Superstition, Luck and Vodoo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by darkhorse

Only man can ask why- and discover why.
More...

The discovery of why will always be subjective and not absolute...

Why would you feel the need to sit here and write and argue about something as subjective as faith, spirituality, and religion???
 
Originally posted by darkhorse



Congratulations Faster, you've succeeded in pissing me off. "Gawd" was a nice touch. As long as you are playing the juvenile stupidity card, why not call my mother a whore?

Since you seem to enjoy hitting below the belt so much, I think it's time to take the gloves off. There is a spirit of friendship and camaraderie that carries throughout this board. It's one of the things that makes elitetrader a fun place to hang out. We disagree frequently and tease each other constantly, but that spirit of camaraderie and sharing is usually there. Except when it comes to you. You contribute nothing to this place but pathetic cruelty and sad comic relief. Eighty percent of your posts are either flat out insults, arguing for the sake of arguing, or otherwise designed simply to make people feel bad. And that goes for all the other usernames you have used on this board as well. I won't pretend to joke and be your buddy anymore, I've had it with pretending. So here it is: you nauseate me. I don't hate you, that would be a waste of energy. The best I can manage is a casual disgust, the type of mild revulsion inspired by dirty old men or roadkill on the freeway. Your small minded desire to tear people down is a flashing warning sign, clear evidence of the emptiness of your world. If you died in a car accident, how many people would attend your funeral I wonder. How many would even care you were gone.

Now, as long as I am wading into the fray again, let's get back to the subject at hand. To say that "man invented reason" is sheer and utter folly. Man did not invent logic, man did not invent truth. Man did not invent physics or mathematics or biology or chemistry. He invented the WORDS, yes, the LABELS, but that is not the same thing at all. Observing and labeling the process is not the same as creating the process. If logic were truly manmade, then it would have no more intrinsic value than pencil sharpeners or powdered donuts. This is obviously not the case. What we call 'grass' was here before we named it. What we call 'sky' was here before we named it. Truth must be an eternal concept to have value. The principles of gravity and physics applied before our entrance onto the scene, and they would still apply even if we were gone. Reason is simply applied observation of reality, be it observation with our eyes or with our minds. Man did not invent reality. If something logical happens and an atheist was not there to explain it, did it still logically happen? Capital D, Capital U, Capital H.

Furthermore, animals have the ability to reason. Chimpanzees and birds are even scientists to a degree, in that they have both demonstrated the ability to observe and learn and even conduct simple experiments. Even stinkbugs have the ability to reason to a limited degree, in the sense that they are able to make observations of reality and then take logical action based on those observations.

Do you know what the difference between man and animal is? It is not the ability to reason, because animals have limited capacity for reason. It certainly isn't science, because lowly animals can make hypotheses based on observation and learn from them- all that science is. It isn't the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, because animals have developed rudimentary moral codes and have rules they follow and know when they break them.

The only true difference between man and animal is a regard by the divine and a divinely bestowed ability to view reality beyond the point of one's own consciousness. To step back and see the context of the big picture, the higher reality as well as the lower. Man is the only created being who can question his purpose or even wonder if he has a purpose at all. Dogs and apes go about their business. Only man can ask why- and discover why. By declaring questions of ultimate reality invalid, you declare humanity invalid. By promoting instant gratification, by promoting relativism and lack of absolutes, by saying there is nothing above or below, you would make an animal of man. You would have our reasons for existence counted on one hand: eat, sleep, crap, fight, screw. Nothing more. You would make senseless beasts of us all.

But you know what? You're going to lose, and you know why? Because when atheists and nihilists win, they still lose. If it is your goal to show that life is a chaotic madhouse of nothingness, you will only find success when your life mirrors that view. The more you succeed in promoting your nihilism, the weaker you get, the unhappier you get, the more psychotic you get. When a view of reality is wrong, reality turns on that view and eventually forces it to collapse under its own weight. It happened to communism. It is happening to buy and hold investors. And it will happen to you too. Life, death, purpose, love = nothing by your equation. Find a mate, rut in the dirt, claw your brother's eyes out. Make fun of the men who stand and walk erect and live for their created purpose. Jibber and jabber to try and bring them down.

You think you have logic on your side, but you don't. You think you have reality on your side, but you don't. So jump up and down and scratch at fleas and throw your feces at me. I will take it like a man and become more of a man, getting stronger by the day, by the hour, by the moment, while you slowly become more and more like the animal that you so fervently wish to be.
More...

that was so well put, I can only quote you darkhorse
 
Originally posted by Commisso


Why would you feel the need to sit here and write and argue about something as subjective as faith, spirituality, and religion???
More...


because the toughness of the question is only exceeded by the vital importance of the question.
 
Originally posted by darkhorse



because the toughness of the question is only exceeded by the vital importance of the question.
More...

Vital importance or not Dark, the way or "the truth" can never be found with words... so why indulge in it??? especialy with an aetheist
 
Originally posted by Commisso
Paradoxes are found at both the atomic level as well as the sub-atomic level... Where particles can be found to be discontinuous as well as continuous, destructible and indestructible, and so on and so on...
More...
well, that depends on your definition of a "paradox". the well known fact that electron has both wave-like poperties and particle-like properties does not qualify as a paradox in my book, because both "particle" and "wave" are just macro-level objects used to compare the electron with.

just like a motorcycle can be likened to a bicycle in certain contexts, and to an auto in some other circumstances -- hardly a paradox, is it.

while the theory itself may be void of paradoxes the manner in which it is expressed is anything but...
More...
yes, of course the QM, like anything else, gets contradictionary on the "popular science" level, thanks to the ambiguity of the terms. however, on the most basic level, it's just a bunch of math used to describe the behaviour of micro-level objects. no paradoxes there whatsoever.

where things get interesting and controversial though is the interpretation of the theory: that is, physicists trying to construct the "invisible" part of the theory. you see, the laws of QM have a distinct feel of "just a shadow on the wall" to them, provoking all sorts of theories and heated discussions about the "rest of it".

BUT I am no physicists, I am just a simple trader
More...
well, i happen to be a physicist, programmer, and trader rolled into one -- you can't get a more explosive mixture of down-to-earthness, can you :)

Originally posted by darkhorse
Dogs and apes go about their business. Only man can ask why- and discover why
More...
maybe, but i don't think we're there yet to call that distinction with absolute certainty. to me it seems that the perceived capabilities of animals have certainly increased as science progresses. hence your statement may be correct but it clearly "fights the trend".

now, as far as portraying the god as the creator of natural laws goes, i know this is a pretty common belief, even among physicists. i respect that. however, i respect that as a theory, not as an absolute truth. moreover, intuitively i don't believe it myself, because it implicitly extrapolates the everyday notion of causality (ie eveything has something responsible for it) to realm that is anything but everyday.

- jaan
 
Jaan:

I respect your intelligently neutral view and do not expect all to share my understanding of reality.

It is only mindless bashing that brings out the fire in me.


Commisso:

Seeds can be planted. If I can get one person to think objectively and consider something new or reconsider something they threw away years ago, then I have succeeded in my goal. It is not my job to 'convert' anyone, only to offer guideposts and encourage others to conduct the search for themselves.

Faster:

Here's a tip. Type your missives in all caps, for a shouting effect- to better mask your complete lack of substance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top