traders who are deeply religious

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hermit_trader, Dec 14, 2005.

  1. trainr

    trainr

    Expand on this. Show me how God requires non-existence to create the universe. I assume it's easy to do considering the lengths you go to proclaim how obvious it is. Go ahead, dumb it down for me.
    Does ad hominem attacks indicate you are able to think? If so, you are.

    If instead, as I suspect, it is a reflection of the paucity of argument, you are nearly done.
     
    #571     Feb 20, 2006
  2. trainr

    trainr

    I forgot how old you are. Did you say you are 17? I honestly don't remember, but I thought that was what you said.
     
    #572     Feb 20, 2006
  3. volente_00

    volente_00


    He was behind door #1, did you have the right KEY ?
     
    #573     Feb 20, 2006
  4. volente_00

    volente_00

    Sure is a lot hate being expressed from all of you guys claiming that GOD does not exist. How can you direct hate towards something that does not exist ?
     
    #574     Feb 20, 2006
  5. You obviously never went to a catholic school and felt the sting of a nuns cane across the back of your knuckles on a cold winters morn
     
    #575     Feb 20, 2006
  6. rcj

    rcj

    Sounds all too familiar.

    Im glad i didnt have to go through any of that. I really
    dont see how people "survived" that kind of regimen.
    Ive had many friends with similar experiences...some
    really bad.

    ........ rj
     
    #576     Feb 21, 2006
  7. Well its not like the little sisters of perpetual rage sexually abused me... but to this day if I see a penguin I feel an uncontrollable urge to kick it
     
    #577     Feb 21, 2006
  8. rcj

    rcj

    Are you gonna work the markets Tues, T28?? Im looking
    at SNDK, BBY, NUE, and i may want to buy a few shs in DRH.

    ......... rj
     
    #578     Feb 21, 2006
  9. stu

    stu

    followed by this....

    "In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God."

    Your contradiction is not apparent nor mistaken.

    You might do better if you remember you wrote these things . Therefore they are recorded.
    More demonstration of you not being able to stand by the things you say and the way in which you will try to deceitfully avoid your mistakes, pretending you didn't make any.
    What's next, a proclamation that the God others concieve of isn't big enough, but guess what.... yours is ??
    I have asked you on a number of occasions now, what is it you don't understand? Are you being purposely obtuse as well as deceitful in the way you handle responses made to your statements?

    Look, I'll try again, what don't you understand about this....
    You said ...

    "Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient and adequate cause; from observation"

    Now, that statement of yours is simply wrong and here is the reason why I say so...."Positron Pairs are non-eternal and require no sufficient and adequate cause, from observation.".
    There is the reason I mentioned Positron Pairs. It is known and has been for at least 50 years that Positron Pairs are non-eternal and require no " sufficient and adequate cause, from observation".

    So to avoid that fact you act deceitfully, first altering my statement by ignorantly editing it leaving out your requirement "from observation", you then put it against a statement of yours which I was not using it to respond to . As if that weren't enough, you suggest implied meaning is sufficient to base your own conclusions on . By sidetracking, you then demand proof Positron Pairs are uncaused. No longer the observation they are uncaused will do for you , which your own statement declares is necessary.

    The only way you seem to think you can confirm what you say is right, is by confusing yourself and thereby believing you have confused everyone into thinking you are right.
    More confusion on your behalf.
    You obviously have mistaken the thing you dug for yourself and so enthusiastically jumped into as agreement rather than a hole.

    Let me explain it more simply for you...
    Your argument has no point to it.
    It is tautological.
    It was you who indicated tautological was not useful. Then you make tautological statements. The response I gave was intended to show your tautology, and does not show agreement. Get it? No??...duh??

    I tell you what.. stop your deceit, I could have a go at it for you.
    I should warn you though, the dumbing down you request would make it more complicated than is necessary.
    Would you like another attempt to construct that sentence in English.
    More deceit more confusion
    Still, inventing ad hominem attacks where there are non is one way for you to capitulate I guess. But it is deceitful.
     
    #579     Feb 21, 2006
  10. What? With all your :
    and all you can do is guessing? Are you suffering from Alzheimer already?
    Poor soul!
    :eek:
     
    #580     Feb 21, 2006