beowulf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    5,102

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by beowulf

  3. Also I don't simply choose not to believe. My belief is based on the evidence available. When someone sells me a used car I don't base choice of buying the car entirely on what the seller says about the car. I examine it and make my determination on the best available evidence in front of me.

  4. Quote

    I can find absolutely no objective means of determining the answer. Therefore it is subjective.



    When you can't determine the answer to a question it does not mean that it's a subjective question.

    The question is whether or not a deity exists, in this case the Christian god. The question is objective regardless of whether or not you can determine the answer. Because there is no evidence to support the existence of any deity the answer must be No. You can either avoid the question or claim to know the answer based on your own personal subjective evidence that can't be scientifically tested or you can simply base your answer on the fact there is a lack of evidence and await any evidence to the contrary. But based on the wide variety of definitions for deities, it's very likely that deities are simply a figment of human imagination.

  6. Regarding any argument, the question is always whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the argument. So the question is always how much evidence and of what quality of evidence will you accept as being sufficient for you to believe the argument to be true. To be more accurate regarding your 3rd option, it's simply avoiding the question all together. I don't choose not to believe in any deity. I simply find the evidence to be insufficient to compel me to believe. If new evidence were to come to light that could change. But as of now I have not seen or heard of anything that would qualify as evidence of any deity.

  7. rehmwa

    1 - Argument for: I choose to believe
    2 - Argument against: I choose to not believe
    3 - Alternative: Don't know, don't care

    that's pretty much it - pretty much the definition of faith in the first 2
    Anything expanding upon those two is really just a ton of self validating rationalization and kind of tangent to the entire concept we've defined for ourselves.

    nothing wrong with either position - I'm fond of the 3rd

    Lots of stuff wrong with how some people have 'taken advantage of others that chose either position', but that's a whole 'nother subject we could apply to any other power structure in societies past and present.



    You have the second option entirely wrong. The second option is there isn't sufficient evidence to support the argument. Has nothing to do with choosing to believe or not. The third is simply the lazy way out.

  9. No matter how good or well thought out an argument for something is... if there is no evidence that can be independently and scientifically tested there is no reason to believe and it is worthless. That's why the independent confirmation of scientific claims are so important. With out them they are meaningless and can not be taken seriously. Religion makes claims about the real world that can not be confirmed in any way. So there is no good reason to take their claims seriously. All of the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case the burden of proof is on those claiming God exists.

  10. Coreeece

    ***"God is an imaginary friend for grownups"



    From Yelawolf to beowulf:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it_04dk_97E


    Were you just bored? Is that why you dragged up this old post to comment on?

    Religion is probably the oldest scam around. Making promises that are only realized once you are dead and you can't call bullshit on, well because you are dead. I understand believing makes you feel good but that in no way validates the belief. I hope that one day you will face your fears and realize that your belief in God is nothing but lie that was fed to you all your life.

  12. weekender

    ***I won't attack you for your comments. I just don't agree that these new regulations will make the banks any safer.



    based on what? what math are you using?

    they have dramatically increased capital requirements. they have dramatically decreased the banks ability to distribute capital to shareholders. they have also completely ended proprietary trading and drastically limited true hedging. there are many more additional requirements and policies that i dont have the time to list. its just math. they have made all the banks balance sheets stronger and limited their ability to weaken them. how is that not safer?

    am i saying the banks are fail safe? of course not. they are however, much safer than before and certainly safer than your describing.

    edit to add: its fine to say you dont trust the gov't or the banks and your opinion is based on your gut. im cool with that, fyi

    Well only time will tell whether or not my distrust in the Fed or banking system is well founded or not. There is no math that I can point to in order to definitively say that these new regulations won't make any difference. It's just historically new regulations haven't improved the situation. SOX regulations haven't stopped Enron type fraud from happening. The only things regulations really succeed in doing is limiting competition by making it more expensive for smaller banks to stay in business and new banks to start up. So we now see fewer banks total with the bigger banks getting even bigger.

    What you consider as making the banks balance sheets better is in my opinion just smoke and mirrors. The economy is not better since the housing market crashed it's only gotten worse. The banks appear stronger but if you mark to market their assets I think you find them to much less stable then they appear.

  14. Quote

    Having a strong financial industry is good for the nation but my comments on her were not that macro.



    I don't think the banking system is stronger because of what the Fed did to stave off "disaster" with QE. It appears to be more fragile then it was before the housing bubble, which no one in the Fed including Janet Yellen saw coming. The "Too Big To Fail" Banks are now even bigger. What will happen when the next "unseen" bubble pops? Who will bail these even bigger banks out? All they have done is set the stage for an even bigger crisis down the road.

    But don't worry the Fed will save us from the dreaded everyday lower prices of deflation and instead give us everyday higher prices of inflation. I find it amazing that they have managed to get people to think backwards and get them to believe that inflation is a good thing. The logic is so screwed up.

    I think the cartoon in BrentHutch's post is pretty funny and not far off from the truth.

  15. Everything the Federal Reserve has done in it's over 100 year history has been for the short term gain of it's member banks and politicians and the long term loss of the rest of the country. Most people don't realize that the Federal Reserve is not a part of the Federal Government, it's a private bank owned by a group of private banks. I don't see how Janet Yellen will be any better then any of the past Fed chairmen. I think she will be worse then Bernanke. The abject failure of QE will be easier to see as time goes on.

    I see a lot of parallels with Detroit. This video shows what corruption and kicking the can down the road did for Detroit. The Fed has allowed the US Gov to continue kicking the can down the road, very similar to Detroit. What we now have in the US is more like Fascism then a representative democracy. The US government doesn't represent the people they represent their own interests and the interests of big corporations. This is done openly by the lobbying system. Which I see as an institutional form of bribery and corruption. How or when it will end is very hard to predict but it will eventually end. It's not likely to end very well.

    http://youtu.be/IuOEf-pNXUI

  17. davjohns

    Agreed. But concealing and carrying my 41lb .50BMG is just so awkward. And it makes my winky look small.



    I don't think he was meaning the .50 BMG, rather the .500 SW Magnum. The short barrel version could be carried but would be pretty heavy. But not nearly as much trouble as a .50 BMG.

    Here is a 500 SW revolver that could be carried but isn't very practical for a concealed carry gun.

    http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_801052_-1_757771_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

  18. There are a lot of reasons to avoid shooting someone. One that wasn't mentioned is that even if you are justified you are highly likely to have to defend your actions in court. That could easily lead to bankruptcy. Or if it goes to a jury they could return a bad decision and you may end up in prison. Pulling that trigger must be a last resort when life is on the line and there is no other choice.

  21. normiss

    I could never find a .40 that I could carry concealed comfortably.
    9mm, all day long, but the .40 is just too big a frame for my taste.
    It does fit in the truck console real nice though, as well as the tuck spot in the side of the seat.
    ;)

    Nice choices though!


    ETA: I LOVE Sigs. I have always wanted the SAS .40. That is one real sweet piece.



    The Glock 23 is the same size as a Glock 19. I have the G19 and like it better then the G23 because it's easier to manage the recoil and I don't really see much advantage to the .40sw over the 9mm when using self defense ammunition.

  25. What is the leading cause of death for children 1- 14 between 1999 - 2010? I seriously doubt that firearms would rate very high on that list. Gun safety is very important but lets not blow the issue out of proportion and realistically look at the statistics including other causes of death for children.