Unfortunately, people who have steeped themselves in a particular religion, mostly find it difficult to set it aside when they find out it is a false religion.
Can you compile a list for us all of all these false religions? How do you recognise a false religion? No, I probably couldn't. I would probably miss at least a few. Besides, I don't have the time that it would take to investigate and compile. You could probably search Wikipedia for a list of main ones. Well, with Christianity all around you, and with all the talk about the Bible I have been doing in this thread, start there, the Bible, and ask God to direct you on your journey into this kind of religious seeking. But you have to be sincere in your testing for God. Ask Him to prove Himself to you if He really exists. But do it from the standpoint of really asking sincerely. He doesn't cater to people who are simply playing around or attempting to mock Him.  I would be particularly interested to hear you respond *directly* to his question about how you are able to recognize a false religion. |
|
|
|
Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.
For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts. For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.  If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal. If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion. Okay, here's the standard definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religionExplain to me what I'm religious about? If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion. I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air. This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot. I caught this just a few weeks ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8sI was hoping you would respond to my response to your post, shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10573928#msg10573928I will think on it and respond in a bit... [edit] You've taken a big jump away from empirical science, of which i admit i chased BADecker from the evolution thread to here. And if you're suggesting that logic is incapable of making comment about reality..
I don't think that for a second, and did not mean to represent my position as such. I readily admit, we place faith, of such, in our perception of reality. Descartes' demon may well be real, and this world is a deception. And yes I do admit, as well I think most others, that I am taking my existence and my perception of the world on faith. There is an indefinite continuum from what we can say we know to what, at some point, we must assume. I briefly looked through the pdf you posted, but at 56 pages, it would take considerable study to analyze. Fundamentally, my opinion is such concepts are most likely unknowable nonetheless fascinating to discuss. Anyone who claims to have an answer to an unsolvable problem, particularly in a stone age text, stifles this conversation. I perceive it as a credible threat to our species, whether we exist or not. What's the problem with moving away from empirical science? The point I made is that empirical science carries assumptions that cannot be empirically falsified via its own methods. To reconcile or discredit these assumptions necessarily requires a purely logical approach. Phrased another way, empiricism relies upon non-empirical assumptions, and so it, too, moves away from empirical science in order to establish its own assumptions (e.g. there is absolutely zero evidence for a Positivistic Universe, etc.). I agree, the paper I linked is dense, and I've likely spent several hundred hours analyzing it and researching claims counter to it. However, the structure of the model is self-referential such that any attempt to disprove the model actually reaffirms it (because the model not only explains everything else, but also itself). Edit: Descartes was wrong about dualism. Also, the Evil Demon scenario would be accounted for by the model I linked. |
|
|
|
 An odd post that was just deleted from his thread. Sketchy behavior even if the transaction is successful. Noted. |
|
|
|
the coin looks right, showing slightly under weight as it should be 31.1g but could be scales accuracy but tungsten core coins are very close in dimensions & weight.
Changing my feedback to neutral, OP has delivered the coin as promised, authenticity still to be proven.
Not giving positive or completely removing feedback as lack of Escrow is a worry and could be a long con.
Will be interesting what price the maple grams sell at as Goldbits stated he did not have them in hand so selling at below retail price would be a concern.
Any chance of some clear face on pics of the coin and not angled shots.
Interesting. I, too, will alter my feedback if this pans out well. |
|
|
|
Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.
For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts. For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post. If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal. If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion. No, they don't. Belief systems needn't be religious. You really ought to stop shooting yourself in the foot by inventing definitions on the fly and subsequently changing those definitions whenever you feel like it. Again, whether or not you are correct in your belief about God's existence, you are absolutely terrible at rationalizing your beliefs. The subtle tone of arrogance underlining every one of your posts further disservices your position. You contradict yourself repeatedly and your arguments don't make sense. I would stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, even if you got lucky by guessing correctly with 50/50 odds. You really ought to learn what your atheist opponents are telling you most of the time, because they *are* correcting you in many instances. |
|
|
|
Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.
For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts. For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post. If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal. If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion. Okay, here's the standard definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religionExplain to me what I'm religious about? If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion. I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air. This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot. I caught this just a few weeks ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8sI was hoping you would respond to my response to your post, shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10573928#msg10573928 |
|
|
|
Can someone direct me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that proves there is a God?
Science is too limited in scope to comment upon the matter. There are published proof(s) for God, although not peer-reviewed. Although, you could say that it(they) have been informally peer-reviewed. Christopher Langan's paper at www.ctmu.org is one (third bullet point; click on "here"). I've found it infallible so far, to the extent which I understand it and have analyzed it. Edit: I should also mention that I'm familiar with many critiques of his theory. I have not found any that are credible. Edit 2: Direct link to the theory is here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdfThe word your looking for is falsifiable. You can't peer review a proof of god. The hypothesis can not be proven false. Methodology can't be duplicated. A proof of god is not a mathematical proof with universally defined axioms. Religious zealots cant even agree amongst their own sects on what god is. "Falsifiable" isn't the word I was looking for; I indeed meant "infallible." It seems you're under the assumption that falsifiability only applies to empiricism. It doesn't. There are other kinds of falsifiability. For example, you can falsify a proposition by showing its inverse to be true. With specific regard to the reference I provided which proposes a model that implies intelligent design, you would be able to falsify the model by citing an example of something that should be explained by the model but isn't. And if the model is correct, it falsifies your assertion that God does not exist (again because it is the inverse). And if you're suggesting that logic is incapable of making comment about reality or (specifically) intelligent design without physical evidence and an empirical approach, that's self-apparently nuts. Notice, for example, that the scientific method cannot even falsify its own assumptions because it cannot subject them to empirical falsification. One of these assumptions is that we live in a Positivistic Universe. Empirical falsification of this assumption would require evidence acquired through observation in a Universe that is totally absent of any observers. General logic, however, can prove that a Positivistic Universe cannot exist right off the bat as result of the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which essentially states that all things reduce to a common medium. Unlike classical scientists, quantum theorists make no such assumption of a Positivistic Universe. Ever wonder why academia hasn't yet figured out a way to reconcile the disparities between classical and quantum physics? Well, that's a huge reason why. |
|
|
|
As a seller, that is my problem with escrow: It adds an unnecessary layer of trust for me. Granted, my reputation is nowhere near as strong as some others on this forum, but at a certain point, the need for escrow becomes blurred. As a buyer, do you wish to trust one person with a positive reputation, or do you wish to trust two?
Also, ironically, the buyer who agreed to send 4 BTC because he is "convinced" the seller is legitimate has come under my microscope. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a trusted member going to great lengths to create a seemingly-credible alt account in order to use it to scam others. For example: Step 1) Establish, build, and maintain credibility of primary account, Step 2) create alt-account at a future date, Step 3) act suspicious toward alt account and stage a transaction in order to establish credibility of the alt account, Step 4) use alt account to scam in future without raising suspicion against the primary account, Step 5) Profit.
I wouldn't normally assume this as a possibility, but when the first transaction is for 1 oz. gold, I have to raise an eyebrow. The general outcome of a successful first transaction of this nature is that many people will likely assume that the chances of being scammed by the same account for any amount less than 1 oz. gold is low. This gives the account free reign to scam up to the value of ~1 oz. gold at which the precedent was set.
I really can't blame you. If it ever does come down to it, I would be willing to share my correspondence with GoldBits, minus my address with some trusted member. (which I suppose I could have faked with great effort..) I almost backed out of the deal, but since GB was willing to pre-purchase the Canada Post mailing slip which provided me the tracking info, I am confident that he can be tracked down by it should a fraud investigation be launched. I know he used a credit card to pay also, for example (all traceable). The post office where he dropped it off would also have cameras, aiding in identifying the fraudster. Had the seller been located outside Canada, I would not have done the deal. I never suspected that I myself would go under the microscope for doing the transaction; frankly if I knew there would be this much chatter, I wouldn't have gotten involved beyond the initial advice I gave. Please don't take it personally. As we all know, none of us really have the luxury of giving anyone here the benefit of the doubt. I expect others regard me similarly. It speaks volumes about the conduct here that I'm even entertaining what is admittedly a tin-foil hat consideration in almost any other setting. I'm actually glad you read my post and responded to it in the way that you did. I was certainly wondering what you might think of it. |
|
|
|
It is always guilty until proven innocent here unfortunately. I do see one flaw in the system though, and that is for a new user to trust someone they do not know for escrow. That said I wouldn't have personally sent that guy 4BTC upfront for an amazing deal deal on gold though...same with these Amazon guys with amazing rates.
As a seller, that is my problem with escrow: It adds an unnecessary layer of trust for me. Granted, my reputation is nowhere near as strong as some others on this forum, but at a certain point, the need for escrow becomes blurred. As a buyer, do you wish to trust one person with a positive reputation, or do you wish to trust two? Also, ironically, the buyer who agreed to send 4 BTC because he is "convinced" the seller is legitimate has come under my microscope. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a trusted member going to great lengths to create a seemingly-credible alt account in order to use it to scam others. For example: Step 1) Establish, build, and maintain credibility of primary account, Step 2) create alt-account at a future date, Step 3) act suspicious toward alt account and stage a transaction in order to establish credibility of the alt account, Step 4) use alt account to scam in future without raising suspicion against the primary account, Step 5) Profit. I wouldn't normally assume this as a possibility, but when the first transaction is for 1 oz. gold, I have to raise an eyebrow. The general outcome of a successful first transaction of this nature is that many people will likely assume that the chances of being scammed by the same account for any amount less than 1 oz. gold is low. This gives the account free reign to scam up to the value of ~1 oz. gold at which the precedent was set. |
|
|
|
Can someone direct me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that proves there is a God?
Science is too limited in scope to comment upon the matter. There are published proof(s) for God, although not peer-reviewed. Although, you could say that it(they) have been informally peer-reviewed. Christopher Langan's paper at www.ctmu.org is one (third bullet point; click on "here"). I've found it infallible so far, to the extent which I understand it and have analyzed it. Edit: I should also mention that I'm familiar with many critiques of his theory. I have not found any that are credible. Edit 2: Direct link to the theory is here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf |
|
|
|
Simple fact "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" I guess its time that everyone knows it.
Inasmuch as reality is provably a mental construct, intelligent design exists (and thus it is practical to say God exists). |
|
|
|
If god exists, it is not subject to logic ( Scientific proof that God exists ) The only being capable of providing proof for or against the existence of an omnipotent being is an omnipotent being
Incorrect. If God exists, it *must* be subject to logic, else it could not exist (exists vs. doesn't exist is reducible to binary logic). Edit: Proof needn't be empirical (because it can't be). |
|
|
|
Of course, you cannot measure the probability of something existing somewhere in the universe. Unless you can do that, the whole proof is meaningless.
It's about time that someone else pointed out that empiricism cannot possibly comment one way or another about God. |
|
|
|
As a guitarist myself (although I've sold my electric and haven't touched my Nylon in years  ), I'd say both Slash and Jimi when it comes to complexity. For simple catchy tunes, with simple chords, I've found no one as powerful as Kurt Cobain. The guy was no guitar genius by any stretch but somehow finding powerful combinations was natural for him. As a guitarist myself, the emboldened passage perplexes me. Complexity? Slash and Jimi? Really? Both undeniably exude loads of feel and soul, but 'complex' is probably one of the last words I would ever think of to describe their playing. It's also a term that speaks more to objectivity than subjectivity, which is probably the reason I'm responding to this post and not to the posts of those who like Carlos Santana (his guitar playing to me sounds like nails on a chalkboard; he hits all the notes I wish he wouldn't hit lol). |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is still a beta project. That should indicate something.
|
|
|
|
ill remove my negative feedback when that coin is received by a buyer @ 4BTC and is tested as genuine.
The coin looks legit to me but there are some very good tungsten based copies available now.
Also just because you hold it does not mean you are going to ship at the advertised price (hence the initial escrow avoidance)
Hope to be proved wrong and I have no probs admitting I was wrong if the time comes
Nothing wrong with applying due diligence due to the hoard of scammers on this site.
I agree. And I also hope to be proven wrong on any subsequent transactions thereafter. As a seller, I've always been firm about no escrow (with one exception). But, of course, that's because "I know I'm honest" and blah blah blah. |
|
|
|
Because I'm an honest & reputable seller, I wouldn't list something I don't have in-hand. I will certainly list the MapleGrams once I physically have them. I think it will benefit those who want pure gold but don't want to buy an entire ounce. Edit: I'm only removing posts that clearly show someone didn't read Post #1. If you have an actual sales question, it shall remain in this thread. Okay, here's a sales question: You are "honest and reputable" according to whom? Also, can you place your coin on a scale and let us see its mass (with handwritten forum handle and date included)? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
