|
Bottom line, if you can't trust someone like TECSHARE, who has conducted himself impeccably, and who has arguably been *the* poster child for successful and professional trading within this community, who the heck can you trust? I think some of the responses from some of the mods here, though valid with regards to leaving false feedback, gloss over the fact that TECSHARE has done this forum a world of good over the past few years, legitimizing crypto trading and raising the bar for quality salesmanship and integrity. If I were him, I would adamantly defend myself, too. TECSHARE's history speaks for itself. So he blew up once, big deal. It sounds like he was provoked while doing what he does best -- selling. Give the dude a break.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I especially like the part where you countered the facts laid before you about your precious Bible falling short on the whole 'word of god' shtick.
Henry VIII decides he wants to get divorced, voila! goodbye RC, say hello to the "Church of England", now, who do I have to behead to get a CofE Bible thrown together?
Just as I figured. You don't have anything else. So you go and pick on the failings of a human being. So, do you really think that your perfection is good enough?  ...Says he who claims science is "weakest" and then provides absolutely no reasoning behind the statement whatsoever. It appears you're the one who has nothing else aside from two tactics: 1) Keep saying the Bible is right, and 2) attack people when they call you out on your bogus thinking. Care to provide justification for your statements? I remember how you completely failed to create a deductive argument for claims homosexuality is "bad" and "unnatural" even when I created a template for you. Care to try again? Premise 1: Insert here Premise 2: Insert here Premises 3, 4, etc.: Insert here Therefore: Science is the weakest with all of its "ifs" There you go, sport. There's the template, all you need to do is fill in the premises to reach your conclusion. If you succeed, I (and I'm sure many others) will concede to a superior argument. Make my day  Here it is about science. All science that can be used in daily life is practical. All the rest of it is based on "if." "If" means that science doesn't know. Science is fantasy, or else it is the weakest religion. No. Here's the problem you're having: Logic is something you use regardless of whether you're talking about science or the Bible. Accordingly, there are logical rules to be followed in order to demonstrate a sound conclusion. The deductive argument template I've presented you with is recognized globally as a valid format for presenting an argument. The reason behind using it is because it allows you to show how your premises support your conclusion. If you can't soundly support your conclusion in such a format, it means there are gaps in your reasoning, or at the very least there are gaps in your explanation. That's why I gave you the template to work with. Since you claim to know this stuff front to back, it should be no challenge for you to list your premises in such a way that they undeniably lead to your conclusion. So far, you have not been able to demonstrate your ability to do this. Accordingly, since you fail to present a concise, succinct argument when challenged, we assume you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks which are globally recognized as the absolute weakest type of argument as it doesn't even address the topic whatsoever. If you can't formulate a deductive argument to support your conclusion that "science is weakest," then you must concede to our superior arguments. No amount of smiley faces, smug-but-ignorant passive aggression, etc. will make you any more right. But I suspect being right isn't as much of a priority to you as simply not wanting to admit the possibility that you come off as intellectually retarded. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I especially like the part where you countered the facts laid before you about your precious Bible falling short on the whole 'word of god' shtick.
Henry VIII decides he wants to get divorced, voila! goodbye RC, say hello to the "Church of England", now, who do I have to behead to get a CofE Bible thrown together?
Just as I figured. You don't have anything else. So you go and pick on the failings of a human being. So, do you really think that your perfection is good enough? ...Says he who claims science is "weakest" and then provides absolutely no reasoning behind the statement whatsoever. It appears you're the one who has nothing else aside from two tactics: 1) Keep saying the Bible is right, and 2) attack people when they call you out on your bogus thinking. Care to provide justification for your statements? I remember how you completely failed to create a deductive argument for claims homosexuality is "bad" and "unnatural" even when I created a template for you. Care to try again? Premise 1: Insert here Premise 2: Insert here Premises 3, 4, etc.: Insert here Therefore: Science is the weakest with all of its "ifs" There you go, sport. There's the template, all you need to do is fill in the premises to reach your conclusion. If you succeed, I (and I'm sure many others) will concede to a superior argument. Make my day |
|
|
|
...
By the way, the last poster who said breakfast is unnecessary is giving horrible advice. Skipping breakfast is a great way to send your body into a catabolic state where it will consume its own muscle for energy. Basically, this will kill your metabolism and make the few calories you do eat more likely to be stored as fat. if you want to get in shape, you should be looking to add calories to allow yourself to work out harder. You could say there's no such thing as over-eating, just under-training.
The thing you just described is one of the most known myths of all in this subject. Studies have proven it to be false endless times. It's common knowledge to people more educated in fitness/nutrition that "intermittent fasting" is not dangerous, and might even give some health benefits. And what you just stated is something that people who read and then misunderstand and report things they've never experienced say. What statement did I specifically make that made you respond accordingly? I never said anything about "intermittent fasting" even though you placed the term in quotations as though I actually said that, and I never said "dangerous." We're talking about staying fit, and there is no part about fasting that contributes any sort of benefit to that statement unless you fall into the small minority of people that are overweight specifically because they eat too many calories and live a completely sedentary lifestyle. In reality, most people are obese because they have obliterated their metabolism to the point where they remain obese even eating a meager 1000-1500 calories per day. Why do you think that many obese people actually eat far fewer calories than their skinny counterparts? I've known many overweight people, and even have some in my family, that eat fewer than 1,500 calories per day. When you fast, and especially if you significantly cut calories from your diet over a significant period of time, your body goes into hibernation mode where, in the absence of a healthy level of caloric intake, it says to itself, "Oh, shit!" and attempts to store as much fat as is possible from the calories that you do consume. ' Here are some indisputable facts: 1) More calories equates to a higher metabolism. Period. 2) Exercise requires that you increase your caloric intake to compensate for the breakdown in muscle tissue, and also due to increased metabolism resulting from an increase in mitochondrial density. 3) Excess glycogen is depleted when you sleep. 4) The body prefers to utilize glycogen from carbohydrates as energy first, fat as energy second, and muscle as energy third. 5) When you fast, your metabolism decreases. Period. Go ahead and skip breakfast and keep telling the rest of us who will run circles around you how it's helping you. You already depleted the best source of energy reserves while you sleep, and then you deprive your body further by not eating breakfast. I eat ~3,500 calories per day and weigh around 160 lbs. at 6% bodyfat. But please, keep telling me what I don't know from my 15 years of experience  Sorry, intermittent fasting was basically what I was talking about myself in previous posts. I don't necessarily think you are wrong in what you are saying. I'm just trying too say that it doesn't matter too much how often you eat during the day, just as long as you consume enough calories. No, it does matter. Think about it. Let's say we have two identical people whose only differences are the number of meals they eat, and when they eat them. Let's say identical person A consumes 2,000 calories once per day, and identical person B consumes 2,000 calories spread out over five, 400-calorie meals. If person A consumes his 2,000 calories at breakfast, over time his body will react to this schedule. His body will know not to expect those 2,000 calories again for another 24 hours. So, to adapt, the body's metabolism slows to conserve those 2,000 calories. If his metabolism didn't slow down, those 2,000 calories would be utilized too quickly. As a result, person A will be more lethargic throughout the day, and will be more likely to store those calories as fat for future use rather than using them right away. In contrast, person B, who consumes his meals three hours apart, will notice his body adapt to this schedule, too. But, instead of slowing his metabolism, this type of meal schedule increases it. His body knows that he is only taking in 400 calories per meal, but also knows that it won't be long before he eats again. Accordingly, his body utilizes this energy more readily; there is simply no need to store those calories when more are on the way. What you are saying absolutely makes alot of sense. It's just that most, if not all reliable studies might disagree with it. Do you recall where you came across these studies? I'm genuinely curious to see them. Am I correct in guessing that the methodology used consisted of simply controlling for as many variables as possible between two random groups, assigning each group to an eating schedule, and comparing the results? From experience (15 years as a hobbyist bodybuilder), I find that frequency and intensity of exercise exacerbates the effects of an eating schedule, and this is common with pretty much anyone who trains intensely on a regular basis. For 15 years, I've worked out ~3-4 times per week, every week, without fail. The only exceptions came during a few periods when I couldn't work out due to injury. When I wasn't working out frequently, it didn't matter as much how often I ate throughout the day, and I could get by with only 2-3 meals and be fine with it. However, when I'm on my normal training schedule, I find it near impossible to *not* eat at least 4-5 meals per day. If I don't, I get hungry *very* quickly, and after about 5-6 hours without a meal I literally can feel my body turning catabolic. It gets very mentally and physically uncomfortable. Actually, this is the one complaint I do have about a frequent meal schedule, for if a food crisis ever did erupt, having an extremely fast metabolism would be insanely impractical. Edit: And, relating back to "intermittent fasting" which, contrary to your assertion, I never even intended to address and therefore do not care to "make further comments on this stuff," the topic is about staying fit. So, if I were to comment on it (lol), I'd say that intermittent fasting might affect conditioned athletes more than non-athletes. But, to say intermittent fasting contributes to fitness is unfounded. |
|
|
|
...
By the way, the last poster who said breakfast is unnecessary is giving horrible advice. Skipping breakfast is a great way to send your body into a catabolic state where it will consume its own muscle for energy. Basically, this will kill your metabolism and make the few calories you do eat more likely to be stored as fat. if you want to get in shape, you should be looking to add calories to allow yourself to work out harder. You could say there's no such thing as over-eating, just under-training.
The thing you just described is one of the most known myths of all in this subject. Studies have proven it to be false endless times. It's common knowledge to people more educated in fitness/nutrition that "intermittent fasting" is not dangerous, and might even give some health benefits. And what you just stated is something that people who read and then misunderstand and report things they've never experienced say. What statement did I specifically make that made you respond accordingly? I never said anything about "intermittent fasting" even though you placed the term in quotations as though I actually said that, and I never said "dangerous." We're talking about staying fit, and there is no part about fasting that contributes any sort of benefit to that statement unless you fall into the small minority of people that are overweight specifically because they eat too many calories and live a completely sedentary lifestyle. In reality, most people are obese because they have obliterated their metabolism to the point where they remain obese even eating a meager 1000-1500 calories per day. Why do you think that many obese people actually eat far fewer calories than their skinny counterparts? I've known many overweight people, and even have some in my family, that eat fewer than 1,500 calories per day. When you fast, and especially if you significantly cut calories from your diet over a significant period of time, your body goes into hibernation mode where, in the absence of a healthy level of caloric intake, it says to itself, "Oh, shit!" and attempts to store as much fat as is possible from the calories that you do consume. ' Here are some indisputable facts: 1) More calories equates to a higher metabolism. Period. 2) Exercise requires that you increase your caloric intake to compensate for the breakdown in muscle tissue, and also due to increased metabolism resulting from an increase in mitochondrial density. 3) Excess glycogen is depleted when you sleep. 4) The body prefers to utilize glycogen from carbohydrates as energy first, fat as energy second, and muscle as energy third. 5) When you fast, your metabolism decreases. Period. Go ahead and skip breakfast and keep telling the rest of us who will run circles around you how it's helping you. You already depleted the best source of energy reserves while you sleep, and then you deprive your body further by not eating breakfast. I eat ~3,500 calories per day and weigh around 160 lbs. at 6% bodyfat. But please, keep telling me what I don't know from my 15 years of experience Sorry, intermittent fasting was basically what I was talking about myself in previous posts. I don't necessarily think you are wrong in what you are saying. I'm just trying too say that it doesn't matter too much how often you eat during the day, just as long as you consume enough calories. No, it does matter. Think about it. Let's say we have two identical people whose only differences are the number of meals they eat, and when they eat them. Let's say identical person A consumes 2,000 calories once per day, and identical person B consumes 2,000 calories spread out over five, 400-calorie meals. If person A consumes his 2,000 calories at breakfast, over time his body will react to this schedule. His body will know not to expect those 2,000 calories again for another 24 hours. So, to adapt, the body's metabolism slows to conserve those 2,000 calories. If his metabolism didn't slow down, those 2,000 calories would be utilized too quickly. As a result, person A will be more lethargic throughout the day, and will be more likely to store those calories as fat for future use rather than using them right away. In contrast, person B, who consumes his meals three hours apart, will notice his body adapt to this schedule, too. But, instead of slowing his metabolism, this type of meal schedule increases it. His body knows that he is only taking in 400 calories per meal, but also knows that it won't be long before he eats again. Accordingly, his body utilizes this energy more readily; there is simply no need to store those calories when more are on the way. |
|
|
|
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar. Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine. It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy? FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me. So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god? And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit? The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God. They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose. The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God. So yes, it's a bad analogy. It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground. You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against. Just had to chime in here... While I understand your points about the abstraction of god, I think you're reading into the details too much. I think the FSM/teapot analogy is totally valid. The whole point of it is merely to show that it is illogical to assume that anything extraordinary exists without seeing evidence for it. By assuming an entity exists (for which there is no evidence, or even no possible way to even test for its existence), you logically have to also assume that any other such entities are just as likely to exist, and therefore just as valid. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god, as much as it shows that assuming such things is illogical and counter-productive. This thread sure has given me a laugh, and taught me a thing or two. I'm not religious, but I do find it funny listening to religious people try and validate their views by alternately cherry-picking science and quoting the Bible. BADecker - you are probably the worst offender in this respect, one minute you're saying things like: "Machine Universe proves the existence of God", "Evolution is a scientific impossibility" etc, and the next you're quoting Bible passages to back up your claims! Most religious people accept that their beliefs are not provable, that's why they call it "faith" when you believe weird stuff with no evidence. The fact that some of you seem to be looking to science to rationalise your religious views strikes me as refreshing in a way, as it suggests that you're questioning your views and retaining at least a little open-mindedness. Try and lose the confirmation bias, and you might get somewhere! The selection that I bolded above is precisely why it's a bad analogy, and again, it's bad because it's totally irrelevant. I'm not reading into details too much, but rather those who assert this analogy are interjecting details where they have no business being interjected and glossing over them as if they're totally insignificant. The whole point is that it's impossible to find evidence that would prove the existence of God specifically because the scope of the scientific method and empiricism doesn't extend that far. The simple rebuttal to the analogy is that there are two major types of knowledge: 1) a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge based upon evidence/experience, and 2) a priori knowledge which is independent of evidence/experience. The FSM and teapot analogies focus *only* on a posteriori knowledge, and the problem arises when those who assert the FSM and teapot analogies fail to recognize that proof of God, if it can exist, can *only* be derived from a priori knowledge. Accordingly, again, it's a bad, totally invalid analogy. My simple rebuttal is, "Yeah, screw that analogy, what a priori knowledge do you have that you can use to argue against the existence of God?" It's. A. Bad. Analogy. Russel and Dawkins fucked up, deal with it. Disclaimer: Though I've mentioned it before, I'm not Christian, and I don't adhere to any particular religion, though I do believe in God inasmuch as I believe the Universe is essentially a mental construct. |
|
|
|
...
By the way, the last poster who said breakfast is unnecessary is giving horrible advice. Skipping breakfast is a great way to send your body into a catabolic state where it will consume its own muscle for energy. Basically, this will kill your metabolism and make the few calories you do eat more likely to be stored as fat. if you want to get in shape, you should be looking to add calories to allow yourself to work out harder. You could say there's no such thing as over-eating, just under-training.
The thing you just described is one of the most known myths of all in this subject. Studies have proven it to be false endless times. It's common knowledge to people more educated in fitness/nutrition that "intermittent fasting" is not dangerous, and might even give some health benefits. And what you just stated is something that people who read and then misunderstand and report things they've never experienced say. What statement did I specifically make that made you respond accordingly? I never said anything about "intermittent fasting" even though you placed the term in quotations as though I actually said that, and I never said "dangerous." We're talking about staying fit, and there is no part about fasting that contributes any sort of benefit to that statement unless you fall into the small minority of people that are overweight specifically because they eat too many calories and live a completely sedentary lifestyle. In reality, most people are obese because they have obliterated their metabolism to the point where they remain obese even eating a meager 1000-1500 calories per day. Why do you think that many obese people actually eat far fewer calories than their skinny counterparts? I've known many overweight people, and even have some in my family, that eat fewer than 1,500 calories per day. When you fast, and especially if you significantly cut calories from your diet over a significant period of time, your body goes into hibernation mode where, in the absence of a healthy level of caloric intake, it says to itself, "Oh, shit!" and attempts to store as much fat as is possible from the calories that you do consume. ' Here are some indisputable facts: 1) More calories equates to a higher metabolism. Period. 2) Exercise requires that you increase your caloric intake to compensate for the breakdown in muscle tissue, and also due to increased metabolism resulting from an increase in mitochondrial density. 3) Excess glycogen is depleted when you sleep. 4) The body prefers to utilize glycogen from carbohydrates as energy first, fat as energy second, and muscle as energy third. 5) When you fast, your metabolism decreases. Period. Go ahead and skip breakfast and keep telling the rest of us who will run circles around you how it's helping you. You already depleted the best source of energy reserves while you sleep, and then you deprive your body further by not eating breakfast. I eat ~3,500 calories per day and weigh around 160 lbs. at 6% bodyfat. But please, keep telling me what I don't know from my 15 years of experience |
|
|
|
|
Lol I read it as "20 milli-Bee-Tee-See"
|
|
|
|
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar. Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine. It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy? FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me. So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god? And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit? The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God. They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose. The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God. So yes, it's a bad analogy. It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground. You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against. |
|
|
|
I do 3-4 workouts per week using a maximum 30-60 seconds between sets depending on the exercise. I use a stopwatch to keep pace. I perform 5-6 exercises each workout for a total of 25-30 sets. I alternate between legs/lower back/abs on 'leg day' and work out chest/back/biceps/triceps on "upper body day." I use a combination of body weight exercises and resistance bands to increase my strength-to-body weight ratio. I can perform 100 consecutive push-ups and about 33 consecutive pull-ups.
I eat 3-5 meals per day and additionally supplement with a multivitamin and multi-mineral, whey protein, and creatine. Combined with the workouts, this basically allows me to eat whatever the hell I want and maintain a body fat percentile between 6-8%. I'm actually just about to sit down and order 24 buffalo wings with copious amounts of ranch.
By the way, the last poster who said breakfast is unnecessary is giving horrible advice. Skipping breakfast is a great way to send your body into a catabolic state where it will consume its own muscle for energy. Basically, this will kill your metabolism and make the few calories you do eat more likely to be stored as fat. if you want to get in shape, you should be looking to add calories to allow yourself to work out harder. You could say there's no such thing as over-eating, just under-training.
True words. Sounds interesting, but why aren't you hitting your shoulders? It's sometimes great to skip breakfast if it's early in the morning. I'll drink my pre workout booster and go then to the gym. Sometimes I eat a banana to have something in my stomach. As addition I drink some BCAAs to protect my muscles Ill temporarily 'skip' breakfast only if I'm starting out my day with some cardio. My body depletes its glycogen reserves while I sleep, so cardio first thing in the morning means my body will draw from fat reserves instead. But, I always eat afterwards. Breakfast for me is usually ~50g whey protein and ~30-50g complex carbohydrates with a multivitamin and mineral. Not eating after a workout is one of the worst things you can do. The best time to eat is within ~15-60 minutes post-workout since nutrients are digested at a much faster rate during that window. I don't work out shoulders right now due to a shoulder injury a few years ago on incline bench press with no spotter. I find that working out my chest, back, and especially legs helps contribute to my shoulder growth. |
|
|
|
|
I do 3-4 workouts per week using a maximum 30-60 seconds between sets depending on the exercise. I use a stopwatch to keep pace. I perform 5-6 exercises each workout for a total of 25-30 sets. I alternate between legs/lower back/abs on 'leg day' and work out chest/back/biceps/triceps on "upper body day." I use a combination of body weight exercises and resistance bands to increase my strength-to-body weight ratio. I can perform 100 consecutive push-ups and about 33 consecutive pull-ups.
I eat 3-5 meals per day and additionally supplement with a multivitamin and multi-mineral, whey protein, and creatine. Combined with the workouts, this basically allows me to eat whatever the hell I want and maintain a body fat percentile between 6-8%. I'm actually just about to sit down and order 24 buffalo wings with copious amounts of ranch.
By the way, the last poster who said breakfast is unnecessary is giving horrible advice. Skipping breakfast is a great way to send your body into a catabolic state where it will consume its own muscle for energy. Basically, this will kill your metabolism and make the few calories you do eat more likely to be stored as fat. if you want to get in shape, you should be looking to add calories to allow yourself to work out harder. You could say there's no such thing as over-eating, just under-training.
|
|
|
|
study His character and this is done by reading the Bible in it's entirety, both the Old and the New Testament.
We can also "know God" by spending time in prayer as well.
He says, "His sheep know His voice." How is it that there are only two written volumes containing recorded transcriptions of God's voice? Can one really know God's voice if one is reading a translation? My husband likes to read the New Testament in Greek. Feel free to study Biblical Greek, as well as Hebrew for the Old Testament, if it concerns you that reading a "translation" makes it hard to know God's voice. Fortunately, I feel that many of the translations are fairly accurate to the original texts so this isn't a huge concern to me. That said, I do believe God still speaks to us today. Why are the scriptures that we have the only canonized scriptures? Well that is a debate in of itself, but there were good reasons why some books were included and some were not. There are political reasons that certain books were included and others were not; also, there are political reasons for the translations of key words. ReincarnationEkklesiaThat is not even the point. Without the original renderings, there is no inspired text. Christ never set up a church nor did he set up a canon, that was all done by men of this world. Christ warned you about Pharisees (Matthew 23), Christ also told you exactly who rules this world, your volumes will not escape that corruption because they are of this world and a great many of those books come from a Pharisee (see Acts 23:6, Matthew 5:20). The nature of the soul is indeed a complicated study and humanity has yet to master all that there is to know about itself. This is why religion exists. To limit yourself to two volumes (consisting of books chosen by men) is really absurd, ESPECIALLY IF GOD IS ALWAYS SPEAKING TO YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE. To those tampered volumes I say "no thanks"; they are useful study, but I have heard God's voice in plain English with over 100 volumes, and it speaks about the reality of life and the illusion of death, not just "one life after death and a 'savior' that will take away your responsibility", which is the most irreligious sentiment that I have ever heard. God will forgive those mistakes made in ignorance, but do you think that God's forgiveness can excuse you from seeking out the real truth which is at all times being spoken to everyone and even being recorded? How are you going to recognize the truth without both a reference point and a search?See The Problem of the Criterion from Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyOne of the very important things that the Bible tells us in this regard is, the devil makes himself look like an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14: And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. So, who did you hear when you thought you heard God talking those more than 100 volumes in English? If I was Satan, and if I wanted to deceive the people, I would write the Bible and pretend to be God and claim that it was written under divine influence. Then I'd have a couple billion Christians thinking that they're preaching the word of God as written in the Bible, when in reality it's the influence of Satan. Wouldn't that be a trip -- to think that, all this time, you've been believing you're preaching the word of God like a good Christian, and maybe you're just a Satanist? |
|
|
|
Can I piggyback into this thread? I've been reading about mining and as I understand it it's not really profitable unless one has a big profesional operation going on. If that's true then how come so many people are still buying individual rigs for themselves?
It doesn't matter how large the operation is, it simply matters how much you paid for the mining hardware, how much you mine, and how much you pay for electricity. A small operation that is more cost-efficient than a large operation is, well, more cost-efficient (duh). You could have a small mining farm run out of a house that requires no additional security, cooling, electrical wiring, etc. that relatively outperforms a large operation using the exact same mining hardware because the large operation has additional overhead costs such as rent for warehouse space, security, cooling, custom wiring, etc. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions. You've given me lots to think about. No problem! Just so you're aware, I'm currently mining at a very small loss. However, it's staring to get very cold where I live, so running my miners is actually indirectly profitable at the moment because the heat generated allows me to save money by not using my furnace as often, and the money saved per month is presently greater than the monthly loss from mining. Also, the hardware has already paid for itself, so it's not like I recently purchased any mining equipment. Given my current circumstances, mining makes sense. |
|
|
|
Can I piggyback into this thread? I've been reading about mining and as I understand it it's not really profitable unless one has a big profesional operation going on. If that's true then how come so many people are still buying individual rigs for themselves?
It doesn't matter how large the operation is, it simply matters how much you paid for the mining hardware, how much you mine, and how much you pay for electricity. A small operation that is more cost-efficient than a large operation is, well, more cost-efficient (duh). You could have a small mining farm run out of a house that requires no additional security, cooling, electrical wiring, etc. that relatively outperforms a large operation using the exact same mining hardware because the large operation has additional overhead costs such as rent for warehouse space, security, cooling, custom wiring, etc. |
|
|
|
Can I piggyback into this thread? I've been reading about mining and as I understand it it's not really profitable unless one has a big profesional operation going on. If that's true then how come so many people are still buying individual rigs for themselves?
My guess is that most people mine because, while current difficulty and BTC price indicate mining isn't profitable now, it could be very profitable in the future if 1) a miner holds his mined BTC, and 2) BTC price increases. It's interesting to note that the past two difficulty adjustments, as all as an upcoming third adjustment, have all been relatively minor compared to what we've seen in the past. Because of this, there's also the small likelihood that a miner might end up with more BTC than he would have otherwise if he purchased BTC outright, but this requires the right set of conditions. There are other considerations to take into account. There's the possibility that, if the right set of conditions present themselves, you can actually profit from mining in a declining market (you can short BTC, but if the price goes up you're screwed) if the value of BTC mined + value of reselling hardware is greater than your purchase price. Some also feel that the psychological aspect of mining seems less risky than buying outright since the mining hardware serves as a hedge on your investment and (again, depending on circumstances) they may have more flexibility regardless of which direction the market moves. In general, though, the odds are currently against the miner. |
|
|
|
The one with the higher hash rate will obviously be better. 1Gh/s = 1000 Mh/s.
What the heck? No, it's not "obviously" better. Don't give people poor advice if you're not sure what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
In the same way there is no possible way for an ant to conceptualize our galaxy, we do not have ability to know the mind and ability of an omnipotent being. This is basically agnosticism in a nutshell.
Lower-order levels of logic are essentially the exact same as higher-order ones, just infinitely smaller. It's my opinion that this is what is meant in the Bible when it says man was made in God's image. I believe that our logic and mind functions exactly the same as god, except at an infinitely-smaller level. Logic is a closed system, and inasmuch as we use logic as the only basis to rationalize about the Universe, it is possible to construct a perfectly self-contained logical theory of the Universe which would essentially equate to a God-level theory of reality. The only criteria is that it must be self-contained and consistent throughout, and must be capable of explaining not only everything the Universe contains, but also itself. Therefore, its structure must be self-reinforcing and circular such that any attempt to deny it only reaffirms its existence. An example of such a self-reinforcing and circular argument is the argument for absolute truth, for any attempt to deny absolute truth, e.g. "There is no absolute truth" automatically invokes the unspoken assertion, "It is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth." Of, if someone said, "There is more than one truth," or, "Truth is relative," it is the same as saying "It is the absolute truth there is more than one truth," or, "It is the absolute truth that truth is relative." |
|
|
|
You could call God the limit of theorization, i.e. a theory that explains the Universe at the highest possible level of generality.
Exactly! This is the point! If god can appear as a man in the sky, or a burning bush, or (forgive the pun) god knows what, then god can also appear as a teapot, FSM, as well as every hair on your head, all at the same time. God theoretically assumes every possible form, however seemingly impossible they may seem, meaning god can assume every imaginal form and infinitely more unimaginable forms, all at the same time beyond anyone's comprehension or judgment, omnipotently. <edit> Taken from, "A creed indeed."FSM is ageless, timeless and all-encompassing...
FSM has created all there is for our entertainment and sustenance, and has given unto us the mental capacity to adapt the mythologies of This Universe to aid and comfort us here, until that day we are able to join together at the foot of the Beer Volcano and enumerate our specifications at the Stripper Factory so that happiness and contentedness and good cheer be present for all, forever and forever. R'Amen. It's the "beyond anyone's comprehension or judgment" part that I'm having trouble with here. I would agree that in a literal sense, this omnipotent ability is beyond comprehension. But in a conceptual sense, it isn't. Something interesting I've learned about logic is that it is hologrammatic in structure, e.g. in the same way that spatial dimensions are holographic in structure. For example, the third dimension is the infinite sum of possible combinations of the second dimension, the fourth dimension is the infinite sum of all possible combinations of the third dimension, etc. Similarly, logic can be conceptualized as operating similarly on higher- and lower-order dimensional planes. For example, a higher-order logic can be used to explore a lower-order logic function because it yields a vantage point from which one can comprehensively view everything going on in the lower-order level. Conceptually, God, if it exists, operates at the highest possible, prime level of logic. We need a way to occupy the same vantage point to talk about God rationally, and this is possible. Imagine if I draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, which would be the representation of a 4th-dimensional structure on a 2nd-dimension piece of paper interpreted by 3rd-dimensional beings, us. By taking a higher-order dimension (i.e. the 4th dimension) and literally thrusting it down into the 2nd-dimension (i.e. the piece of paper), we can gain insight into the 4th-dimension even though we are only 3rd-dimensional beings who have no direct ability to perceive the 4th-dimension from the appropriate vantage point. Accordingly, we had to 'pretend' that we were 5th-dimensional beings analyzing the 4th-dimension in the same way that we as 3rd-dimensional beings analyze the 2nd-dimension. If we can do this with logic, i.e. by 'pretending' that we already occupy a higher vantage point by thrusting higher-order levels of logic below us in the same way that we thrust the 4th-dimensional tesseract onto a 2nd-dimensional plane on paper, then we have it made -- we then have a method to rationalize about God. |
|
|
|
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar. Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine. Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy? How can you be so sure what is GOD? Have you met him/it/she? It is impossible to tell. You could call God the limit of theorization, i.e. a theory that explains the Universe at the highest possible level of generality. |
|
|
|
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar. Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine. It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
