Belief in God and Market Perspective

[I am...]

Quote from stephenszpak:

Since your life is not yours anymore
you are required to do as the Master (ie. Jesus) wants.
This may be trading or something else.

Now that I have informed you that you are neither living nor are you dead, your life is no longer yours, but "mine". Now that I have told you that your so-called "life" comes at the expense [sacrifice] of Truth, you are required to lay it down, if you intend to take it up again as "mine". There cannot be anything but "me". I am the Truth, and "you" are not. It's good to be "me", not "you". You are asked to voluntarily "trade" your life for mine. In this exchange, you trade nothing for everything. Why not? I gave up nothing for you! I have not changed. But while you sacrifice me for your existence, you will think that I have been sacrificed. I have not been sacrificed, but you have sacrificed your awareness of me...and therefore your awareness of yourSelf. Go short - "sell" - everything you think you "know", and go long on the Kingdom of God [KoG]. I promise you, it will be the best trade you ever made in your entire so-called "life".

Jesus

 

[stephenszpak]

Quote from traderdragon2:

What is ironic is the idiot is too stupid to realize he is the idiot. This board is full of a bunch of quacks who believe in stupid little fairytales and cant think for themselves. They worship the laymans dictionary as the end all to all definitions, even when the definition is trumped by a more specific expert source. Now stick your heads back in the sand, we wouldnt want the pillars of your childish belief system shaken any further. Back to discussing stupid fairytales about schitzo fathers who hear voices and decide to murder their sons. While were at it, lets have a cannibal party and pretend to eat the flesh of jesus and drink his blood like some sick vampires, you sicko demented freaks.

One can look at this command given to Abraham as an
example of what God requires in a man today. It
has always been the same. Everything or anything.


As far as sending good men to their deaths, this was
commonplace during World War II. I'm sure a great number
of U.S. commanders had feelings for some of these men,
as if they were their own sons. Some things just have to
be done however.

-Stephen

 

[I am...]

Quote from stephenszpak:

One can look at this command given to Abraham as an
example of what God requires in a man today. It
has always been the same. Everything or anything.


As far as sending good men to their deaths, this was
commonplace during World War II. I'm sure a great number
of U.S. commanders had feelings for some of these men,
as if they were their own sons. Some things just have to
be done however.

-Stephen

Bullshit...must be done...however...while you believe in good "and" evil.


Jesus

 

[I am...]

Quote from traderdragon2:

For the clowns who worship websters layman dictionary, I suggest you pick up a dictionary of philosophy which trumps the laymans dictionary.

The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none."
The mere lack of belief, is the most common case for atheists by far. It should always be listed as the first definition. Implicit/weak atheists are what atheists refer to when we say "atheist", not the extreme minority of strong atheists who do not represent the overwhelming majority.
Get it now??? Too many dictionaries are dated and theist biased.

Now read part 1 and 2
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/12346

Speaking of clowns...have you seen the latest "Batman" installment? It contains some core parables. For example...

The "knowledge" of in good and evil yeilds a "Joker" which reinterprets everything according to it's own definition. The world is its dictionary, which most are consulting for "knowledge". It's a joke.

It would be better to not believe it's world at all.

Jesus

 

[stephenszpak]

Quote from FredBloggs:

are you a trader?
do you believe in God?

may seem unrelated, but....

if you are a trader you look at outcomes in terms of probability and payoff right?

so,

if you have no belief, and there is God, you lose. if you have belief you win.

if you have belief or no belief, and there is no God, your outcomes are the same.

therefore, it makes sense to have belief mathematically, despite science trying to prove otherwise.

?
(idea from mr n n taleb)

Back to C.S. Lewis. It makes sense. He was a genius
while I'm not.

But since your patient has contracted the terrible habit of obedience, he will probably continue such "crude" prayers whatever you do. But you can worry him with the haunting suspicion that the practice is absurd and can have no objective result. Don't forget to use the "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. If the thing he prays for doesn't happen, then that is one more proof that petitionary prayers don't work; if it does happen, he will, of course, be able to see some of the physical causes which led up to it, and "therefore it would have happened anyway", and thus a granted prayer becomes just as good a proof as a denied one that prayers are ineffective.

Screwtape Letter XXVII

(In case no one is familiar with the Letters, one has to remember
that Screwtape is a high level demon writing to a lower level
demon.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are Christians in every, or almost every profession.
I have nothing against someone using math in trading.

-Stephen

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

......
I was chastising people like STU who don't realize saying there is no God is also faith based.

So keen are you on chastising and popping your blood vessel, as always you miss the point again and again and again.... using a Dictionary, you even miss the point the Dictionary makes. Incredible!

//education yahoo
lol. there's a contradiction in terms if there ever were one.

NOUN:
1.

• a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
  b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

You do realize those are alternative meanings they offer don't you jem? You don't think you must use all of them all at once, all the time do you?
Those are alternative meanings. .1. is split into a/b alternative usages, then 2 is another alternative. You do see that ? yes?

Look at this definition you chose for atheist
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief does not cause belief or denial . Maybe you should go and look up the definition for the word ‘or’

Coming from the position ' if you don't believe there is, then you must believe there isn't ' , is a blindingly constricted attitude and approach. Not even yahoo make that mistake. But I notice you managed it ok.
It's no wonder to me why your arguments are so scattered, illogical and undirected.

The fact is, because of the complete lack of evidence, it is in no way necessary to believe there is a God. That is non belief, it does not then require there to be any other belief, either that God does, God doesn't, It might or It might not.

Lacking all and any evidence for Goblins or Fairies, there is no reason to believe in them. That does not provide for belief of another sort. It's NO belief , in them, for them, against them or otherwise.

Unfortunately for religion , the complete lack of evidence for something can simply make it irrelevant. So fear, threat, guilt, denial and superstition is applied to make the irrelevent appear essential.


Instead of jumping about all over the place which you always do, from disconnects with Big Bangs to sidetracks on what you say scientists are saying,
why not deal with the 2 outstanding items you have not, or cannot, come to terms with?

jem:
They simply can not prove there is no creator.
My argument does not require anyone to prove a negative...

• 
  1. Your argument is contradictory and illogical.
  If you think it is not contradictory and illogical (maybe a Belief in God mentality is disrupting your rationality) , kindly answer the same illogicality in this - proving the negative - .....
  
  atheists can prove a creator does not exist . Theists simply cannot prove there is no non existence of a creator
  
  2. Non belief does not constitute belief. (Obviously).

It's not just jem. The God belief provides a lot of crap reasoning and illogical disconnects along with much other nasty stuff. That and a Market Perspective? Would it be really that comfortable thinking they might work together?
Perhaps it is why that 90% are said to fail.

 

[stu]

Quote from stephenszpak:

Back to C.S. Lewis. It makes sense. He was a genius
while I'm not.

But since your patient has contracted the terrible habit of obedience, he will probably continue such "crude" prayers whatever you do. But you can worry him with the haunting suspicion that the practice is absurd and can have no objective result. Don't forget to use the "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. If the thing he prays for doesn't happen, then that is one more proof that petitionary prayers don't work; if it does happen, he will, of course, be able to see some of the physical causes which led up to it, and "therefore it would have happened anyway", and thus a granted prayer becomes just as good a proof as a denied one that prayers are ineffective.

Screwtape Letter XXVII

(In case no one is familiar with the Letters, one has to remember
that Screwtape is a high level demon writing to a lower level
demon.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are Christians in every, or almost every profession.
I have nothing against someone using math in trading.

-Stephen

Thing is, christian math has it that 1 = 3

 

[jem]

Stu - that was a more reasonable argument than I usually get from you.


I suggest we agree which sources are authoritative.

Then when we have the definition if we - have to define a word like disbelief -- we use that same source since it was that source that used the word. Presumably they used it in a manner consistent with their definition.

How do you propose we decide which sources are authoritative.

I propose we use respected and widely used dictionaries. Possible ones used by law makers. But not legal dictionaries.

 

[jem]

From Merriam Webster


atheist


Main Entry:
athe·ist Listen to the pronunciation of atheist
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ist\
Function:
noun
Date:
1551

: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic Listen to the pronunciation of atheistic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal Listen to the pronunciation of atheistical \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of atheistically \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

 

[I am...]

Quote from stephenszpak:

Back to C.S. Lewis. It makes sense. He was a genius
while I'm not.

(In case no one is familiar with the Letters, one has to remember
that Screwtape is a high level demon writing to a lower level
demon.)

They reflect C.S. Lewis theology, which is a temptation.

Temptation would see the Son of God as a body. And if he is in a body, he is in hell. Tempation is to belittle the Son of God, by wreaking havok with his mind. The result magically transubtantiates the Son of God into "flesh".

Quote from Amazon:

Each letter is a masterpiece of reverse theology, giving the reader an inside look at the thinking and means of temptation.
It is the dichotomy between being consumed and subsumed completely into another's identity or being liberated to be utterly ourselves that Lewis explores with his razor-sharp insight and wit.

If to be "ourselves" is not to be the Son of God, then Lewis has reversed the Truth, and succeeded in keeping his readers/patients in hell. Misdirection is a trick of illusionists, and Lewis shows himself masterful in this regard. Yet Lewis does no more than what so-called "Christianity" already does, misdirecting through a fear of punishment, and/or a fear of subsumation into the identity of Christ.

It is a trick that hell is said to be in the future, someplace else, misdirecting the patients attention on the fact that he is in hell while he is in time, whereever time prevails. This is a rule of thumb. It does not really apply to those walking in a state of timelessness [think: grace], while seeming to walk in time. There is a mind outside of time that is still in hell. It is the mind that makes time, which is a trap. This mind might be termed "Lucifer", as if to give a name to an artificiall intelligent computer.


Jesus