Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
HotShot, learn to make sense - it's important.
davin
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,567
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
HotShot sounds exactly like all the kids I tutor in math and science that argue that all of it is completely pointless to learn.... even though a lot of this is stuff that is day to day usage, things like fractions, decimals, percents, and simple algebra.
I don't think that the muslims had a stronger argument, there was double the amount of muslims present as compared to other races. Ofcourse their views are going to be heard more if there is more of them. Muslim people don't belong in australia, they don't conform to our views and they don't asssimilate. The immigration policy needs to be changed so that their not allowed in. Cronulla riots was the best day Australia has ever had,
G
genavania
Guest
its all religions fault if there was only one religion or no religion none of this shit would be going on
HotShot
-_-
but they teach that at school! they dont about islam in school unless u go to scripture, - optional and thats only if you want to believe in it.davin said:
i am saying regardin NTB quot that there are important things to know about? - like wat ur dick size? i mean seriously wats more important?
even fractions, decimals percents - u no longer really need it, with computers and calculators they do it for u. But with islam its not like that.
HotShot
-_-
well ur rite, the survey didnt take into count how much australians knew about other religions. but i think that was because just to take a hit on muslims.aparker said:
davin
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,567
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
much as i see why people are often for the dumbing down of society, the number of times i've seen people get the WRONG answers on calculators for simple problems is proof that the idea of relying on calculators is a mistake.HotShot said:
HotShot
-_-
how many times do u use a calculator per day and how many mathematical problems do you encounter per day?davin said:
excluding school uni etc and other educational institutions.
me personally, i dont use a calculator at all, and only time i use a maths is when i go shopping or, when buying something (essentially the same). i dont buy that often so today none.
then counting - what do u count?..
davin
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,567
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
well, i virtually never use a calculator in day to day stuff, and hardly do so for my classes, but the amount of mental math i do is a lot....aside from stuff relating to shopping or purchasing (estimating sums, taxes, tips, or figuring out better prices per unit depending on what sort of purchase it is) i also use it a lot to figure out when i'll got to home or to uni or to work depending on rates of traffic and distances travelled. basic D=rt, but i use it a lot
Omnidragon
Devil
The irony to what you're saying is that people could afford to get these 'simple' problems wrong because there's a calculator! Why does it matter that they're getting it wrong if the objective is to calculate a simple problem?
Besides... I'd strongly disagree that being quick with numbers is equivalent to being smart (as your point that getting simple questions wrong equates to the 'dumbing down of society' suggests).
As far as maths is concerned, being smart is when a person is quick to understand the intuition behind maths. Students in Singapore and Hong Kong are quick with numbers... yet their level of competency is appaling once they reach university. They can't think for themselves... so they can't work out the intuition. While Australian kids are not as quick with the numbers, we are a lot more insightful and critical in the way we adjust ourselves to mathematics in university.
Besides... I'd strongly disagree that being quick with numbers is equivalent to being smart (as your point that getting simple questions wrong equates to the 'dumbing down of society' suggests).
As far as maths is concerned, being smart is when a person is quick to understand the intuition behind maths. Students in Singapore and Hong Kong are quick with numbers... yet their level of competency is appaling once they reach university. They can't think for themselves... so they can't work out the intuition. While Australian kids are not as quick with the numbers, we are a lot more insightful and critical in the way we adjust ourselves to mathematics in university.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
First problem here is that you just dismiss (with no evidence) the idea that being quick with numbers makes you smart... you then make an equally baseless assertion as he made and say that being smart is when a person is quick to understand the intuition.
Um evidence please? Just sounds like a baseless stereotypical assertion... that they're good at maths, but REALLY they're stupid.
Ummm yah.
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
In response to Davin... or pehaps it was NTB.
Prophets of religion existed before religion, and in the earliest of times... the people would have been descendants of Adam, who is also a prophet.
Therefore religions which were built from the effect of these prophets, are not valid religions.
Religion is more powerful then the will of mankind.
I agree that survival when working in a group is normal in society; eg (a pack of lions.)
But some of the more complex aspects of religion which INFLUENCES people, to form society and laws. Couldn't have been created on earth.
~Turn the other cheek.
~Pray/Meditate/Worship. (essentially wastes needed energy)
~Die for Religion. (goes against human nature)
Among many others... which i do not care to state...
Some people think that... humans are only different from animals because of our intelligents... we have similar anatomy, etc.
The thing that seperates us is our mentallity, like everything that humans learn. There are two aspects;
1. The Programmer.
2. The Programmed.
And everything else is just simple; Watch and Learn.
However NOTHIGN on earth could have influenced some of the moral beliefs which are incorporated with religion; such as "caring for the needy", "non violence" and "Self Discipline".
Prophets of religion existed before religion, and in the earliest of times... the people would have been descendants of Adam, who is also a prophet.
Therefore religions which were built from the effect of these prophets, are not valid religions.
Religion is more powerful then the will of mankind.
I agree that survival when working in a group is normal in society; eg (a pack of lions.)
But some of the more complex aspects of religion which INFLUENCES people, to form society and laws. Couldn't have been created on earth.
~Turn the other cheek.
~Pray/Meditate/Worship. (essentially wastes needed energy)
~Die for Religion. (goes against human nature)
Among many others... which i do not care to state...
Some people think that... humans are only different from animals because of our intelligents... we have similar anatomy, etc.
The thing that seperates us is our mentallity, like everything that humans learn. There are two aspects;
1. The Programmer.
2. The Programmed.
And everything else is just simple; Watch and Learn.
However NOTHIGN on earth could have influenced some of the moral beliefs which are incorporated with religion; such as "caring for the needy", "non violence" and "Self Discipline".
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
I'd like a response, this is kinda one... I spose.
Well while I'll accept that for an organised religion to get started a person or a group of people need to come up with it and express it, I don't think you can disprove that people didn't have their own personal religions. Either way I don't see how it affects my argument if prophets exist before religion... what are you trying to argue against?
Non-sequitur, or in other words... no it does not follow, in fact I don't see how you can claim it follows. Also, was not your religion built from the effect of a prophet?
See that's no argument... that's just a baseless assertion and does nothing to disprove me. I backed up my assertion with some logic / evidence... you did not.
How couldn't have they? I mean, I've provided the basic steps for how such laws come into existance and you seem to have agreed to them, yet you still disagree?... first we have this biological moral framework (that's in our genes) then we have humans with the ability to communicate... they communicate this moral framework... voila - we have laws.
We've evolved to empathise with each other... turning the other cheek is about us not liking violence, even against someone whom has done a wrong towards us. I don't see how this requires a god?
Well first of all... these aren't moral things. However, how do we get the idea? Well prayer, we like to think we can communicate with our god... Meditation, same sort of thing... Worship, we are pack animals so it makes sense to us to look up to the leader of the pack (god).
Humans are only significantly different to animals because of our intelligence, don't knock having an intelligence like ours tho...
This is (I assume, you're a little ambigious) saying that the thing which separates us from other animals is that we are Gods special creatures, however you actually have to quantify this.... what does it mean to be one of Gods special creatures, if it just means we evolved an intelligence which led to prayer/worship/meditation or whatever then why not accept the naturalistic explanation instead of the God explanation?
I gave a PERFECT example, backed up by FOSSIL EVIDENCE of how 'caring for the needy' is something in our genes - yet you just ignore it. Also non-violence... I mean it's easy to explain why we like to not be non-violent to each other, we find we can get more done that way... of course I imagine we'd be much more violent if we weren't granted the living standards we have through our technology.
And umm 'self disipline' ? What does this mean exactly, you have to give an example and I'll explain why humans do it.
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Ahhh!!! Stupid FORUM!
I replyed and it got wasted...
[I had more but it got deleted... stupid forums.]
I replyed and it got wasted...
Basically i said that the evidence you provided could be false... how can you prove the source is reliable? even still it is a hypothesis... you are "assuming they cared for him", so even if the evidence is completely true it is still an assumption.
Proof that religion is more powerful;
- People sacrificing their lives for religion (goes against human nature)
- Abstaining from food for religion (goes against human nature)
- Abstaining from sex for religion (Monks and Priests... And other religious people)
- People committing suicide because of shame (which is caused by the effect of religion)
No. The religion was presented by the prophet. Not as a result of his existance. (People may be influenced by some of the factors, that the prophet [Who communicated with god] had presented. Only choosing the ones that suit themselves to follow).
[I had more but it got deleted... stupid forums.]
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Yea it could be false, but since it fits in with all the other evidence (looking at monkeys, other social animals) and seems to make sense based on independant lines of inquiry... I'd say it's not something you should just dismiss as 'LOLZ A LAME ASS HYPOTHESIS' - It's the best solution that has been made so far based on the facts, so either you come up with a better solution, modify the current solution (based on positive or negative criticism), or the current solution will stand.
Ok, now something that IS human nature... i.e. you've observed this characteristic in humans... does not go against human nature. Of course generally, people don't want to sacrafice their lives, however we're intelligent beings with the ability to do so... some choose to do this, it's a natural thing... we've observed it in nature.
Anyway, proof that man kind is more powerful.
-> Man kind leads the religion, the religion does not lead the people. i.e. you'll find, all around the world... people dictating what their religion is about. I.e. the muslim terrorists, or the american christians who believe their religion is so much about hating gays, or hitler whom believed his religion compelled him to kill off inferior races...
Um no, without the prophet there would be no muslim religion - correct? Islam was made known to people through the words of the prophet, so without the prophet people would not know about it.
Last edited:
K
katie_tully
Guest
Somebody mentioned parallax. I recently did parallax, and some early measurements for interplanetary distances.
Eratosthenes was actually the first person to estimate the circumference of the earth, somewhere between 276-196 BC.
He suggested that the Earth was spherical, and that because the sun is so far away the sun rays are parallel to each other.
He also noted that at midday, the rays do not cast a shadow when a stick is put vertically into the ground.
Basically he measured the circumference as 46,000 km, which is actually quite closer (41,000 km).
Parallax is when a near object is measured against a background of much more remote objects. Measurements are taken at 6 month intervals and the near object will change its position relative to tbe backdrop.
It's actually quite accurate for stars that a nearer to the earth, but if memory serves me correct it starts to get a 20% error rate after about 8 light years...
AND it's also a misconception that people thought the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Astronomers and mathematicians had hypothesised that the earth orbited the sun. It was generally the common man that had no expertise that spread this rumour.
Eratosthenes was actually the first person to estimate the circumference of the earth, somewhere between 276-196 BC.
He suggested that the Earth was spherical, and that because the sun is so far away the sun rays are parallel to each other.
He also noted that at midday, the rays do not cast a shadow when a stick is put vertically into the ground.
Basically he measured the circumference as 46,000 km, which is actually quite closer (41,000 km).
Parallax is when a near object is measured against a background of much more remote objects. Measurements are taken at 6 month intervals and the near object will change its position relative to tbe backdrop.
It's actually quite accurate for stars that a nearer to the earth, but if memory serves me correct it starts to get a 20% error rate after about 8 light years...
AND it's also a misconception that people thought the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe. Astronomers and mathematicians had hypothesised that the earth orbited the sun. It was generally the common man that had no expertise that spread this rumour.
Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Yes, but after the prophet created Islam they retrospectively claimed every other prophet to have been a Muslim since the beginning of time, hence you are correct from a non-Muslim point of view while he is paraphrasing the official stance of his religion towards all people (that they choose) that were born before Mohammed lived.Not-That-Bright said:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
I still don't see how that changes much of anything, even if he thinks that ALL the prophets were muslim prophets that doesn't change the fact that the religion only came into being because of those prophets.
K
katie_tully
Guest
What did everybody do BEFORE the advent of Christianity and Islam.
They were pagan and worshipped a series of Gods, responsible for certain aspects of life.
Were their Gods wrong?
They were pagan and worshipped a series of Gods, responsible for certain aspects of life.
Were their Gods wrong?
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Before Christianity and Islam there were JUDAS >:/