Dick Masterson is the author of the book Men are Better than Women. Anyone on YouTube ever heard of this guy before now? If you have not, I urge you to read some of the entries on his website:

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com

He was on Dr. Phil a few months ago describing to the audience what it means to be a chauvinist. The look on the girls face in the audience when he tells her why he wouldn't date her is f*cking priceless.

Here is a link to his book:
http:///z2cwe

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xoKiH8JJM

hulk616:
I made a mistake replying your post with an intelligent post. It is too much for your heads

Bros you're talking about the Flashes being disconnected from the speedforce? WTF? Who set the parameters for the fight? You? Oh please.

For all intents and purposes, the flashes get the speed force. If you don't like it. Cry me a river

XxSabrinaxX:

REALLY? Do you have any idea what kind of damage the likes of Jean Grey, Silver Surfer, Nova, Quasar, Ronan to name just a few could inflict? And that's not mentioning the countless Omega Level mutants in the MU. Oh, and the countless heralds. And the countless time warpers. And the countless reality warpers...

Makkari & Runner are hard counters to DC speedsters by the way. Marvel cosmics > DC cosmics. DC have more firepower (I think). But Marvel are more versatile and have more range in terms of abilities.

Yawn!!!

Your writeup is boring & pointless. Zoom, Savitar, all the Flashes are too quick for the Marvel universe. Powers are irrelevant when you're not fast enough to keep up. Notice how I haven't brought up the Supermen or the Lanterns

hulk616:
trash.
DC speedster cant use this power in Marvel

Funny how you cancel my post as trash when your rebuttal is too stupid for words.

hulk616:
Yes, Marvel characters will easily destroy DC

Lol. The speedsters of DC alone can wig out more than half of the Marvel universe before the fight properly starts.

JujuSugar:

Somethings probability is based on the likelihood of it happening. Nothing else. Whether it is technically a choice or a default position, or a lack of making a choice etc. doesn't change that.

The probability of getting the correct answer without answering the question is 0

JujuSugar:

Oga that's not how mathematics works. The probability of something being correct is not dependent on it being a choice we can make in general.

Wonderful! So you've disproved every multiple choice test ever! Lol!

Not to mention that not all religions have equal chance of being correct.

Speculation. I need evidence of this. My calculations are based on an equal probability of each description of deity to be correct because there is no evidence of any being correct or incorrect.

TheArranger:

Well, you're just bad at... everything that's in your comment.

Claim: I have a diamond.

I have not provided any evidence that I have a diamond or anything to suggest that I do or do not have the means or reasons to have a diamond.

Possible positions:
1. "That's false." - unjustified - no reason to believe I don't have a diamond.

2. "That's true." - unjustified - no reason to believe I do have a diamond.

3. "I don't believe you do have a diamond." - justified - no evidence has been presented, no reason to adopt this belief.

4. "I don't believe you don't have a diamond." - justified - no evidence has been presented, no reason to adopt this belief.

You forgot that the premise from the OP opens with...
"For a moment, let's skip the whole "does god exist" question."
This makes most of your point invalid.

Second I gave a mathematically sound argument and you respond with an analogy. This is not a rebuttal for my position. Please respond with a rebuttal to my position.

Your "argument" that an independent party should immediately adopt either the belief that I have a diamond, or the belief that I do not have a diamond, without any justification, is ridiculous.

This is not my position and is an attempt to strawman me.

As for being wrong? Sorry, but the people who hold position 3 and 4 are 100% correct. They are, in fact, not justified in holding position 1 or 2.

I do not follow where this statement is logically sound. It jumps to an assumption then asserts your position is correct. This is not a logical argument.

Excuse me? Could you show me strong atheism's scripture?

I never said strong atheism was a religion. It is a position with a description of deity, there is absolutely none. Because this is a position which gives a description of deity I included it with the other positions that give an example of their positions because a choice has been made.
Agnosticism and weak atheist do not make a claim on their position. Therefore a choice is not made. This makes their positions invalid. They will always be incorrect.

Let me explain it to you this way because you seem to have trouble with the equations: The question of deity has been proposed with multiple choice answers.

All other positions choose an option that best describes their positions. Agnostics and weak atheist leave the question blank. This is why they are always wrong.

So...

Just taking it mathematically you get 1/x probability of being correct and (x-1)/x chance of being wrong. Where x is the number of religions including strong atheism.

Now lets look at the probability of agnosticism and weak atheist. Because they do not make a choice their probability of being correct is 0/x or 0%.

This makes weak atheism and agnosticism always wrong. This makes any religion including strong atheism an infinitely better choice.

Preciousgirl:
Can u allow your wife donate her blood to her ex guy?

Depends...