he is right. The "average" Americans usually do not visit these forums.

Well I was inferring that by summation he meant average. In that case he is right. The "average" Americans usually do not visit these forums.

 

Of older generations who are primarily involved in these facepalm-worthy, you're most likely right. Looking back on it now, it only strengthens the point of the topic. Somybadyo.

Wait, so was George Bush a terrorist?

That the sky is blue? I know right.

THAT'S [cabbage] AND YOU KNOW IT@ FROM WHERE I'M SITTING IT'S GRAYISH PURPLE WITH YELLOW PATCHES STICKING OUT@! ARE YOU BLIND, STUPID, AND UGLY ALL AT THE SAME TIME MY GOOD MAN?

 

Now that I've summarized every argument that OT has ever had, let's all go to forum games. :razz:

 

I lol'd. :lol:

Religion is unnecessary. Down with religion.

Religion is unnecessary. Down with religion.

GET MOAR LINKS@

Religion is unnecessary. Down with religion.

GET MOAR LINKS@

 

 

For Christianity in particular:

http://www.evilbible.com/

 

And a summary of the arguments against religion in general, presented skillfully enough to make it worth reading for that reason alone:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807

Religion is unnecessary. Down with religion.

GET MOAR LINKS@

 

 

For Christianity in particular:

http://www.evilbible.com/

 

And a summary of the arguments against religion in general, presented skillfully enough to make it worth reading for that reason alone:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807

Interesting that you say it's relevant to Christianity yet the entire front page contains but one verse from the new testament - and that verse is taken out of context :rolleyes:

 

On second thought, I'm not even going to try to argue their points. The entire site makes ridiculous accusations and is terribly sourced.

It's really not worth it Yguy.

Is it ever? :P

 

Although, I've been meaning to read that book for a while. Bought it, should be interesting.

 

Apparently his brother writes very good books as well (from the other perspective).

Is it ever? :P

 

Although, I've been meaning to read that book for a while. Bought it, should be interesting.

 

Apparently his brother writes very good books as well (from the other perspective).

 

 

Someone who's name will not be known, once said that the fact that God said in one chapter "And he was pleased with his works," and then in a different chapter "he was not pleased with his works." as proof that not only is the Bible full of contradictions, but God is a temperamental pouty little girl.

No, because we've had this exact discussion.

 

The teachings of the catholic church are based off of literals or interpretations from the new testament.

Is it ever? :P

 

Although, I've been meaning to read that book for a while. Bought it, should be interesting.

 

Apparently his brother writes very good books as well (from the other perspective).

 

 

Someone who's name will not be known, once said that the fact that God said in one chapter "And he was pleased with his works," and then in a different chapter "he was not pleased with his works." as proof that not only is the Bible full of contradictions, but God is a temperamental pouty little girl.

 

That is a case of atheists being more religious than the people they slander. My problem is not really with religion, but moreso "acting religious" - the religious mindset that can be seen amongst atheists and theists alike. As long as society can hold an average conversation without "god" or "the nonexistence of god" being brought up, I think we could get a lot more done.

 

So yeah, down with religion. And links (aka scripture).

Like I said you can show it mathematically with around 10k samples or less.

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).

 

 

However such an inflammatory issue like this I would highly suggest in the 100's of thousands not in the 10's. Other factors this topic should look at. Does the country of origin determine your likelihood for supporting terrorism? Would there be 20% of the muslims in Iran support it, while only .2% of the muslims in the US do?

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.

No, because we've had this exact discussion.

 

The teachings of the catholic church are based off of literals or interpretations from the new testament.

 

Interpretations. However there is nothing to support such interpretations in the new testament. There is evidence from the old testament that can support these views.

 

Unfortunately you are right we have had this conversation before, and you failed to provide evidence on where the Catholic Church got evidence to support their interpretation of the scripture. Taking it right back to step one which is my point that religion is often used as a tool for someone to enforce their personal view of the world.

 

 

Well of course religion is used that way. Here's the issue: Is that a fault on religion's behalf, or humanity's?

No, because we've had this exact discussion.

 

The teachings of the catholic church are based off of literals or interpretations from the new testament.

 

Interpretations. However there is nothing to support such interpretations in the new testament. There is evidence from the old testament that can support these views.

 

Unfortunately you are right we have had this conversation before, and you failed to provide evidence on where the Catholic Church got evidence to support their interpretation of the scripture. Taking it right back to step one which is my point that religion is often used as a tool for someone to enforce their personal view of the world.

I've already posted the excerpt from the catechism that clearly explains the church's teachings. My explanations on other threads have consistently been insufficient for you as you're looking for a passage in the new testament that explicitly states "homosexuality is a sin". I've already told you there isn't one. We can go around in circles here, or I can stop wasting my time.

You posted a passage saying it is a sin, fair enough it is their doctrine, now if I ask why is it a sin, and under who's authority is it considered a sin I am sure you would find it impossible to prove that it is under God's authority and not mans.

 

The problem with an interpretation like that is it does not follow evidence that Jesus explicitly said homosexuality is a sin, so why do you believe it? Because the church says they interpreted the new testament to infer that if jesus was asked he would indeed say it is a sin? Or is it because YOU PERSONALLY have read the new testament and found evidence to support that interpretation.

 

Edit: if its the case that you personally have read the new testament to decide this, post the evidence you found that could support such an interpretation (again if we were talking about your interpretation of the theme of any novel I would want you to do the same)