Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[PKFFW]

I am particularly amused by the "picks up where logic, reasoning, evidence and proof leaves off"? - What an absurd statement !

And the person that posted this commented that he was surprised that I was amazed why sane, intelligent people believe in God/religion. With comments like the above it begs belief !

How can something that has no evidence whatsoever pick up from where logic, reasoning and proof leaves off ?? I see absolutely no common sense in this kind of statement and with lack of basic common sense it would suggest that delusion is the order of the day here.

Here is the crux of your misunderstanding.

I did not claim that the idea of God picks up where logic, reasoning etc leaves of. I stated that faith does.

Firstly the definition of Faith........

Faith: Belief in something in the absence of proof or evidence as to it's veractiy or otherwise.

Firstly, the definition of faith clearly states "in the abscence of proof or evidence as to it's veracity or otherwise"

Faith is not about believing in something where there is evidence or proof the idea is false. For example that the sun is the fiery chariot of Apollo. To believe in something that the evidence shows is false is stupidity(for want of a better word) and not faith.

Secondly, the definition of faith does not state that faith explains this "something" or provides proof this "something" is real or accurate. As the definition of faith does not mean this, it is incorrect to make the assumption that this is what I was saying.

I did not say that faith proves the existence of God. I did not say that faith provides evidence of the existence of God. temptrader's comment about a bunch of people in a room arguing about their version of God has nothing to do with my comment and completely misses the point of my remark.

My remark meant(and I'm sure you all actually know this) that once you reach of the end of the evidence, you go as far as logic and reasoning can you take you, you reach the "unknown". At this point you have two choices.
1: Simply say "I don't know and do not have an opinion one way or the other as there is no evidence on which to base a decision"
or
2: You can form an opinion or belief and accept that belief on "faith"

Do you see or not see?

Now, nothing in science does actually explain exactly how the universe came into existence. Therefore nothing in science clearly and conclusively proves that it all happened by some mechanism other than a "God". As there is no conclusive "proof or evidence as to it's veracity or otherwise" then having faith in the existence of God does not call into question one's intelligence, sanity, logical reasoning or consistency of thought. That you all disagree with this does not mean it is not so.

Funnily enough since there is no proof of the above taking the viewpoint that "there is no god" is forming an opinion or belief for which there is no conclusive "proof or evidence as to it's veracity or otherwise".

Now, I'm done with this thread.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[cofton]

No misunderstanding whatsoever until you explain in detail your
the reason for that comment.

If I don't understand whatever it is you're on about then it is
up to you to explain further and until then I will remain with my present view.

'Even the idea that the odds favour there being no God is a bit laughable when you examine it further'

Another cop out until you show us your 'examine it further' comment in detail. No good saying things like
'a bit laughable' without backing it up otherwise it is a nonsense statement.

You may be right about 'less than 1/1000th of 1% of all the knowledge about the universe' but as it it not quantifiable
then your statement in itself is made up. But even it were true then this percentage is far more than the knowledge we
have about death or a so called god or supremem being, so I say again the odds are indeed with the theory that there
is no god.

'if God were to come down to earth right now and perform any miracle any scientist asked for and provided any
"evidence" they asked for the scientific community would simply take the stance that the miracles and
evidence can not be explained but they do not prove the existence of God'

But of course God has never done this and will never do this so probably not an argument. If he did however
come here and perform miracles then everyone would have to listen and consider the fact that he not only exists
but he can indeed perform such miracles that we previously denied. But until this happens then we go with the
odds that he doesn't exist at all. Quite a sensible decision given that we have absolutely zero evidence that he
even exists at all at present.

And if you believe otherwise then I think you are seriously deluded but of course your answer will be the
'we don't understand' again.

'No you never did say that people who believe in God are not sane or intelligent, you merely implied it.
Much better that way so you can always say "I never said that." '

It was merely a figure of speech to express my feeling toward the subject, maybe I should have phrased it differently
but it put the point across and you obviously have no other rational answer to the contrary so your only defence is
that I used an inappropriate phraseology. Another cop out i'm afraid, you seem to have a knack of getting out of
an answer, maybe you should be a politician.

'Have you ever considered that people do not believe Harry Potter or Star Wars are real is because the author/creator of those two stated they were fiction?'

Oh that makes sense, if the author says it's true or fiction then we believe what they say ? What a strange world you live in.

'Now please note, I am not suggesting that if someone were to claim any old story they wrote is real that this constitutes proof that it is real'

Now you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing, you imply something then reserve the right to have not implied it.
I can see I am probably wasting my time here. It's not your fault, all supporters of religion and god do this.
You do it because your defence has no substance and you have no rational explanation.

'if you truly do not understand this concept then there is no point discussing the issue any further'

Yet another cop out. You keep doing this 'you don't understand' but you don't explain it. And why ? Because you have
no rational explanation, you have no answer, you have no logic and no reason just a belief. It's fine having your
belief but remember not to enter any debate because you will just not be able to continue without sensible answers.

'Some people who do believe in God believe that through the creation of the universe God has had a hand in everything'

So that means that God has has a hand in rape, crime, killings, child abuse ? Aferall you did say everything.
And if god did have hand in all these things then I am not so sure I would like him. And before your answer talks
about all the good things in life that he has also had a hand in then that still does not make him right because
you can't trade off the bad things with the good.

'What you think personally does not constitute proof one way or the other'

I am talking odds for and against not what I think personally.

I think we must just agree to disagree as you too frequently use the term 'you don't understand....' which
just does not contribute to a debate or discussion at all.

But hey ho such is life, we are all different.

Be Happy

Cofton

 

[PKFFW]

Don't know why I'm bothering but I shall try one last time.

No misunderstanding whatsoever until you explain in detail your
the reason for that comment.

If I don't understand whatever it is you're on about then it is
up to you to explain further and until then I will remain with my present view.

First statement about odds.

Maybe an example.........

A casino has a statistical advantage of winning each spin of the roulette wheel. The odds favour a win by the casino if you will.

Now, since the odds favour that the casino will win each spin does this constitute proof that the casino will in fact win each spin? Of course not.

Just like "the odds favour that God does not exist" does not constitute proof that he does not exist.

Therefore to take the position that God does not exist and claim that this position is correct based on the odds favour it being correct is taking a position that is not supported by any conclusive evidence.

Now I can't make it any clearer than that. If you still do not understand it is not because I have not made it clear it is because you do not have the cognitive ability to understand or you are simply pretending you don't understand.

'Even the idea that the odds favour there being no God is a bit laughable when you examine it further'

Another cop out until you show us your 'examine it further' comment in detail. No good saying things like
'a bit laughable' without backing it up otherwise it is a nonsense statement.

I did examine it further in my response regarding how much knowledge we humans have regarding the universe. I then gave an example I would think you would understand since it is based on trading(you know, what this website is most about)

You may be right about 'less than 1/1000th of 1% of all the knowledge about the universe' but as it it not quantifiable
then your statement in itself is made up. But even it were true then this percentage is far more than the knowledge we
have about death or a so called god or supremem being, so I say again the odds are indeed with the theory that there
is no god.

Yes my statement is made up.

Since your statement about there being no God is not quantifiable then I guess the same logic applies......it is made up.

Further to that, just because you have more knowledge about one subject than another does not mean the odds favour the conclusion you draw regarding the subject you know more about.

Taking the casino example, you may know a whole lot more about how balls roll around a roulette wheel and how they bounce before coming to a stop and how gravity plays a part in all this than you do about statistical advantages in games of chance but the odds still favour the casino no matter what.

'if God were to come down to earth right now and perform any miracle any scientist asked for and provided any
"evidence" they asked for the scientific community would simply take the stance that the miracles and
evidence can not be explained but they do not prove the existence of God'

But of course God has never done this and will never do this so probably not an argument. If he did however
come here and perform miracles then everyone would have to listen and consider the fact that he not only exists
but he can indeed perform such miracles that we previously denied. But until this happens then we go with the
odds that he doesn't exist at all. Quite a sensible decision given that we have absolutely zero evidence that he
even exists at all at present.

Nope God hasn't and likely never will.

Let me ask you this then....if some being came up to you and said they were God and could do anything you asked them to do in order to prove it would you start believing that being was God?

We both know the answer to this and sure as sh*t aint yes.

And if you believe otherwise then I think you are seriously deluded but of course your answer will be the
'we don't understand' again.

Actually I do believe that if God came down and attempted to prove he/she was God and performed all these miracles it would be a completely sensible decision to open our minds up to the possibility that he/she was God.

We both know that any scientist that does not believe in God will simply not do that though. They will simply take the stance that even though the phenomenon presented to them could not be explained there was simply no evidence that this being was God. There is only evidence that this being can do things that we currently can't explain.

If you disagree with that then you are deluding yourself.

'No you never did say that people who believe in God are not sane or intelligent, you merely implied it.
Much better that way so you can always say "I never said that." '

It was merely a figure of speech to express my feeling toward the subject, maybe I should have phrased it differently
but it put the point across and you obviously have no other rational answer to the contrary so your only defence is
that I used an inappropriate phraseology. Another cop out i'm afraid, you seem to have a knack of getting out of
an answer, maybe you should be a politician.

No you said what you said. At least have the conviction to stand by it. You fully meant to imply that any person who believes in God is either insane or unintelligent and you know it.

As for a cop out. You weren't making any point or asking any question with that remark and as such no response is required. So there is no cop out. You were simply implying what we both know you were implying.

'Have you ever considered that people do not believe Harry Potter or Star Wars are real is because the author/creator of those two stated they were fiction?'

Oh that makes sense, if the author says it's true or fiction then we believe what they say ? What a strange world you live in.

Our courts of law take personal testamony into account. If it is good enough in that arena then I think it only reasonable to lend some weight to the personal testamony of the author when discussing whether a book is fictional or not.

'Now please note, I am not suggesting that if someone were to claim any old story they wrote is real that this constitutes proof that it is real'

Now you are doing exactly what you accused me of doing, you imply something then reserve the right to have not implied it.
I can see I am probably wasting my time here. It's not your fault, all supporters of religion and god do this.
You do it because your defence has no substance and you have no rational explanation.

I put this caveat in because I knew you would immediately suggest that I am saying we should absolutely take for granted whatever the author of a book says. Good to see you didn't disappoint.

If the author of a book claims it is non-fiction then of course they must show verifiable evidence that it is non-fiction if they wish it to be accepted by the scientific community as such. If they can not do so then from a scientific viewpoint the claim has not been proven. At that point, and in the abscence of any verifiable "proof or evidence of it's veracity or otherwise" it is up to each individual to take it on faith as to whether it is non-fiction or not.

On the other hand if the author claims it is fiction then there is no burden of proof required as the other isn't claiming it is true. I think it is a reasonable decision on the part of the community to accept that the book is fiction simply on the authors say so don't you?

'if you truly do not understand this concept then there is no point discussing the issue any further'

Yet another cop out. You keep doing this 'you don't understand' but you don't explain it. And why ? Because you have
no rational explanation, you have no answer, you have no logic and no reason just a belief. It's fine having your
belief but remember not to enter any debate because you will just not be able to continue without sensible answers.

What part of if you don't understand do you want me to explain?

Understand: To comprehend.
Don't: Do not

In short it means if you don't comprehend the simple facts I am putting forward, which I can't make any clearer, then I couldn't be bothered trying to teach you to comprehend them because it is clear you do not possess the cognitive ability to comprehend.

'Some people who do believe in God believe that through the creation of the universe God has had a hand in everything'
So that means that God has has a hand in rape, crime, killings, child abuse ? Aferall you did say everything.
And if god did have hand in all these things then I am not so sure I would like him. And before your answer talks
about all the good things in life that he has also had a hand in then that still does not make him right because
you can't trade off the bad things with the good.

Whether you, cofton, personally like God or not doesn't really factor into the equation when someone decides to have faith in God or not I'm sorry to tell you.

As for giving thanks for all those evil things that God must have had a hand in......

Do you understand the concept of thanks? To show gratitude? Do you know that one usually does not thank someone for something they do not want and do not like even if that someone is directly responsible for the thing.

Maybe an example would help........

If someone came up to you with a gun and shot you in the stomach would you thank them for doing so while you lay there slowly dying? I'm guessing not.

So yes, even though God would have had a hand in everything, including the evil things, why would you assume someone would thank him/her for it?

I'm sorry to say it again but if you don't understand the concept of giving thanks then I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you.

'What you think personally does not constitute proof one way or the other'

I am talking odds for and against not what I think personally.

Yes you keep bringing up odds.

I've already shown that just because you know more about one subject over another that does not mean the odds favour your conclusion.

Further, you keep suggesting that because you believe the odds favour your conclusion then this shows that your conclusion is correct. I'm sorry but it simply doesn't.

I think we must just agree to disagree as you too frequently use the term 'you don't understand....' which
just does not contribute to a debate or discussion at all.

Yes we can of course agree to disagree. We can even disagree without agreeing to do so if we wish.

Odds don't really bring anything to the discussion either but you seem to think they do. I freely admit I don't understand how you can believe the "odds favouring" something means that something is correct but there you have it.

Rather that try to explain how odds favouring one thing over another constitutes proof that that is thing is correct you simply question peoples sanity and intelligence which also doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S This time I really am done because it is obvious to me you are now intentionally misinterpreting my remarks just for the sake of argument and that doesn't really interest me.

 

[JTrader]

 

[temptrader]

Here is the crux of your misunderstanding.

I did not claim that the idea of God picks up where logic, reasoning etc leaves of. I stated that faith does.

From the way you are arguing Faith and God are interchangeable.

Firstly the definition of Faith........

Faith: Belief in something in the absence of proof or evidence as to it's veractiy or otherwise.

Firstly, the definition of faith clearly states "in the abscence of proof or evidence as to it's veracity or otherwise"

Faith is not about believing in something where there is evidence or proof the idea is false. For example that the sun is the fiery chariot of Apollo. To believe in something that the evidence shows is false is stupidity(for want of a better word) and not faith.

So let me get this point friggin clear: F*cked in the head half wits/monkeys, who read books, think they are intelligent (but they're not because all they do is absorb things they read/hear about/see documentaries about, and just spout out their own interpretations) come up with any old crap for a "faith" or a "God", whether it's unfalsifiable, or technologically unfeasible, and you expect the scientists to come along and clean up your mess? You expect science to set you on the "right" path? And areas where science CANNOT go into, you can make up stuff for your "faith" as you say? Tell me, are you high - or are you high?

Secondly, the definition of faith does not state that faith explains this "something" or provides proof this "something" is real or accurate. As the definition of faith does not mean this, it is incorrect to make the assumption that this is what I was saying.

I did not say that faith proves the existence of God. I did not say that faith provides evidence of the existence of God. temptrader's comment about a bunch of people in a room arguing about their version of God has nothing to do with my comment and completely misses the point of my remark.

Faith provides no evidence by definition! Do you understand that or not? Faith has no proof. In the same sense you could change my argument about people arguing about God to people arguing about their "faith" and the results would be the same.

My remark meant(and I'm sure you all actually know this) that once you reach of the end of the evidence, you go as far as logic and reasoning can you take you, you reach the "unknown". At this point you have two choices.
1: Simply say "I don't know and do not have an opinion one way or the other as there is no evidence on which to base a decision"
or
2: You can form an opinion or belief and accept that belief on "faith"

Do you see or not see?

You forget one thing: imagine living in a time before Darwin. Now supplant your faith about, let's say, man being made by a God and He created everything. Nobody will be around to dispute it with you. Science won't be able to do sod all about it. But when Darwin came along it's exactly "evidence, logic and reasoning" that destroyed this "faith".

Now, nothing in science does actually explain exactly how the universe came into existence. Therefore nothing in science clearly and conclusively proves that it all happened by some mechanism other than a "God". As there is no conclusive "proof or evidence as to it's veracity or otherwise" then having faith in the existence of God does not call into question one's intelligence, sanity, logical reasoning or consistency of thought. That you all disagree with this does not mean it is not so.

Funnily enough since there is no proof of the above taking the viewpoint that "there is no god" is forming an opinion or belief for which there is no conclusive "proof or evidence as to it's veracity or otherwise".

yes it does call into question one's "intelligence, sanity, logical reasoning or consistency of thought", because it shows poverty of one's imagination. There are actually, if you think about it, INFINITELY many reasons/possibilities that we can come up for how the universe was created, all of which are unfalsifiable. That is the nature of the situation when you know nothing about something - so why the obsession in putting a "God" or a "faith" into it? Here's the crux:

As for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, these two concepts were never said to be real. They are both fictional stories invented to amuse children. As no one has ever been claiming they are real then why should science set out to prove they are not real?

And how can you say they are not real? What's to stop me saying that they are "real" but they live in another dimension to us? By your previous logic it follows that you claiming that they DON'T exist is also an act of faith. I could claim - and quite rightly too - that since we have some Quantum Mechanical anomalies that science cannot explain, Santa Class and the Tooth Fairy are around, it's just that they disappear when anyone/instrument tries to view them (force the measurement). There is no one who can prove to me otherwise, but as of yet, I have no real proof. All I can say is that I believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus because it's my "belief in something in the absence of proof or evidence as to it's veractiy or otherwise".

 

[PKFFW]

Ok, really truly the last response.....

So let me get this point friggin clear: F*cked in the head half wits/monkeys, who read books, think they are intelligent (but they're not because all they do is absorb things they read/hear about/see documentaries about, and just spout out their own interpretations)

The rest of your response isn't even worth responding to so I wont.

I thought this part was funny though.....

It is quite clear that you are a failed academic yourself. One of these unintelligent "F*cked in the head half wits/monkeys, who read books, think they are intelligent (but they're not because all they do is absorb things they read/hear about/see documentaries about, and just spout out their own interpretations)" people.

That's probably why you've entered the trading arena. You think that with your vastly superior intellect it should be a piece of cake to outwit all those other half wit monkeys and make lots of money. I can only imagine your chagrin when you started losing money hand over fist. :cheesy:

It is obvious you don't have what it takes to succeed in either arena and this frustrates the hell out of you. So your last recourse to prove to yourself that you do have some modicum of intelligence is to come onto an anonymous BB and regurgitate the names of past scientists in the hope this knowledge will lead everyone to believe you are a very intelligent person. You try to back it up with references to little known theories as if by the mere fact that you know of these theories everyone will somehow be fooled into thinking you actually understand them.

Couple all that with your obvious questions about your own sexuality(and hence your continual obsession with the sexuality of others) and I can see why you are such a miserable person that has nothing better to do with his time than to try to provoke arguments and be insulting to others that disagree with you.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[cofton]

I'm not sure why you're bothering either as you cannot seem to offer anything that backs up anything you say.

If you're going to use an analogy like roulette then you must first understand roulette.
Roulette was designed by Pascal who was regarded by some as a mathematical genius, it was originally a single zero
and a couple of centuries later a couple of French blokes decided to add another zero hence bringing the house edge
more to the casino's advantage.

Now casino's still use roulette because it offers them an advantage, single zero 2.7% casino advantage (house edge) and double zero (often called American roulete)
a more respectable 5.26 % house edge.

So if you use a few brain cells we can deduct that in the long term the casino will win, hence the odds are certainly
in favour of the casino winning more than you.

Yes you could have a winning day or two or even weeks of wins but overall you are more likely to lose as the odds
are on the side of the casino, statistically a fact. Casinos rarely go broke if the custom is there and the reason for this is that
they work on favourable odds and are normally profitable businesses using this knowledge.

So I am afraid you are talking nonsense using the roulette as an analogy as it doesn't stack up

Quote: 'Now I can't make it any clearer than that. If you still do not understand it is not because I have not made it
clear it is because you do not have the cognitive ability to understand or you are simply pretending you don't understand.'

I have more than the 'cognitive ability' necessary to prove you are totally wrong because I know roulette more than you.
I am certainly not pretending not to understand you because quite simply you do not seem to know what you are talking about.

Quote : 'Since your statement about there being no God is not quantifiable then I guess the same logic applies...'

We are talking odds are we not ? As there is no credible evidence to suggest the existence of a god (except your faith in it)
then I would be drawn to evolution over god as there is more evidence to suggest it. I would be drawn to the fact that god
hasn't made himself known to me, I can't see him, touch him, he doesn't speak to me, he hasn't helped me or anyone I know, I cannot see
any evidence whatsoever so I will go with the odds being against the idea. This isn't rocket science it's basic common sense.

It's just like you saying there's a pink elephant outside my window, I come to have a look and there's nothing there.
All you can say is that 'well it was there a few seconds ago'. You believe you saw it, you're convinced you saw it but
because I didn't see it and I know the odds of there really being a pink elephant outside your window is very remote then
I just ain't gonna go with it am I ?

Quote : 'Let me ask you this then....if some being came up to you and said they were God and could do anything you asked
them to do in order to prove it would you start believing that being was God?

If a being said to me he was god and did all the things he is supposed to be able to do, I mean he actually parted the seas,
healed a terminally ill person, stopped war and made peace, stopped famine or any of numerous things he is apparently
capable of then yes I would have to wouldn't I ? It would be undeniable truth if this being could do the things god
is supposed to be capable of. But I would of course have zillions of other questions I would also like to know so I could
confirm he was god...Otherwise he could be the Devil counldn't he ? Apparently some people believe in the Devil who
apparently has more power..... if you believe of course.

Quote : 'We both know that any scientist that does not believe in God will simply not do that though'

No you do not know, you are generalising about scientists and they will all have different angles on the evidence I suspect.
I have no delusion here at all.

Quote : 'As for a cop out. You weren't making any point or asking any question with that remark and as such no response
is required. So there is no cop out. You were simply implying what we both know you were implying.'

You are just playing with words and quite frankly I'm weary of it now, it's getting very tedious.

Quote : 'I put this caveat in because I knew you would immediately suggest that I am saying we should absolutely take for
granted whatever the author of a book says. Good to see you didn't disappoint.'

You mean you were covering your ass ! lol

Quote : 'In short it means if you don't comprehend the simple facts I am putting forward, which I can't make any clearer,
then I couldn't be bothered trying to teach you to comprehend them because it is clear you do not possess the
cognitive ability to comprehend.'

You haven't put any facts forward ! None at all. You have submitted your views not facts. I cannot understand your views
because for me they do not make any sense as there is no logic, no reason, no evidence. Which part of this do you not understand ?

Quote : 'Do you understand the concept of thanks? To show gratitude? Do you know that one usually does not thank someone
for something they do not want and do not like even if that someone is directly responsible for the thing.'

Oh right I think I get it. Thank you god for our daily bread, thank you for my wages this week, thank you for my health, oh
and although I'm not happy to thank you for todays murder, the fact that I'm redundant next week, that my dog died today, that
another war has started and another fammine I won't mention that. In fact I forgive you for evrything bad you've done and
I will thank you for just the good things. Well, for me God is in a win/win situation, he can never do wrong can he ?

Bit like the Noah's Ark story, he saved two of every species from the flood he was responsible for and we thank him for it.
But kills every other living thing by the flood he created. What a fine chap he is !

Quote : 'I'm sorry to say it again but if you don't understand the concept of giving thanks then I'm not going to bother
trying to explain it to you.'

I fully understand the concept of giving thanks and gratitude thank you very much !
I am thankful and grateful for the love and support of my family and friends, I give to 3 charities and I know they are very
grateful and I am happy to do this, I am grateful for good health as many are not so fortunate, I am thankful that where i live
is not at war and that our country does not have fammine.. Numerous other things but that is my business not yours.

Don't ever accuse me of not understanding the concept of thanks and gratitude. I choose to direct my thanks and gratitude to real
things and real people not some ideaology that has no evidence or logic.

Quote :' Odds don't really bring anything to the discussion either but you seem to think they do. I freely admit I don't
understand how you can believe the "odds favouring" something means that something is correct but there you have it.

It's not that hard to see where I'm coming from, basically if there is some evidence, if there is some logic, if there is some
reasoning, if some of the theory has been proven by science, if my brain tells me 'yes there is a distinct possibility' then I would
probably go with this side of the fence.

In other words say marks out of 10, 3/10 evidence, 3/10 logic, 3/10 reasoning(common sense), 3/10 scientifically proven, 3/10 my
brain tells me it's understandable. Now I would much prefer to go with these low marks out of 10 than go with an idea which score zero out of 10.

Comprehend ? That's what I mean by odds in favour. Most of us live like this without knowing it, our brain, our logic informs us of
our understanding which then allows us to make a decision. Yes sometimes we abstain as we need more evaluation and more data and
this is the individual choice.

You have chosen to go with the zero out of 10 whereas I have chosen to go with the 3 out of 10 choice.

You may be right even with all the zero's but like trading I go with the odds based on the data that is in front of me.

This will be my last post on the matter with regard to your views as we both know that we totally disagree, we are evaluating data
totally differently, yours is evaluated by faith and mine on evidence, reasoning and logic.

But I still sincerely wish you well and good luck.

Be happy and healthy and be grateful for it (see I do understand gratitude)

 

[temptrader]

Ok, really truly the last response.....

The rest of your response isn't even worth responding to so I wont.

I thought this part was funny though.....

It is quite clear that you are a failed academic yourself. One of these unintelligent "F*cked in the head half wits/monkeys, who read books, think they are intelligent (but they're not because all they do is absorb things they read/hear about/see documentaries about, and just spout out their own interpretations)" people.

It is obvious you don't have what it takes to succeed in either arena and this frustrates the hell out of you. So your last recourse to prove to yourself that you do have some modicum of intelligence is to come onto an anonymous BB and regurgitate the names of past scientists in the hope this knowledge will lead everyone to believe you are a very intelligent person. You try to back it up with references to little known theories as if by the mere fact that you know of these theories everyone will somehow be fooled into thinking you actually understand them.

Couple all that with your obvious questions about your own sexuality(and hence your continual obsession with the sexuality of others) and I can see why you are such a miserable person that has nothing better to do with his time than to try to provoke arguments and be insulting to others that disagree with you.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I don't know about your circles, but heterosexual males calling others gay is considered incredibly funny!

If you look back at what I posted you'll see I've made your logic look absurd - but you don't want to see that.

It's not my place to tell you what to believe or not believe - that's your personal affair. The literature is there if you want to take up study of it. How you take up the study and what consequences you want to deduce from them is your affair alone.

My faith in the Tooth Fairy is just as idiotic, absurd and silly as is your faith in whatever it is that you "believe" in, and by your logic equally VALID. Do you see what I'm getting at?

That's probably why you've entered the trading arena. You think that with your vastly superior intellect it should be a piece of cake to outwit all those other half wit monkeys and make lots of money. I can only imagine your chagrin when you started losing money hand over fist. :cheesy:

I wouldn't want to debate trading with you because it's obvious from your use of your previous posts you don't have a clue . . . And where did I say that I have a "vastly superior intellect"?

It is obvious you don't have what it takes to succeed in either arena and this frustrates the hell out of you. So your last recourse to prove to yourself that you do have some modicum of intelligence is to come onto an anonymous BB and regurgitate the names of past scientists in the hope this knowledge will lead everyone to believe you are a very intelligent person. You try to back it up with references to little known theories as if by the mere fact that you know of these theories everyone will somehow be fooled into thinking you actually understand them.

The point of the matter is that you don't know. And you don't know that you don't know, and because of this you give endless pointless, idiotic, retarded arguments over issues like "faith" and "God" which - to all intents and purposes - science doesn't give a damn about. I don't care who thinks I'm a "very intelligent person", you on the other hand seem to. For what reasons I don't know why. Maybe it's your own overblown ego in wanting people to think what you are talking is sense, when purely it's monkey speak.

My participation in this thread has proved to me that there are plenty of idiots/morons/fools, some bordering on the extreme, others only mildly. And the only thing it shows me is just how messed the general population is in their heads - that I find very frightening. I'm sure new_trader finds it reassuring since it's you morons who provide the liquidity in the markets as one banned poster once said.

 

[Atilla]

I don't know about your circles, but heterosexual males calling others gay is considered incredibly funny!

If you look back at what I posted you'll see I've made your logic look absurd - but you don't want to see that.

It's not my place to tell you what to believe or not believe - that's your personal affair. The literature is there if you want to take up study of it. How you take up the study and what consequences you want to deduce from them is your affair alone.

My faith in the Tooth Fairy is just as idiotic, absurd and silly as is your faith in whatever it is that you "believe" in, and by your logic equally VALID. Do you see what I'm getting at?



I wouldn't want to debate trading with you because it's obvious from your use of your previous posts you don't have a clue . . . And where did I say that I have a "vastly superior intellect"?



The point of the matter is that you don't know. And you don't know that you don't know, and because of this you give endless pointless, idiotic, retarded arguments over issues like "faith" and "God" which - to all intents and purposes - science doesn't give a damn about. I don't care who thinks I'm a "very intelligent person", you on the other hand seem to. For what reasons I don't know why. Maybe it's your own overblown ego in wanting people to think what you are talking is sense, when purely it's monkey speak.

My participation in this thread has proved to me that there are plenty of idiots/morons/fools, some bordering on the extreme, others only mildly. And the only thing it shows me is just how messed the general population is in their heads - that I find very frightening. I'm sure new_trader finds it reassuring since it's you morons who provide the liquidity in the markets as one banned poster once said.

If you don't believe in the tooth fairy then logic draws me to the conclusion you have had a deprived upbringing. :cheesy:

 

[dick_dastardly]

If you don't believe in the tooth fairy then logic draws me to the conclusion you have had a deprived upbringing. :cheesy:

Hmmm, I don't see why you should conclude that ?

I don't know about temptrader but when I was a kid I believed in Father Christmas and the tooth Fairy. I was also brought up to believe in a Christian God. Along with all the other kids I was made to sing hymns in school assembly, I also attended Sunday School.

However, as I grew older and stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas I guess it was only a matter of time before God went the same way :cheesy:

Speaking of the Tooth Fairy, what are members views on the going rate for a tooth these days ?

When I was a kid it was 10p. A quick survey around the office where I work and the general concensus was a pound.


dd

 

[Atilla]

Hmmm, I don't see why you should conclude that ?

I don't know about temptrader but when I was a kid I believed in Father Christmas and the tooth Fairy. I was also brought up to believe in a Christian God. Along with all the other kids I was made to sing hymns in school assembly, I also attended Sunday School.

However, as I grew older and stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas I guess it was only a matter of time before God went the same way :cheesy:

Speaking of the Tooth Fairy, what are members views on the going rate for a tooth these days ?

When I was a kid it was 10p. A quick survey around the office where I work and the general concensus was a pound.


dd

DD, there are many made up things on planet Earth like the Tooth Fairy, Father Christmas and the number zero and they all serve a purpose and a function. For example what is a kilogram but some arbitary label for a unit of measure which doesn't exist at all. It is purely mans creation and a very useful one.

What gets me is why TempTrader and some others go into a rant because man has labelled God as the creator of the universe because we are none the wiser.

It is crystal clear as pure sunlight through glass of water.

To deny Gods existence and its goodness and claim believers are stupid bafoons and how religion is the cause of all wars and so forth is narrow mindedness to say the least. Lacks understanding and intelligence imo.

It's like kg and pounds to some extent.

Whether you believe in Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve or evolution of life what does it matter? Live and let live.

Enjoy all that you do and live a happy harmonious life. :innocent:

 

[cofton]

I think I would go with a pound as well, convenient to put under the pillow . Would have said 50p but what can you buy for 50p these days ? Actually you can't get alot for a pound either but as a token gesture a pound is fine.

I think you're right about the tooth fairy and father christmas and god, all well and good when we're growing up, it's fun and exciting and makes everything nicey, nicey which is how childhood should be.

But then we grow up and begin to use our reasoning skills and begin asking questions and most of us need logical answers to these questions. Some of us will just continue to believe without question and go with the majority while others will demand answers and want to make a decision by weighing up the data.

Either way is fine but it never ceases to amaze me why it's okay to believe in the god thing but you would be laughed at if you are over 12 and still believed in the tooth fairy or father christmas ! Afterall the tooth fairy has no more logic or reasoning than god.

Why is this ? Beats me.

One thing's for sure, I can see in the not too distant future that a tooth will be worth £2 !

Be happy

Cofton

Hmmm, I don't see why you should conclude that ?

I don't know about temptrader but when I was a kid I believed in Father Christmas and the tooth Fairy. I was also brought up to believe in a Christian God. Along with all the other kids I was made to sing hymns in school assembly, I also attended Sunday School.

However, as I grew older and stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas I guess it was only a matter of time before God went the same way :cheesy:

Speaking of the Tooth Fairy, what are members views on the going rate for a tooth these days ?

When I was a kid it was 10p. A quick survey around the office where I work and the general concensus was a pound.


dd

 

[temptrader]

Hmmm, I don't see why you should conclude that ?

I don't know about temptrader but when I was a kid I believed in Father Christmas and the tooth Fairy. I was also brought up to believe in a Christian God. Along with all the other kids I was made to sing hymns in school assembly, I also attended Sunday School.

However, as I grew older and stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas I guess it was only a matter of time before God went the same way :cheesy:

Speaking of the Tooth Fairy, what are members views on the going rate for a tooth these days ?

When I was a kid it was 10p. A quick survey around the office where I work and the general concensus was a pound.


dd

I believe Atilla was trying to tell me that since I had a deprived upbringing it must mean I'm a bad person.

And, being a bad person, according to various individuals and their beliefs which they take as reference from other people and certain books because they can't think for themselves, it means that I will go to Hell. No doubt I'll see PKFFW there too trying to put out some fires.

 

[Splitlink]

In 1936-37 a tooth was worth a tanner.

I keep telling you temptrader. As long as you are good and invent a time machine that benefits mankind, you'll go where all the good scientists go. I suggest that you tell Him that you bon't believe in Him when you get there, but you probably won't want to when you consider the alternatives. In the meantime keep your powder dry, be good and don't commit yourself.

Split

 

[new_trader]

It's like kg and pounds to some extent.

What!? No, it isn't like that...at all, not even close. Humans didn't invent weight, we just invented a system for calibrating it. 1kg of stuff will still weigh 1kg whether you choose to believe it or not. This can be proven by using a balance scale. Would you like if you were charged for 1kg of stuff but only got 500grams because, after all, weight doesn’t really exist does it?

What if the cashier believed in a different arithmetic to you and only gave you 20 pence change from £1 for something you bought which cost 50 pence? Would you argue or would you say "Fair enough, it's all arbitrary anyway"

 

[temptrader]

To deny Gods existence and its goodness and claim believers are stupid bafoons and how religion is the cause of all wars and so forth is narrow mindedness to say the least. Lacks understanding and intelligence imo.

I did not DENY God's or any faith's f*cking existence. I simply couldn't care less. What I do care about is when people take their beliefs, faith or what have you, and use that as "evidence".

If I say that tooth fairies exists but we do not have the technological means to prove it, then it's my belief, and NO ONE can tell me otherwise. I could go round telling other people who don't believe in my tooth fairies that they lack understanding and intelligence - who "wins" now? Do you see the downright absurdity of the situation.

Like new_trader said, humans didn't actually "invent" weight, just like we didn't invent length, or time or the number zero etc . . . we just found a way of standardizing them so when it comes to discourse amongst ourselves we are not out of sync. Aliens from another world will also discover ways of calibrating these physical properties to their own units, and their own number systems that they find convenient for themselves.

Tell me Atilla, you claim that God exists - according to your unfalsifiable statement - then how can you know that he is "good"? Where's the logic in "because God exists, therefore he must be good" come in? If you play with unfalsifiable concepts any old messed up thinking will do.

What gets me is why TempTrader and some others go into a rant because man has labelled God as the creator of the universe because we are none the wiser.

It is crystal clear as pure sunlight through glass of water.

No it's not. Man has not labelled God as a creator of the universe. You and other believers taken in with the idea have. Prehistoric cave men were not even aware of a universe, or a God, or anything for that matter, but they still went merrily by on their own business. . . .

Has it not even occurred to you that the concept of a God needs to be questioned? What it actually means, if it makes any sense at all? But these questions too lead nowhere since we are just engaged in pointless speculation regarding matters that we can never resolve to any unanimously accepted conclusion via independent verification.

Whether you believe in Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve or evolution of life what does it matter? Live and let live.

What is it that you don't get? There was no Adam and Eve - NEVER was. We know this since 1859. I'm not going to pick a fight with anyone on this, the FACTS of the matter is that it's not true. And, further, if there were only Adam and Steve to begin with to kick start the human race (both assuming to be male as your intentions seems to imply) none of us would be here.

 

[Atilla]

I believe Atilla was trying to tell me that since I had a deprived upbringing it must mean I'm a bad person.

And, being a bad person, according to various individuals and their beliefs which they take as reference from other people and certain books because they can't think for themselves, it means that I will go to Hell. No doubt I'll see PKFFW there too trying to put out some fires.

You have some serious issues TempTrader. I said nothing of the sort or assumed anything as such.

Gordon Bennet! Just poking a little fun at you not believing in Tinker Bell that's all. I even put my cheeky grin on for you!!! :cheesy:

NO I WAS NOT TRYING TO SAY YOU ARE A BAD PERSON. :clover:

NO IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL GO TO HELL.

And anybody who tries to damn you to hell is blaspheming. But I will not go there as this thread is very scientific.

I'm deeply sorry if anything I have said has led you to think so. Sincere apologies.


But this isn't the first time you have misquoted or mis-understood what I and others have written. I can assure you there is something wrong with your head. You eyes, head and heart are closed just like the religious idiots who condemn people to heaven and hell like Dante.


Best regards

 

[Atilla]

Hmmm, I don't see why you should conclude that ?

I don't know about temptrader but when I was a kid I believed in Father Christmas and the tooth Fairy. I was also brought up to believe in a Christian God. Along with all the other kids I was made to sing hymns in school assembly, I also attended Sunday School.

However, as I grew older and stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas I guess it was only a matter of time before God went the same way :cheesy:

Speaking of the Tooth Fairy, what are members views on the going rate for a tooth these days ?

When I was a kid it was 10p. A quick survey around the office where I work and the general concensus was a pound.


dd

Dear DD,

You are braking my heart. Tell me in all sincerity, when you watch a Peter Pan film with any children or grandchildren you have, do you immediately put them straight?

Have you told any young children if they are good Santa (the coke-cola dude) will bring them toys.

Has anybody watched the Polar Express?

I would really hate it if all daddies were scientists and thought their children fact from fiction...


Lets chill out a little guys. We are coming to that nice warm festive season... :clover:

 

[Atilla]

What!? No, it isn't like that...at all, not even close. Humans didn't invent weight, we just invented a system for calibrating it. 1kg of stuff will still weigh 1kg whether you choose to believe it or not. This can be proven by using a balance scale. Would you like if you were charged for 1kg of stuff but only got 500grams because, after all, weight doesn’t really exist does it?

What if the cashier believed in a different arithmetic to you and only gave you 20 pence change from £1 for something you bought which cost 50 pence? Would you argue or would you say "Fair enough, it's all arbitrary anyway"

New Trader for clever guys you simply don't get a simple point I'm making.

Weight does not exist. It is merely an attribute of an entity. A piece of rock doesn't say hey I'm 1 kg or I am 1 anything. It is merely only a piece of rock. The rest of science is mans creation in understanding the piece of rock. Rock doesn't need mass to exist but science needs rock to have mass size and substance so it can define the rock density and label it.

By the same logical reasoning man needs to know and try and decipher who what the creator is. For this reason it has been labelled God. Now if you don't believe in the explanation of the creator labelled God, there is nothing to stop you rebranding the creator = God = Evolution of man = creation / creator. Let people follow choose the facts and arguements presented. This is what has been done with all the different religions. Even the Aztecs with their worship of the Sun God and human sacrifice are searching for some devine definition and guidance.

So you find the human system of labelling kg and callibrating weight very useful. Good. I am so glad.

You find the human labelling of the creator God not so good. I admire the attempt but I too am confused by all the different religions like mobile phone tariffs. An absolute nightmare to comprehend.

Kg and lbs or mph and km they are all the same. Human creations for stuff that don't exist. Man is the creator.

 

[Atilla]

I did not DENY God's or any faith's f*cking existence. I simply couldn't care less. What I do care about is when people take their beliefs, faith or what have you, and use that as "evidence".You mean like when people quote scripture at you? Yep I agree with you here.

If I say that tooth fairies exists but we do not have the technological means to prove it, then it's my belief, and NO ONE can tell me otherwise. I could go round telling other people who don't believe in my tooth fairies that they lack understanding and intelligence - who "wins" now? Do you see the downright absurdity of the situation. Yes but Tooth fairies do exist for children.

Like new_trader said, humans didn't actually "invent" weight, just like we didn't invent length, or time or the number zero etc . . . we just found a way of standardizing them so when it comes to discourse amongst ourselves we are not out of sync. Aliens from another world will also discover ways of calibrating these physical properties to their own units, and their own number systems that they find convenient for themselves.
Exactly my points. We found a way of standardising them. We created their physical properties. There could be many more we are not aware of and yet to label.
Tell me Atilla, you claim that God exists I claim there is a creator somewhere and I call it God. - according to your unfalsifiable statement What unfalsifiable statement of mine are you refering to? - then how can you know that he is "good"? Easy - God = Good by virtue of definition I am created I exist. Devil=bad. Just another label like kg. It labels actions attributes not healthy for my existence. Where's the logic in "because God exists, therefore he must be good" come in? God created me somewhere along the way. If you play with unfalsifiable concepts any old messed up thinking will do. What unfalsifiable concepts you referring to?



No it's not. Man has not labelled God as a creator of the universe. You Dude - I am a man like other men. I miss your point here and other believers taken in with the idea have. Prehistoric cave men were not even aware of a universe, or a God, or anything for that matter, but they still went merrily by on their own business. . . .

Has it not even occurred to you that the concept of a God (the creator) needs to be questioned? What it actually means (creation) , if it makes any sense at all? Perhaps we are at cavemens level of intelligence and we have a few more milleniums to go before we reach enlightenment?But these questions too lead nowhere since we are just engaged in pointless speculation regarding matters that we can never resolve to any unanimously accepted conclusion via independent verification. True, but like going round in a merry go round it can be fun :clap:



What is it that you don't get? There was no Adam and Eve - NEVER was. We know this since 1859. I'm not going to pick a fight with anyone on this, the FACTS of the matter is that it's not true. And, further, if there were only Adam and Steve to begin with to kick start the human race (both assuming to be male as your intentions seems to imply) none of us would be here. Explaining the theory of evolution to caveman might be hard work. If you say there was Adam and Eve it's pretty straight forward to even his one track mind I'd bet.

Similarly, if I said to you the four corners of the world? You'd know what I was talking about. But some snotty scientist might pipe up and say,

No, it's not like that at all. The earth is round not flat or square... It certainly has no corners. Where is your logical proof? :cheesy:

See what I mean?