Belief in God and Market Perspective

[stu]

Quote from 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.

I mean no sarcasm when I say I'll take that at face value and allow for the possibility you could continue to be reasonable here.

Before we go through the - already done dictionary palaver - again,
first I have a question.
Is the definition I gave of atheist reasonable on its own merits or not? If it isn't , please explain why not.
If for no other reason that it is not catered for in certain dictionaries , then I'm sorry jem that won't do.

People can and do express understanding and meaning in and by words, not just because it exactly follows a dictionary's description. Dictionaries and language are dynamic and change constantly. They are built on those changes and usage

For instance, I would suggest for the term Christian to be properly defined, is best done properly by Christians. To use an extreme, I don't expect it reliable to have a culture of say Islamic scholars telling Christians what the definition of Christian is, no matter how well considered that dictionary might be.

Yet contrarily to that, a predominant contemporary Christian culture has declared what the word atheist means. On examination, that has been done rather inconsiderately, and in the face of the very etymology of the word itself. Often with an emphasis on the contrary position to the theist. When in fact the source quite obviously holds completely benign and neutral connotations for the word, which does not at all make atheist’s meaning only as the opposite of theist.

I am not going to say that I think getting used to being led through the nose in life, either through politics, institutionalization, or religion is why you would insist on only taking what a dictionary tells you to take, as the word's meaning. Nope I won't say that. I am still high on the idea you may be reasonable after all and be able to discuss with some civility. Then again, I’m an optimist.

 

[stu]

Quote from stephenszpak:

There is nothing wrong with a Chrisitian
praying to be a better trader, if God has called him/her to
trading.
In this forum people will complain strongly if you say you do
even this.
One has to expect it here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
God knows the future and God can change the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


-Stephen

Any simple enquiry as to why or how praying to an invisible friend might help trading, past what superstition might do anyway , is usually considered by many Christians on this board as persecution.

 

[I am...]

Quote from stephenszpak:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
God knows the future and God can change the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-Stephen

Here is another example of eating the fruit of the tree of "knowledge" of good AND evil.

Time is opposed to eternity.
Eternity is the "good" = Creation
Change is the "evil" = Destruction
Put "good" and "evil" together and you have - poof - time!
Time = change forever.
You cannot "know" time, but...
You can believe it.


Time would impose itself on eternity, replacing reality with itself, making a rediculous parody of Creation where time destroys everything, and what seems to "live" depends on what has been destroyed...like worms...making a place where "worms" never die.

Time is holographic, like an apple, rotten to the core. Worms eat their way through it, experiencing time in linear fashion, though it is really static, closed..."dead". The worms cannot "see" anything outside the apple, and are content to enjoy the sweet taste of applesauce.

What does God care about time? But the "evil one" cares very much for time. For it exists only in time. Though it's days are numbered, it would make time last forever, tricking the mind it depends on to support it with a never ending psy-op campaign.

The whole "prophecy" gig is a trick that keeps worms looking backward and foreward in time...missing the eternal always. All of time is scripted, pre-scribed...foretold. There is no real creativity taking place in it. It fortells only one thing: the crucifixion of the Son of God. All of time is but one thing: the mocking and killing of the Son of God. There is no "future" Kingdom of God. There is no "past" Kingdom of God. It is always "at hand" regardless what time would make of it, putting it far away from a wandering mind. Time would substitute a past utopia and a future utopia concept to keep the worms motivated toward "progress", keeping time ticking.

Time is a madness that cannot be "known" because God knows only what is true. All the rest is a belief, and God does not believe anything because he knows everything. Nor can time be truly understood. Time is a belief. It is made by magic, in the mad belief that something else can supercede eternity, or change what is already perfect. So time is a kind of "idol".

I'll prophecy something: Time will end with the resurrection of all the sleeping ones who dream within its unreal parameters. And I predict that the whole mind that sleeps will awaken, given time.

If all of time is scripted, then a trader could theoretically find a way to read the script. But since time is for tricking you, beware. Fall in with the maker of time and you will be mocked...and then killed, regardless the size of the portfolio he gives you. Mind training can yeild phenom such as hearing the phone ring before it rings, or seeing a freind come around the corner before he comes. You can play games with this, or you can use it to see what the world is all about: bondage and control from hidden levels of mind.

The Dow will trade at 100,000 in 45 years. In 45 years hopefully you should be able to understand that time is a predictable dead zone, determining even your own thoughts and actions with deja vu accuracy.

Time is something to end, not perpetuate. Miracles remove vast tracks of time from the rotten apple holograph, collapsing time upon itself, removing the need for it. The only need for time is for you to make a decision to end it. You need time to make this choice. Therefore, time is to serve your best interests. You made it...you can break it.


Jesus

 

[traderdragon2]

Wasting your time. He is way too brainwashed to understand this.

As an atheist, I think im going to official define "christian" as "a lower form of human who believes in little white men in the sky who take care of them".

Yes sir, thats *the* definition. Because I say so. In fact, I have a dictionary right here in front of me that defines it that way (I just printed it out), so it must be true.

Gee, this jem logic is wonderful! It easily allows you to assert anything you want! woo hoo!

Quote from stu:

I mean no sarcasm when I say I'll take that at face value and allow for the possibility you could continue to be reasonable here.

Before we go through the - already done dictionary palaver - again,
first I have a question.
Is the definition I gave of atheist reasonable on its own merits or not? If it isn't , please explain why not.
If for no other reason that it is not catered for in certain dictionaries , then I'm sorry jem that won't do.

People can and do express understanding and meaning in and by words, not just because it exactly follows a dictionary's description. Dictionaries and language are dynamic and change constantly. They are built on those changes and usage

For instance, I would suggest for the term Christian to be properly defined, is best done properly by Christians. To use an extreme, I don't expect it reliable to have a culture of say Islamic scholars telling Christians what the definition of Christian is, no matter how well considered that dictionary might be.

Yet contrarily to that, a predominant contemporary Christian culture has declared what the word atheist means. On examination, that has been done rather inconsiderately, and in the face of the very etymology of the word itself. Often with an emphasis on the contrary position to the theist. When in fact the source quite obviously holds completely benign and neutral connotations for the word, which does not at all make atheist’s meaning only as the opposite of theist.

I am not going to say that I think getting used to being led through the nose in life, either through politics, institutionalization, or religion is why you would insist on only taking what a dictionary tells you to take, as the word's meaning. Nope I won't say that. I am still high on the idea you may be reasonable after all and be able to discuss with some civility. Then again, I’m an optimist.

 

[I am...]

Quote from traderdragon2:

As an atheist, I think im going to official define "christian" as "a lower form of human who believes in little white men in the sky who take care of them".

As an "atheist", I can imagine you do not recognize a God beyond the god-of-this-world god. In this regard, you would be on equal footing as most of so-called "Christianity". Both Christians and atheists recognize [realize?] and appreciate [worship?] the ground they stand on. Christians merely take idolatry a step further, and give praise and worship to the maker of dirt. But if God is really beyond all that, then, despite pretenses, Christians are exactly the same as atheists. The only difference is that Christians are more absolutely sure that there is no God beyond the god-of-this-world god.

Jesus

 

[jem]

Quote from traderdragon2:

Wasting your time. He is way too brainwashed to understand this.

As an atheist, I think im going to official define "christian" as "a lower form of human who believes in little white men in the sky who take care of them".

Yes sir, thats *the* definition. Because I say so. In fact, I have a dictionary right here in front of me that defines it that way (I just printed it out), so it must be true.

Gee, this jem logic is wonderful! It easily allows you to assert anything you want! woo hoo!

Your quote speaks for itself. Perhaps you will learn why communication needs agreed upon definitions and arbiters.

As far as Stu goes - I tried. You do not want to admit that words have arbiters.

I note if we allowed interest groups to define words willy nilly we could not communicate efficiently.

If atheists were an organized group with well defined doctrines perhaps they could self define. For now atheists do not have that power nor the need.

You deny the existence of God- you are an atheist

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.


Why pollute such a clean framework with weak and strong atheism.

Is it a ploy to make atheism look less intellectually bankrupt.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from Cutten:

Look, it's very simple. If you believe in God, then you don't get to party with champagne, blow & sluts. If you are an atheist baller-trader, you do.

That's all the argument anyone should need.

So in the end, was it worth it? Jesus Christ. How irreparably changed my life has become. It's always the last day of summer and I've been left out in the cold with no door to get back in. I'll grant you I've had more than my share of poignant moments. Life passes most people by while they're making grand plans for it. Throughout my lifetime, I've left pieces of my heart here and there. And now, there's almost not enough to stay alive. But I force a smile, knowing that my ambition far exceeded my talent. There are no more white horses or pretty ladies at my door.

 

[nutmeg]

Quote from volente_00:

So in the end, was it worth it? Jesus Christ. How irreparably changed my life has become. It's always the last day of summer and I've been left out in the cold with no door to get back in. I'll grant you I've had more than my share of poignant moments. Life passes most people by while they're making grand plans for it. Throughout my lifetime, I've left pieces of my heart here and there. And now, there's almost not enough to stay alive. But I force a smile, knowing that my ambition far exceeded my talent. There are no more white horses or pretty ladies at my door.

Nice.

"There are no more white horses or pretty ladies at my door."

I like that. I have paid premiums in life to ensure there are white horses and pretty ladies at my door in old age. If it pays off that's good, if not, well, then that's okay too.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

As far as Stu goes - I tried. You do not want to admit that words have arbiters.

From what I see you hardly tried much at all.

And there you go again, telling me what I do and don't want to do. You may well succumb easily enough to being told what's what by your religion, church or priest as a member of a flock, but not everyone is that gullible or fleeceable. Thank goodness.

Words have arbiters. One of the most important arbiters is usage. Words are defined by usage all the time. The question that arbitrates the usage is a simple one . Does the usage make sense on its own merits.

I asked you to say yes or no and if not why not.

Interest groups and many other people ordinarily define words all the time. Question is , does their definition make any sense. Is it meaningful and broadly used in context to discussion. If it is, then the dictionary changes its definition.
What did the authoritive dictionaries define the word gay to mean 40 years ago?
It certainly wasn't homsexuality. Interst group and usage did that. The dictionary caught up.

You already chose a dictionary which gave alternative definitions of atheist . The very first part of the first definition was a neutral and benign usage where atheist simply had nothing to to with belief but simply was the lacking of any.

Here's another arbiter, a truly authoritative one which you suggest is used, and it differs again from your follow ups but meets broadly with your first arbiter. I've emphasized the particular relevance

• 
  Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
  atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
  
  disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to:

There you see again that shift away from the imprecise badly constructed traditional definition which only allows for belief or denial , which main dictionaries acknowledge is not reflecting obvious meaning and usage.
You believe God(s) does not exist, you are atheist
You deny the existence of God(s), you are atheist.
You have no reason to believe, no compunction, no desire, see no point, lack belief in Gods or one specific God, you are atheist.
3 distinct usages and definitions of the word. The 3rd is the closest to the words own etymology, which surely any dictionary would be expected to acknowledge. But they didn't! Those Pesky memes.

Think on jem, you're only a God away from being atheist .
For that reason you might want to hide behind old or outdated dictionary definitions for as long as there is one. Now that IS what is intellectually defunct.
But on the other hand you may need to come to terms with the obvious sooner than later.
Especially should that same wanting logic you display spill over into trading.

There now, I can say I tried.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

From what I see you hardly tried much at all.

And there you go again, telling me what I do and don't want to do. You may well succumb easily enough to being told what's what by your religion, church or priest as a member of a flock, but not everyone is that gullible or fleeceable. Thank goodness.

Words have arbiters. One of the most important arbiters is usage. Words are defined by usage all the time. The question that arbitrates the usage is a simple one . Does the usage make sense on its own merits.

I asked you to say yes or no and if not why not.

Interest groups and many other people ordinarily define words all the time. Question is , does their definition make any sense. Is it meaningful and broadly used in context to discussion. If it is, then the dictionary changes its definition.
What did the authoritive dictionaries define the word gay to mean 40 years ago?
It certainly wasn't homsexuality. Interst group and usage did that. The dictionary caught up.

You already chose a dictionary which gave alternative definitions of atheist . The very first part of the first definition was a neutral and benign usage where atheist simply had nothing to to with belief but simply was the lacking of any.

Here's another arbiter, a truly authoritative one which you suggest is used, and it differs again from your follow ups but meets broadly with your first arbiter. I've emphasized the particular relevance

• 
  Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
  atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
  
  =================================
  I tried to locate your reference - here is what google returned. Also note your use of disbelieve may be out of context. Here it is in context.
  
  From the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989
  
  
  
  Atheist:
  1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
  2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
  B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.
  
  
  [Note: The last word usage example for sense #1 is: 1876 GLADSTONE in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.]
  
  
  Atheism:
  Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
  
  Agnostic:
  A. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
  [Suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles's house on Clapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to ‘the Unknown God.’ R. H. HUTTON in letter 13 Mar. 1881.]
  
  B. adj. Of or pertaining to agnostics or their theory.
  
  
  Disbelieve:
  1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to:
  
  a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of. (With simple obj. or obj. clause.)
  b. a person in making a statement.
  2. absol. or intr.
  3. intr. with in: Not to believe in; to have no faith in: cf. BELIEVE 1, 3.
  
  
  I am not sure what you were trying to say but in context of the whole passage your argument looks weak.
  
  
  I found my quote here:
  
  http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_3.htm
  
  I doubt you will call this source pro christian.
  
  
  As you are defining disbelieve you are resorting to third level usages. Why would I believe the dictionary itself would use that definition?