traders who are deeply religious

[trader28]

Quote from trainr:

You don't have a clue.

Which is it -- do you accept the bible as true or not?

If you do, then you have some serious problems in your own conformity.

If not, why do you think you can use it to point out someone's weakness?

NOTE2: It doesn't really work, because if you disagree with the bible but use it's precepts, you appear to be more of a hypocrite than the person you criticize.

And, it's more than patently obvious that your only goal is to criticize and destroy.

To paraphrase Karl Marx: "Criticism is a weapon; it's purpose is to destroy."

Why do you feel so threatened by these ideas that you are compelled to destroy them?

I think he was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of acting in the exact opposite fashion to the teachings of Jesus.. an all too familiar christian trait

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from trainr:

Interesting you should bring that up.

Anyone reading that thread has to notice how you were shot down there, as well.

Thanks.

I think you refer to the 3rd post on the following page of that particular thread:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62386&perpage=6&pagenumber=10

Anyone who cared to take a moment to see how you took quotes of mine entirely out of context for your own purposes could see that you are entirely lacking in intellectual honesty and personal integrity. Interested persons needed only to see my posts in their full context to see how your subsequent interpretation came from a parallel universe. You were a fraud in that thread and you are no different here.

 

[trader28]

Even discounting the fairytales it is impossible to take christianity seriously when not a single christian seems able to follow the teachings of its founder... and at the extreme end we have the church murdering by the millions, raking in unimaginable profits (so much for the eye of a needle)... and protecting child molesters among their own ranks... The last christian died on the cross!

 

[Anti-Madder]

Quote from trainr:

You're not disagreeing with me so much as you are disagreeing with an MIT PhD.

It's clear that you were attempting to spread someone else's truth. You are... well, an apostle I guess.

Have you ever overheard someone who was clueless about trading yammer to someone else like they knew what they're saying? Do you crack up at their misnomers and mal-aprops, knowing they will never understand how silly they sound?

That's all that happened here. My ego and your zealotry brought us together. It's funny what misguided people do for a false cause.

No MIT PhD is going say the things you said. The Mitfud and I would simply disagree that he manipulated mathematical parameters to diminish ridiculous odds against his desired numerical result. His math is, no doubt, correct.

I have no cause, and the effect has been the cause of my woe.
Spread this. It sounds like it means something.

Anti-Madder

 

[trainr]

Quote from Anti-Madder:

Yes, very Little.

trainr,

You should understand how cosmic variance imposes crippling constraints on the results of some equations

How so?

before you claim such degree of accuracy as to be within a few thousand years.

Where did I do that? Also, since I’m not trying to be exact, despite your claim that I am, I used words like “about.” I used these particular words so no one would assume I was attempting to be precise.

Actually, I’m using numbers developed by those who are doing the research and are published in peer-reviewed journals. I guess you could disagree with them if you want to.

When we begin calculations that encompass all that ever existed in all time that ever was, we're working within margins of error that swallow multiples upon multiples of your "six thousand year" packets.

What six thousand year packets?

Any claim to have, "done the math" is as comical as your misunderstanding of relativity.

So, I didn’t do the math?

I can't stop reading your side splitting rendition of, "special relativity." If I tried to write the opposite of Einstein's version, I couldn't do better than what you accomplished with such lampoonish brevity.

How so?

Could you give me a quick Yes or No on the following, just to see what you understand:
1. Is the rate of time’s passage fixed?
2. If not, do conditions affect it?
3. Would the rate of time’s passage be the same for an observer present at the beginning of the universe as it would be for us on a current-earth frame of reference?
4. Is the speed of light variable or constant?

Also, if speed of light is a constant, why does it appear to vary? What is the relative part of Einstein’s theory?

This is my favorite part:
"Einstein discovered by analysis that light is peculiar to our universe and doesn't seem to conform to universal laws; all conforms to light, making things relative to light (hence the "relativity" of this theory, which is no longer a theory, but a law). Although the speed of light is known to us as 186,000 m/sec, in reality, the actual speed is instantaneous, but the rate of time's passage varies (is "relative") to make it appear that light always moves at this speed."

I like it myself.

Would you agree that for light time does not exist?

 

[nononsense]

Quote from trader28:

Prove to me that the brother of Jesus was wrong when he told Paul to stop spreading lies about Jesus ie: stop telling everyone he is divine

Now that you bring this up, show us that you're really smart.
(1) Who were the parents of that "brother"?
(2) How do you know that?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from trainr:

You don't have a clue.

Which is it -- do you accept the bible as true or not?

If you do, then you have some serious problems in your own conformity.

If not, why do you think you can use it to point out someone's weakness?

NOTE2: It doesn't really work, because if you disagree with the bible but use it's precepts, you appear to be more of a hypocrite than the person you criticize.

And, it's more than patently obvious that your only goal is to criticize and destroy.

To paraphrase Karl Marx: "Criticism is a weapon; it's purpose is to destroy."

Why do you feel so threatened by these ideas that you are compelled to destroy them?

Clearly, sir, you have cognitive issues and I do not wish to cause you any additional discomfort aside from my response to this post of yours.

I do not accept the bible as true. I use it merely to point out the inconsistency of some people who quote it and allegedly believe it but who do not live by its precepts. Therefore, the hypocrisy I wish to point out is theirs. If this notion is too difficult for you to handle, you may wish to break it down into smaller components for easier digestion. I wish you all the luck that you need.

 

[trader28]

Quote from nononsense:

Now that you bring this up, show us that you're really smart.
(1) Who were the parents of that "brother"?
(2) How do you know that?

That is a tough one but I'll have a crack at it... for the father I am going to go with Joseph of Arimathea, he claimed the body as is a fathers right... and for mother I will stick with Mary but with one proviso, she was obviously a priestess

 

[trainr]

Quote from Thunderdog:

I think you refer to the 3rd post on the following page of that particular thread:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62386&perpage=6&pagenumber=10

Anyone who cared to take a moment to see how you took quotes of mine entirely out of context for your own purposes could see that you are entirely lacking in intellectual honesty and personal integrity.

Please show how these quotes were taken out of context.

If you cannot, then I think your own credibility, or what little remained, will evaporate completely.

 

[trainr]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Clearly, sir, you have cognitive issues and I do not wish to cause you any additional discomfort aside from my response to this post of yours.

I do not accept the bible as true. I use it merely to point out the inconsistency of some people who quote it and allegedly believe it but who do not live by its precepts. Therefore, the hypocrisy I wish to point out is theirs.

See NOTE2 in previous post.