This statement was said by some guy in my school:
Out of 1 000 000 randomly selected people at least one is smarter than you, and he said that is 100% true. I know the whole argument is stupid, but just for the verification.
He also said on average there is at least 1 doctor per 1000, he then said: Think about how many thousands there are in 2 000 000 (as we were talking about leafy's fan base, and I was arguing that it was cancerous and most of them were stupid).
so is he right or am I right?
non pic related
What he meant is that you are in the bottom 999 999 of the population when it comes to intelligence. He sounds like a clever guy with a good sense of humour that can offend you without you even realising.
>>8039278
Holy shit BTFO
>>8039278
lol fgt, i was not offended, I was simply saying it is likely but not 100% certain (btw i wasnt the one being called stupid, it was my friend)
>>8039271
30% of the time, statistics are made up on the spot.
Intelligence is subjective.
Its not disprovable.
The statement belongs in a trashcan.
>>8039271
Leafy's fanbase is not 'random' though. It's a congregation of oxygen thieves.
>>8039271
>Out of 1 000 000 randomly selected people at least one is smarter than you, and he said that is 100% true.
Unless we can guarantee you're in the bottom 1M dumbest people in the world, this is untrue.
>He also said on average there is at least 1 doctor per 1000
Doubtful IMO, but I don't know the numbers.
>Think about how many thousands there are in 2 000 000 (as we were talking about leafy's fan base, and I was arguing that it was cancerous and most of them were stupid).
Don't know who leafy is, but the sample is not random.
Dude argues like a faggot.
>>8039297
kek
>>8039725
thank you ^^
>>8039271
The selection isn't random - it's based on someone retarded enough to be a fan of leafy.
The fact that you didn't notice that flaw in his argument right off the bat shows that you're just as fucking stupid as he is.
>>8039542
>oxygen thieves
holy fucking kek, how have i not heard this before
>>8041165
ikr
>>8039367
shit son my neighbor's 15 year old daughter looks almost exactly like her.
>>8041803
ULUCKY
>>8039291
by saying that it IS exactly 100% he's saying that you are in the dumbest milloin in case you didn't get it
Someone must be the smartest, thus the argument is invalid. Out of 1 000 000 randomly selected people at least one is smarter than you does not follow with necessity - you could be the smartest out of those 1 000 000 randomly selected people.
>>8039367
>things stupid people say
:^)
>>8042840
no he didn't mean it like that lol,
>>8039271
>Out of 1 000 000 randomly selected people at least one is smarter than you, and he said that is 100% true.
Logical contradiction. You can't have a group of people of which every member has at least one other member that's smarter than them
> at least one is smarter than you
so whos smarter than the smartest guy ?
>>8043810
God
No.
Heys using Heuristic Bayesian Probability, but stating probability is a fact, it a fallacy.
- Appeal to probability is a fallacy
- Inductive fallacy is a fallacy
- Expectation bias is a fallacy
- Argument from ignorance is a fallacy
Something isn't until it is.
That's a fact. Probability is not always correct.
>>8040576
^_-
>>8044967
If you believe in a god after
- Anthropology: we made it up
- Archeology: we made it up
- Psychology: we made it up
- History: we made it up
- Sociology: we made it up
- Cosmology: universe doesn't point to it
- Astronomy: universe doesn't point to it
- Biology: universe doesn't point to it
- Physics: universe doesn't point to it
etc...
Then you just reject science, logic and math.
Have fun with your anchoring confirmation bias and circular logic.
>>8044977
None of those contradict the existence of a possible god.
>>8044981
Possibility doesn't equal probability.
Also, logic:
"There is no reason to believe unless there is a reason to believe; there is a reason to doubt if there is a reason to doubt, if there is a reason to believe then there is a reason to believe. Presumption is not reason."
Self referencing axiomatic tautologies > Unreasoned Belief
>>8044990
>Possibility doesn't equal probability.
Didn't say that.
>Self referencing axiomatic tautologies > Unreasoned Belief
And yet bible thumpers breed more than those who are more reasonable.
And no reason to believe doesn't contradict or disprove anything.
>>8044992
>Possibility doesn't equal probability.
>Didn't say that.
You implied possibility was equally reasonable as probability, and it's not.
I'm not saying probability is always correct, it's just MORE CORRECT than conjectured possibility.
>Self referencing axiomatic tautologies > Unreasoned Belief
>And yet bible thumpers breed more than those who are more reasonable.
And that means nothing and was a waste of typing.
>And no reason to believe doesn't contradict or disprove anything.
It means no one has a reason to believe in something... unless there is reason behind it.
You're championing the "argument from ignorance" [look that up please] as if it was rational or neutral. It's neither.
Believing in something without reason contradicts reason, logic, coherency, consistency, and foundational reality.
>>8042906
>nervous laughter
>>8043790
the only logical contradiction going on here is the one in your brain.
>>8045001
>And that means nothing and was a waste of typing.
It means that atheism is not sustainable because of the lower birthrates.
>>8045005
Not that anon, but they're right.
It's a mathematical proposition.
If everyone in a close system has a bigger fish, then who's the biggest fish?
It's an order that violates a closed system.
>>8045006
>It means that atheism is not sustainable because of the lower birthrates.
1.) Atheism isn't determined by birthrates
2.) Religion isn't solely determined by birthrates.
3.) Atheism isn't the only non-diety conceptual system of non-belief.
4.) Birthrates change, and Atheism is on the rise.
5.) As science becomes more publically accessible, then Atheism will probably arise.
If you aren't aware of these, then chances are I'm speaking with someone ages 12 to 25 that hasn't actually studies the pitfalls of presumption nor the rise of science and intellectual thinking.
If you're not educated, then don't presume.
Choose humility, not presumption.
>>8045015
>1.) Atheism isn't determined by birthrates
Atheism determines birthrates.
>4.) Birthrates change, and Atheism is on the rise.
Atheism on the rise birthrates low.
>5.) As science becomes more publically accessible, then Atheism will probably arise.
And birthrates will further decline
Atheists will never have birthrates enough to sustain themselves.
I am the source, I know.
With atheism the average birthrate will always be below the needed to sustain
>>8045021
>Atheism determines birthrates.
That's not true.
All people are born atheist; religion must be indoctrinated and most atheists come from religious backgrounds.
This is common knowledge, leading me to believe you're mentally ill or have a learning disability of you believe people are indoctrinated into atheism.
It's a lack of indoctrination.
>Atheism on the rise birthrates low.
There is no such thing as "atheism birthrates"
Now I think you're trolling.
>And birthrates will further decline
According to what?
Atheists will never have birthrates enough to sustain themselves.
I am the source, I know.
With atheism the average birthrate will always be below the needed to sustain
>I am the source
Mental illness confirmed.
>>8045024
>That's not true.
It is true.
>There is no such thing as "atheism birthrates"
There is
>According to what?
More atheism >>> lower birthrates
>>8045026
>It is true.
Proof?
>There is no such thing as "atheism birthrates"
>There is
Proof?
>According to what?
>More atheism >>> lower birthrates
Proof?
>>8045039
I am the source, fuck off.
>>8045044
>I am the source, fuck off.
Mental illness detected
You're also the idiot using the argument from ignorance in all these other threads and you refuse to look it up.
It would take less than 10 seconds to "get it".
Just do it and learn about rational neutrality.
>>8045053
Why don't you?
Whatever, in the afterlife I won't have to deal with you either way.
Atheists will extinct themselves because of their birthrates
>>8045057
>Why don't you?
I already have, which is why I'm the one that introduced the concept in the thread.
I'm not making a statement, I'm questioning yours. That's not a lack of humility.
I can question your presumptions and statements and still practice humility.
Questioning isn't anti-humble.
>Whatever, in the afterlife I won't have to deal with you either way.
>Atheists will extinct themselves because of their birthrates
There is no afterlife and you're irrational.
Get some mental health help please.
>>8045075
>There is no afterlife
There is
>>8045014
He doesnt compare everyone to everyone else. He compares everyone else in the group to one specific person.
Jesus christ the reading comprehension in this class...
>>8045079
proof?
>>8045114
I am the source.
Fuck off
