Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Doofy · May 4, 2010, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Which was after you called him a "doofus".

doofus
1. US, slang. A simpleton.

Don't worry about it - part of the reason for going with this nick was for it to act as an idiot lantern. Anyone successfully rendering the word "doofus" out of my nick (and let's face it, it's a huge leap requiring extensive mental gymnastics) immediately shows themselves to be of much higher intellect than pretty much anyone else on the planet.

Warren Pease · 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

What religion? I don't recall mentioning a religion.

As for my one success, I've had over 200 private students, not counting those who attend our study groups and book discussions. She's simply the only one who was a "hardcore" atheist.

You didn't which is why I didn't specify one. If you are uncomfortable with using the word religion, then tell me what sort of classes, study groups, book discussions, etc you hold. Perhaps I misunderstood them to involve some sort of theology, because you mentioned the one pupil you had was a standout for being an atheist, moreso, a "hardcore." That distinction is completely irrelevant if you were teaching history, or proving a geometric proof for example.

I guess I don't know what this "certain course of study" entails.

So for clarity, your one success ended with one student not changing her mind.
And your failures? Did they not change their minds, or did they?

Warhaven · May 4, 2010, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

The only difference is that I've done the experiment with an open mind and discovered the answer. You refuse to even start the experiment.

I've performed said experiment 119,321 times to date, including twice yesterday (all verified by independent observers); however, I was using the updated model that takes into account many variables not previously included in the original experiment -- making it much more reliable. Interestingly, my results have all come back negative. Even though the experiment you yourself performed is antiquated, I find it interesting that your result should be so erroneous. Are you sure you performed the experiment correctly? According to your post, it sounds like you've only performed it once, and any good scientist would have performed said experiment many times over in order to take into account anomalous results. However, with my own experimentation and accounting for a reasonable margin of error (you), I am forced to conclude that God does not, in point of fact, exist.

As an interesting side effect to the experiment, it has also been concluded that wood-carrying Sherpa do exist.

I would strongly encourage you to perform the experiment again (many more times, actually -- a minimum of 100,000 times should be ample enough to obtain a reasonable sample size) using the updated model. When you've completed the experiment, I'd be more than happy to review your data in order to verify it and make sure you've used the correct experiment. Using the correct experiment is, of course, crucial in a test of this magnitude.

Doofy · May 4, 2010, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Warhaven

I've performed said experiment 119,321 times

Congratulations on being 178,981 years old!

Shaddim · May 4, 2010, 06:33 PM

More aggressive evangelism from the atheists, whodathunkit™? Are you guys taking lessons from Benny Hinn?

Originally Posted by Doofy

Congratulations on being 178,981 years old!

good one.

Warhaven · May 4, 2010, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Congratulations on being 178,981 years old!

178,981 years old? That's a ridiculous notion. Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the new, more accurate, experimental model.

screener · May 4, 2010, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Which was after you called him a "doofus".

doofus
1. US, slang. A simpleton.

No, after the quote, try again.

screener · May 4, 2010, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I have proved for myself beyond all doubt, and in a physical manner, the existence of a higher being.

I'm being honest. You simply don't believe me. End of story.

Proved to yourself, but expect others to follow your lead.

You have to want to believe for whatever reason before you take the next step to believe without question.
That's where it falls apart.

Kerrigan · May 4, 2010, 07:16 PM

I just wanted to point out that MacNN is on the DrudgeReport (well, sort of).

Doofy · May 4, 2010, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by screener

Proved to yourself, but expect others to follow your lead.

I don't expect anyone to do anything. I merely said that it can be done.
If you want to try it for yourself, try it. If you don't, don't. Simple.

...But don't tell me that it can't be done, because I know it can.

Doofy · May 4, 2010, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I just wanted to point out that MacNN is on the DrudgeReport (well, sort of).

Link?

Shaddim · May 4, 2010, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by screener

No, after the quote, try again.

No, it wasn't. I'm looking at the time stamps right now.

screener · May 4, 2010, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

No, it wasn't. I'm looking at the time stamps right now.

My first post in this thread was 4:43.
Doofy's post, which I quoted was posted at 4:34.

Uncle Skeleton · May 4, 2010, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

You know, being an angry, abusive sh*thead doesn't exactly entice people to help you. Just thought I'd point that out.

We've went over this many times before, Doofy and myself, use the search function.

"What are you referring to?"
"It's a secret, but if you knew the secret, you could look it up by the keywords of the secret"
"

"

Uncle Skeleton · May 4, 2010, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Link?

Irony!

Shaddim · May 4, 2010, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by screener

My first post in this thread was 4:43.
Doofy's post, which I quoted was posted at 4:34.

That's nice but pointless, it doesn't change the fact that you were calling Doofy an imbecile before you ever made this post:

I don't have a problem with religion and those that believe.
Be honest about it and all will be well.

and that was what started this whole round-about. You claim to be "tolerant" of religious people, right after you insult them and call them names based on what they believe. Seems a bit f*cked up, doesn't it?

screener · May 4, 2010, 07:54 PM

See what you want to see huh?

My problem with Doofy was the way he treated others here with his attitude in trying to explain his "proof".

Doofy · May 4, 2010, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by screener

My problem with Doofy was the way he treated others here with his attitude in trying to explain his "proof".

All of whom gave me attitude before I gave it back to them. Yet somehow you haven't picked fault with their attitude. How odd.

TETENAL · May 5, 2010, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you want to try it for yourself, try it. If you don't, don't. Simple.

...But don't tell me that it can't be done, because I know it can.

I think you just need to describe the experiment. Even an atheist would love to live on after death, so there's certainly no lack of motivation to perform this experiment. Just say what you have done!

Telling people that god can be proven experimentally, but not telling how, just makes you an troll. Not that I'm surprised about that.

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I think you just need to describe the experiment. Even an atheist would love to live on after death, so there's certainly no lack of motivation to perform this experiment. Just say what you have done!

No. You need to figure it out yourselves. Said experiment is highly dangerous and you must approach it from your own direction.

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Telling people that god can be proven experimentally, but not telling how, just makes you an troll. Not that I'm surprised about that.

More insults. Ho hum.

TETENAL · May 5, 2010, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No. You need to figure it out yourselves.

Please quote the Bible on that.

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Please quote the Bible on that.

"Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you".

The Final Dakar · May 5, 2010, 09:10 AM

It's highly dangerous? Now I'm left thinking about the end of Raiders and Last Crusade.

osiris · May 5, 2010, 09:25 AM

"A flute without holes, is not a flute. A donut without a hole, is a Danish."

osiris · May 5, 2010, 09:32 AM

I should note that while I believe in what many religions describe as the great flood, I am skeptical about the remains of this old boat. I would imagine that the real ark, if it even existed, would've been burned for warmth, especially if everything local was sogged up for so long.

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

It's highly dangerous? Now I'm left thinking about the end of Raiders and Last Crusade.

Not that dramatic. More of a slowly sinking into despair as the soul ebbs out of your wretched carcass before hanging yourself up from the rafters, from what I can gather.

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by osiris

I should note that while I believe in what many religions describe as the great flood, I am skeptical about the remains of this old boat. I would imagine that the real ark, if it even existed, would've been burned for warmth, especially if everything local was sogged up for so long.

Or made into houses and other useful stuff.

The Final Dakar · May 5, 2010, 09:37 AM

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! How the **** did we get back on topic?

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! How the **** did we get back on topic?

Simples. Someone decided to talk about the topic instead of harassing Doof.

The Final Dakar · May 5, 2010, 09:53 AM

The question was rhetorical!

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

The question was rhetorical!

So was the answer!
Heh. Work that one out.

hyteckit · May 5, 2010, 11:22 AM

Forget Doof.

Rather have Duff.

olePigeon · May 5, 2010, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

"Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you".

I think that was in reference to 12-year-old boys' virginity.

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I think that was in reference to 12-year-old boys' virginity.

And you would be wrong in that thought.

hyteckit · May 5, 2010, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I think that was in reference to 12-year-old boys' virginity.

It's a hide 'n seek game played between a priest and choir boys.

Shaddim · May 5, 2010, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not that dramatic. More of a slowly sinking into despair as the soul ebbs out of your wretched carcass before hanging yourself up from the rafters, from what I can gather.

Usually, yeah, that's about right. The death rate can be rather, shocking. There aren't too many really old folks in this line of study. Of my 3 mentors: One killed himself at 47 after a short battle with cancer, another died of cancer at 39 (brain tumor and she was dead in 2 months), and the last is 51... yeah, you guessed it, he's been fighting cancer for 6 years. Me? I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma many years ago, but after aggressive treatment it's been in remission. I have a theory about all that, but I won't go into it right now.

screener · May 5, 2010, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

All of whom gave me attitude before I gave it back to them. Yet somehow you haven't picked fault with their attitude. How odd.

You brought the derision on yourself.
Just admit the experiment was to open your heart and let Jesus in.

You have to want to believe to believe.

hyteckit · May 5, 2010, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Usually, yeah, that's about right. The death rate can be rather, shocking. There aren't too many really old folks in this line of study. Of my 3 mentors: One killed himself at 47 after a short battle with cancer, another died of cancer at 39 (brain tumor and she was dead in 2 months), and the last is 51... yeah, you guessed it, he's been fighting cancer for 6 years. Me? I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma many years ago, but after aggressive treatment it's been in remission. I have a theory about all that, but I won't go into it right now.

Sounds like you are spreading cancer around.

screener · May 5, 2010, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

That's nice but pointless, it doesn't change the fact that you were calling Doofy an imbecile before you ever made this post:

It wasn't pointless, the truth shall set you free, right?

and that was what started this whole round-about. You claim to be "tolerant" of religious people, right after you insult them and call them names based on what they believe. Seems a bit f*cked up, doesn't it?

If they aren't honest and insist on playing word games, misrepresenting time stamps, what do you expect.

Uncle Skeleton · May 5, 2010, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Usually, yeah, that's about right. The death rate can be rather, shocking. There aren't too many really old folks in this line of study. Of my 3 mentors: One killed himself at 47 after a short battle with cancer, another died of cancer at 39 (brain tumor and she was dead in 2 months), and the last is 51... yeah, you guessed it, he's been fighting cancer for 6 years. Me? I was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma many years ago, but after aggressive treatment it's been in remission. I have a theory about all that, but I won't go into it right now.

I think I know what the experiment is... it's no wonder you don't want to reveal it. The only people who believe it are ones desperate enough to believe anything. True objectivity spoils the interpretation of the outcome. And it's dependent on survivorship bias, so it's in your interest to keep the sample size low to make unbiased statistical evaluation harder.

I'm very sorry to hear about your condition, and your friends. I hope your recovery persists for a very long time.

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I think I know what the experiment is... it's no wonder you don't want to reveal it. The only people who believe it are ones desperate enough to believe anything. True objectivity spoils the interpretation of the outcome. And it's dependent on survivorship bias, so it's in your interest to keep the sample size low to make unbiased statistical evaluation harder.

Nope.

Uncle Skeleton · May 5, 2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Nope.

'fraid so.

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

'fraid so.

Nope. And the way you've phrased that little taunt shows that you haven't got a clue what we're talking about. Nice try.

screener · May 5, 2010, 02:41 PM

And it continues, how stupid.

Uncle Skeleton · May 5, 2010, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Nope. And the way you've phrased that little taunt shows that you haven't got a clue what we're talking about. Nice try.

No, I'm right, and you're wrong. And the way you're phrasing your little taunts shows that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Only I do. Nice try.

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by screener

And it continues, how stupid.

All you have to do is stop.

screener · May 5, 2010, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

All you have to do is stop.

All you have to do is quit being a D.....

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by screener

All you have to do is quit being a D.....

So instead of choosing to stop, you choose to continue. How stupid.

screener · May 5, 2010, 03:09 PM

It's on you.
You claimed the proof and then expected others to duplicate the experiment without any clues, direction.

Be honest, okay?

Doofy · May 5, 2010, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by screener

It's on you.
You claimed the proof and then expected others to duplicate the experiment without any clues, direction.

No. I said it can be done. I expect others to do what they want to do.