It *is* a sad state of affairs when you feel bad that you have to deal in truth.

A couple things to note:

1) Sample size is too small to be meaningful.
2) How are you going to declare what's "fair" in the sampling? Are we constraining geography and thus biasing the sample? Or are we going for an actual random sampling of humans?
3) The noise is unspecified. What would you consider a significant difference?
4) It's stupidly impractical. It's kind of the mindless chest-thumping that one might expect from someone who will prefer to hide behind their own bluster. "I bet you won't take me up on this wager that we won't actually be able to execute... Yeah... That's what I thought..."

Amusingly, IQ tests are not known for measuring "critical thinking" (bro). There are other tests that do that.

For example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...71187116300384

You clearly don't actually know what you're talking about, which makes your endless drunk cloud-yelling that much more amusing to mock.

I reject the structure of the wager. Nobody in their right mind would propose or accept such a wager except as a gamble. (I'll let you figure out what that means...)

Alright, you got me, I was pretty much trolling. Yes, obviously there is no way that the terms to that bet get worked out in a practicable manner. Not sure about your last comment though, pretty sure as an arithmetician you would know that you are getting about 3:2 there, as stated in UK odds.

Can't really argue with anything else you've said. And, I do enjoy your mocking of my endless "cloud yelling". I mean, f/ck, if the only people round here were the loonies who genuinely believe some guy lived to be 600 years old and grew to be 20 ft tall, or whatever horseshit they believe, I wouldn't really show up. I want a good game, so, thanks

Yo, though, can you explain to me how anyone with any critical thinking ability whatsoever can believe in some batshit insane stuff like the literal interpretation of Genesis? I mean, lagtight said he is/was teaching critical thinking courses. F/ck me, no wonder Trump got elected.

Aaron, you are a smart guy, but when it comes to religion... Jeez

It's a lot easier to con a man than to persuade him he has been conned

What's there to explain? It's not the "critical thinking" you're criticizing. It's the acceptance/rejection of different types and forms of "evidence" and the subjective choices of the weights assigned to those things.

Amusingly, I could theoretically say the exact same thing to you.

The difference, as I see it, is that you have come to a point where you more or less are choosing to reject factual claims about religion, religious persons, and religious beliefs, and instead rely upon caricature and false characterizations to attempt to make your points. So who is the one who suffers from "critical thinking" problems?

It becomes pretty easy to rely on caricatures when the people who claim to represent you in the house and the senate, and whom you people voted in, live up to the caricature.

At this juncture, we don't even need caricatures or parodies any more. The satire makes itself in your country.

I know you are going to ask for cites, and I have lots. I'd suggest that this is probably not the best course for you, snowball in congress hence no global warming, buddy.

I'm sorry, I called,

"acceptance/rejection of different types and forms of "evidence" and the subjective choices of the weights assigned to those things"

'critical thinking'. In my defense, it was in the interests of brevity.

What would you call it?

That's interesting. If that were the case, then you would absolutely have to know that IQ tests do NOT test these things at all. So whatever it is that you think critical thinking is now, it's not whatever it is that you thought it was before I used that phrasing.

This is a bad defense, as it is misaligned with your argumentation.

I would call your defense "stupid" and "dishonest."

Easy or hard is irrelevant to me. Instead of living up the the lazy standard, why not live up to the one that is intellectually coherent?

I know there are stupid people out there. The question, however, is why you insist on blanket statements where you assert that the stupid people are representative of other people, and specifically representative of me. You are engaged in some of the laziest forms of thinking, and you also seem mostly incapable of recognizing it for what it is. Every new post you make affirms just how bad of an intellectual approach you're bringing to the table. All bluster and no substance.

You have way more in common with "them" than you realize.

I'm not aware of any Christians who believe in fairies. But I am aware of people who create caricatures of what other people actually believe. One of those people you will recognize the next time you look in a mirror.

Ok, that is pretty cutting, and, I'll grant you this, correct. I am indeed one of the "intolerant" people. The difference between me and the others is, that I'm right.

Do we really need to go down the "flying spaghetti mosnter" route? Really? You taught "critical thinking", man. Exercise some.

Representative, how? Through a democratic vote, perhaps?

God forbid I should judge you as a country on the people you as a country elected to represent you.

Bro, did you miss the part where I said explicitly that they were not representative of *you* (singular). I only repeated it about a million times. Let me know if you want cites.

Hey, I got a tip for you. Next time you want to be really obnoxious, say "the perpendicular pronoun" instead of "I". Trust me, it really gets all the girls.

Except for all those times you use what you assume about "them" and apply it to me. But if you ignore all the times you're wrong, then you could reasonably conclude you're right.

Sweet! I like this new way of thinking. So, I am basically right reardless of what, I say, right?
For example, I could say that a parabola crosses the x axis in 3 points. Or that the 7th root of one has 8 solutions. Or that I could square the circle (i.e. construct a transcedental line).

They're just opinions, right, bro?

I'll have to try that!

Sure. When you choose to make factually false claims repeatedly and claim that they're true, you're in position to believe whatever you want to believe. Just don't mind me when I point out the facts that are contrary to your statements.

I won't. In fact, that is precisely what you're here for.

Blah I was intrigued by the thread title as I am an atheist, NeverTrump Repub that has a hard time finding an acceptable landing spot for my political beliefs.

Unfortunately it seems this thread has devolved into a dick swinging contest.

It has. You have my apologies. Please join. What's your story?

This thread basically started devolving with the first sentence of the first post.

So you believe in devolution, then?