god told me to post this here

Gordon Gekko · Nov 6, 2003

Quote from Brandonf:

Whats your challange tough guy? Do you want to try to beat me up :eek:
More...

WHAT'S MY CHALLENGE????!!

---------------> http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24259

TriPack · Nov 6, 2003

Quote from Brandonf:

Stop bitching and moaning about stuff that really does not matter and that you are never going to change. Work on your trading so you can stop wasting your time and money and finally start making some. If your serious about it, be serious and stop fuckin the dog.
More...

Well put. And no Gordon, you can't change other people. They have to change themselves. Get married and you'll understand. Just focus on yourself.

ARogueTrader · Nov 6, 2003

Quote from axeman:

The idea of original sin is an atrocity, which from an early
age, I wager, does psychological harm to children who
have to grow up thinking of themselves as a worthless piece
of crap

peace

axeman
More...

Sounds like you speak from personal experience. How do you deal with the guilt?

axeman · Nov 6, 2003

Guilt? Are you implying I taught my children to think
of themselves as piece of shit sinners?

If I was taught to believe *I* am a sinner... then where would the guilt be?

I have no guilt, because I have not taught anyone they
are a P.O.S. sinner, and no longer believe such nonsense.

peace

axeman

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Sounds like you speak from personal experience. How do you deal with the guilt?
More...

ARogueTrader · Nov 6, 2003

Quote from axeman:

Guilt? Are you implying I taught my children to think
of themselves as piece of shit sinners?

If I was taught to believe *I* am a sinner... then where would the guilt be?

I have no guilt, because I have not taught anyone they
are a P.O.S. sinner, and no longer believe such nonsense.

peace

axeman

More...

Can you provide proof of the above claim, that you are free of guilt and childhood beliefs, or shall we take it on faith?

ARogueTrader · Nov 6, 2003

Quote from axeman:

I would love to formally debate such topics with a board to judge the winner

I have done so in the past, and it's far easier than in a forum
like this.

This plays to my strengths because such debates occur
within the frameworks of logic and reason, and when I
shoot my opponents down by identifying their flaws, they
cannot so easily shrug me off. It COUNTS

I welcome such debates. It makes it so much easier for me.

If this were to happen in a court of law, and I was the attorney
arguing against the other attorneys position that god exists,
where the burden of proof is on HIM... my confidence level
could not be any higher. I would almost consider it an easy win.

peace

axeman

More...

Tell us the reason, beyond ego gratification, that you made these comments.

Public ego gratification is irrational, and is typically seen in those with low self esteem.

axeman · Nov 6, 2003

Tell me... are you capable of a rational argument, or only
capable of character assassination?

If you were paying attention you would know this was
in response to Doubters comment:

"In that case the allowable evidence would have to be weighed and ruled on by someone other than the initiator. Otherwise there could only be a "kangaroo" court which has been the case so far and still does not warrant merit. "

Yet more evidence that you mainly rely on fallacies such as poisoning
the well in a vain attempt to make your non-case.

peace

axeman

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Tell us the reason, beyond ego gratification, that you made these comments.

Public ego gratification is irrational, and is typically seen in those with low self esteem.
More...

ARogueTrader · Nov 6, 2003

Quote from axeman:

"You still have not explained why such an inconsistent system
is of any value."

Explain to a deaf man why music has value to his life.

That you practiced faith in God in an inconsistent manner has no bearing on either the validity of God or the practice of faith.

Like the deaf man who can't hear music and rejects its validity, you failed in the practice of faith and reject its validity.

"FAITH is impotent because unlike other valid measuring devices
it is capable of giving us completely random results."

Circular. You imply that the valid measuring device is what creates validity of reality, and reality is independent of a measuring device.

"If you DEFINE improper use as anyone who doesn't find
god using faith, then your are just arguing semantics, which
makes your argument pointless."

No, I am using the English language. The argument falls on deaf ears of those who failed with the practice of faith. Those who succeed with faith can verify this.

"I might as well claim that anyone who FINDS god using
his intellect is BY DEFINITION not using his intellect correctly."

God is not found by the intellect, the intellect understands in a relativistic sense, and God is not relative, but rather is absolute by definition.

"You still have this HUGE problem in your framework which
you cant seem to explain away."

I see that you have a huge problem accepting that other people have a different reality than you do, and that quite possible you have a sour grapes attitude because of your failure with faith.

"FAITH, as I have shown, gives completely inconsistent results.
I FAITH that god doesn't exist. Using your own argument, you should accept this as truth."

You don't have complete faith that God doesn't exist, you have an intellectual concept. Faith does not give inconsistent results any more than a hammer or a baseball gives inconsistent results. It is the inconsistency of the mind that gives inconsistent results in the practice of faith, as the mind continues to fight the practice of faith, rather than simply surrendering to the heart.

"The rest of your argument, rests on the ASSUMPTION that
god exists in the first place, which you have NOT proven,
and therefore makes it fallaciously circular."

Fallacious can mean different things. As I have stated before, one can construct an argument that has no fallacy, but the premise of the argument can be false. Logic itself knows no truth or false, it is just a set of rules. If you start from the wrong point, but follow the rules, you still end up in the wrong place.

Fallacy, as commonly understood outside of the logical argumentation process, outside of the formula, means this:

falÂ·laÂ·cy [ fÃ¡lləssee ] (plural falÂ·laÂ·cies)

noun

1. mistaken belief or idea: something that is believed to be truth but is erroneous

So, there can be a logical argument, free from logical fallacy, yet the argument can be false from the perspective of reality. If the first assumption from which the argument flows cannot be proven true independent of the argument, if it asks that we assume something to be true without proof, this it is just an exercise in logical processes, and has nothing to do with truth.

"You continue to use an UNPROVEN entities attributes to
support his very existence."

Unproven according to your criteria, a criteria that you have yet to prove is reflective of ultimate reality.

"Shall I use the supernatural attributes of 3 headed unicorns
to support THEIR existence? Nonsense."

With all your smugness concerning logical thought and reason, you are basing all of the construction on the foundation of a limited mind, limited thought, limited logic, etc.

It may be your reality, it may be the ultimate reality, but you have no proof of that. Just a belief system that you adhere to religiously.

People say "logic is the best way" and I say, how do you know that? That implies that you know what is best, and on what basis do you know what is best? If you say, on the basis of logic, it is circular.

What is the proof that your method of thinking is reflective of reality, ultimate reality any more than another method?
More...

ARogueTrader · Nov 6, 2003

Quote from axeman:

Tell me... are you capable of a rational argument, or only
capable of character assassination?

If you were paying attention you would know this was
in response to Doubters comment:

"In that case the allowable evidence would have to be weighed and ruled on by someone other than the initiator. Otherwise there could only be a "kangaroo" court which has been the case so far and still does not warrant merit. "

Yet more evidence that you mainly rely on fallacies such as poisoning
the well in a vain attempt to make your non-case.

peace

axeman

More...

In the context of a particular argument, something can be a logical fallacy, and still be a true statement.

I stand by the statement as probably a true evaluation of your ego driven comments.

Doubter · Nov 6, 2003

So what?
axeman re doubter
___________________________________________

My points were regarding the difference or lack thereof of the weight of evidence from the bible (for the existnce of Jesus etc.) versus evidence for pink unicorns and certain dragons. The case for a concrete scientifically verifiable proof that God exists would be easy from your perspective in that the bible itself says "without faith it is impossible to please Him" and that you must approach Him with a childlike faith so that no one can boast (probably of their intellect).

The case of equal weight of evidence would not be so easy and that was what I was addressing.