Age and trading

[1]I think traders can successfully trade in their 60s -80s-Ive known a few that have been able to do that'' ! Active Trader mag 8/2001,top trader , farmer,writer Mark Cook:cool: [2]Einstein quote''You can live life as if nothing is a miracle OR live life as if everything is a miracle''Like the latter but dont try to squeeze ''the last 1/8 out of it''[3]Ive seen medical evidence miracles happen,myself;try to get a published record of much more if someone wants to see it ?????????????????? [4] Like the old timers quote"Lord controls the weather,your heart beat and your MOTHER_IN_LAW,if you want to tick him off go ahead''[5]Creative evidence included but not limited to;Blueberrys help your brain.Salmon and sardines really are ''brain food''DR.Reginald Cherry,MD.:) Hardly random if you have any ''taste'' at all.
 
Originally posted by FasterPussycat
surely a learned man such as yourself knows that the BURDEN OF PROOF lies with YOU, not me.
(or didn't they teach that at oxford). YOU are the one affirming the existence of something, and it
is you who must make the compelling case. If I assert there are unicorns in my closet, the burden
then lies with me to provide the compelling and persuasive argument for unicorns, not on
you to disprove it.

so, where is dark's compelling evidence for god?

other than a "coherent study of all the elements" and debates with oxford professors whom could not
reduce him to a "babbling fool" (so he says), he seems to hang his hat on one thing ....the existence
of ethics & morality.

Ok, let's examine this a little further than the shouting "testimony of your heart and mind."

your sense of morality comes from your god. then it follows that he is the source, the creator and
the final arbiter of all that is good/bad. something is "good" or "bad" simply because he says
it is. also, since there is no way of predicting what this god might desire next, it is entirely meaningless
to assert that "god is good." killing infants with rocks would be just as likely to be as "good" as the
principle 'love thy neighbor." do you recall the god of the old testament, his "goodness" is of this nature.

so it seems you are quite willing to place complete blind faith in the moral caprices of your god.
(by the way, you haven't said which particular god(s) you subscribe to. you have thousands
to choose from, in fact choose any two, we are having a two for one sale today ;-)

i am not so confident in your fickle god.

btw, moral behaviour can have its basis in neurophysiology and natural selection. there is no longer
a need to appeal to metaphysical sources. perhaps you missed these studies?

:-/
More...

Faster:

There is no burden of proof on me whatsoever.

You see, I don't really care whether you accept my beliefs or not. I don't care what you believe, your fate is not my responsibility. If you are heading towards the edge of a cliff, and your response to the person who warns you is to mock them and say "prove that i am in danger," then that is your problem.

My main goal in continuing the debate on this thread was to get people to think, to highlight both the danger of apathy and the value of the open minded search.

I also don't think you are qualified to ruminate on "my God" when you have no idea what "my God" is like. You might as well start taking shots into the dark as to what my next door neighbor's personality is like, you know him equally as well. Is my neighbor fickle and capricious like my God supposedly is? I'm sure you would now.

By the way, you mention that I have thousands of Gods to choose from. Guess what, so do you. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, including you, worships something- even if that something is as stupid and baseless as pride or money or some material object.

The common thread that runs through my arguments is that I am basing them on what I have experienced, what I have studied, and what makes rational, logical sense to me in an overall coherent structure.

The common thread running through your responses to my arguments is that you duck and weave around my points without ever actually answering them, and most of your responses are based on assumptions about who and what I believe that you really have no right to make, because you simply don't know. You do not know my God, and you do not know what I believe about my God, so why are you basing your attacks on presumptions?

All of your barbs are based on assumed facts that you really don't know and aren't really "facts" at all but assumptions You make about how I think. To make a trading analogy, you remind of those university professors who lambast technical analysis but really have no idea what they are talking about because they have never taken the subject seriously and have only approached it to attack it, instead of giving it objective study. You would fit right in with them in that regard.

I also notice you are switching back and forth between arguing two separate lines basically summed up as "God does not exist" vs "if God exists he is a jerk." But these are two completely separate lines of thought. If God does not exist, then why pretend he does? If you acknowledge that He does, then why pretend he does not, or furthermore that you have any say in what He is like if He is real? Your switching back and forth shows that you are basically dancing around here.

You do not know me, you do not know my God, and your faith is far more "blind" than mine. I have rational logic, reasoning and consistency behind every thing I say. You have only hypocrisy, and have not answered my points in that regard. I have essentially challenged you directly with my words and you have responded by dancing around the meat of my accusations which are based on your own logic. I don't have to firebomb you with petty insults, the evasiveness of your responses does the talking.

p.s. have a nice day
 
>"There is no burden of proof on me whatsoever."

well, that's a rational stance if ever i heard one. spoken like a true believer. get off the thread, stop posting, drop
to your knees and praise jesus! noone made you respond to the topic, and now that you are backed into your
theistic corner, you "don't really care." what a joke. lol.



>"If you are heading towards the edge of a cliff, and your response to the person who warns you is to mock
them and say "prove that i am in danger," then that is your problem."

there you go again. what "cliff?" where's this cliff you keep telling us exists. are we to believe you simply because you
"debated oxford professors". let's see some proof, or shut up, drop to your knees and praise the lord! ha!

>"My main goal in continuing the debate on this thread was to get people to think..."

start with yourself, besides what do you care if we think or not, as you say "i really dont care what you think."

>"I also don't think you are qualified to ruminate on "my God" when you have no idea what "my God" is like"

from what you've posted here so far, you haven't a clue either. and how would we know this god of yours, you
refuse to describe his properties other than some vague generalities of regarding morality.

>"The common thread that runs through my arguments is that I am basing them on what I have experienced, what
I have studied, and what makes rational, logical sense to me in an overall coherent structure."

is this the basis of your argument with these oxford professors because it just doesn't cut it! you can't make up your
own logic and call it valid because it makes sense to only you. your argument must be compelling and persuasive and
VALID. so far this has been sorely lacking as evidenced by your former statement above.

>" The common thread running through your responses to my arguments is that you duck and weave around my
points without ever actually answering them, and most of your responses are based on assumptions about who
and what I believe that you really have no right to make, because you simply don't know. You do not know
my God, and you do not know what I believe about my God, so why are you basing your attacks on presumptions?"

the only thing you've told us is that morality and your god are somehow connected, but you haven't even told us
just how.

you duck MY question to you, namely what is the source of this morality? i thought that was the particular point you
wanted to talk about? you brought it up in support of your god, but now that we ask for particulars, you dont want to
discuss it anymore. make up your mind.

>"I also notice you are switching back and forth between arguing two separate lines basically summed up as "God does
not exist" vs "if God exists he is a jerk." But these are two completely separate lines of thought. If God does not
exist, then why pretend he does? If you acknowledge that He does, then why pretend he does not, or furthermore
that you have any say in what He is like if He is real? Your switching back and forth shows that you are basically
dancing around here."

this is where you are exposed. correct me if i am wrong but didn't you say you are well educated? perhaps at oxford?
do they debate at oxford? do they propose hypothetical arguments and then follow them aout to their logical
conclusions? do you have a clue as to what i am taking about right now? if not...

then drop to your knees and give me three hail marys! lol

."You do not know me, you do not know my God, and your faith is far more "blind" than mine. I have rational logic,
reasoning and consistency behind every thing I say. You have only hypocrisy, and have not answered my points
in that regard. I have essentially challenged you directly with my words and you have responded by dancing around
the meat of my accusations which are based on your own logic. I don't have to firebomb you with petty insults, the
evasiveness of your responses does the talking."

no sir, it is YOU who is dancing here. you speak more like a southern baptist than a philosopher or scientist.
the basis for your god that you have presented here is simply ...I BELIEVE! I HAVE FAITH!

very creative defense ...haven't heard THAT one before! LOL!!!

is that all you have, nothing more in support of your glorious god? pity.......a good advocate of his you are not.

:-/
 
Will you please start your own thread? I don't want to turn off the e-mail notifcation for people responding to my post, but none of you have said anything meaningful about trading or helpful to my original post in quite a while and it's getting tedious to look at your comments. Maybe more people would post more trading type comments if they didn't have to wade though all the irrelevant postings because I gotten private em's to that effect. I'm not trying to be disrespectul to anybody, and I think it would be easy for you to start your own thread.
 
Originally posted by FasterPussycat
>

"stop posting, drop to your knees and praise jesus!"

"let's see some proof, or shut up, drop to your knees and praise the lord! ha!"

"then drop to your knees and give me three hail marys!"

"you speak more like a southern baptist than a philosopher or scientist."


"you duck MY question to you, namely what is the source of this morality? i thought that was the particular point you
wanted to talk about? you brought it up in support of your god, but now that we ask for particulars, you dont want to
discuss it anymore. make up your mind."
More...


I thought the original debate was whether or not God exists. If God exists, then he is the source of morality and the arbiter of right/wrong by default because He created the universe and thus He created the rules. If He does not exist, then there is no source of morality other than man, and we run into the problems I outlined previously.

I haven't ducked this question at all, and if you missed my previous responses I just answered it yet again in a few short sentences.

When I said the burden of proof is not on me, what I meant was that whether or not God exists is an open proposition. It is not like a court of law where one side has the upper hand by default. I argue for God, you argue against. Neither of us has the "burden of proof" except in the sense that we are presenting points for debate.

And you still haven't responded to my main points, though I guess you can pretend in your mind that you have. See, the difference between you and I is that I have to believe what I see to be logically true. I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what I accept and what I do not as if beliefs were nothing more than sweaters in a department store.

My point in saying I don't care about your views is not a copout in any way shape or form. If it were I would not still be here. If I can persuade someone to my point of view, great. If I can't, that's fine too. I really don't care about the outcome of my discussion with you, just the same as I don't care about the outcome of any individual trade, it is the long run expectation that counts.

With all your taunts and insults, mainly directed at Christians and Catholics and kneeling for some reason, you seem more interested in insults than logical debate. Since that's the way you like it, would you prefer to settle this in schoolyard fashion with a round of snaps? Maybe that would be more on par with your intellectual level. So here goes:

Yo momma's teeth are so bucked, she could eat apples through a picket fence.

Yo daddy's so dumb, he climbed a tree so he could be branch manager.

Yo cousin's so crosseyed, she sits sideways at the movies.

Yo brother's so stupid, he thought Taco Bell was a mexican phone company.

Yo sister's glasses so thick, when she look at the sun her eyelashes catch fire.

Yo girlfriend's so ugly, she was breastfed with a slingshot.

Yo auntie's so fat, she can't get out of bed in the mornin' cause she keep rockin' herself back to sleep.

Yo family's so poor, when you go to McDonald's you order a straw and a McNapkin.

and the best snap of all time (courtesy of Eddie Murphy):
Yo momma got a wooden leg with a kickstand muthableeeep...


:-\
 
Originally posted by nljones5
Will you please start your own thread? I don't want to turn off the e-mail notifcation for people responding to my post, but none of you have said anything meaningful about trading or helpful to my original post in quite a while and it's getting tedious to look at your comments. Maybe more people would post more trading type comments if they didn't have to wade though all the irrelevant postings because I gotten private em's to that effect. I'm not trying to be disrespectul to anybody, and I think it would be easy for you to start your own thread.
More...


You are right Nljones- apologies for hijacking your thread. I think the debate has run its course anyway. Anyone who wants to discuss this stuff w/ me further (or take a swing at me, whatever) feel free to send a private message.
 
nl, you got your answer a long time ago, just trade for god's sake, it doesn't matter your age. what more do you want us to say???



Yo momma's teeth are so bucked, she could eat apples through a picket fence.

Yo daddy's so dumb, he climbed a tree so he could be branch manager.

Yo cousin's so crosseyed, she sits sideways at the movies.

Yo brother's so stupid, he thought Taco Bell was a mexican phone company.

Yo sister's glasses so thick, when she look at the sun her eyelashes catch fire.

Yo girlfriend's so ugly, she was breastfed with a slingshot.

Yo auntie's so fat, she can't get out of bed in the mornin' cause she keep rockin' herself back to sleep.

Yo family's so poor, when you go to McDonald's you order a straw and a McNapkin.


How about to close the thread. I don't think the discussion can get any deeper. By the way you got your reply too.(above, in case you missed it):D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top