Economics doesn't involve values or opinions. You are pretty ignorant about economics. It's a science of human behavior and the choices they make, restricted to human interactions in the economy. Economics doesn't tell *what* you should do, only what people most likely will do as rational agents in specific situations.
It absolutely IS a science. Morality is a branch of science as well. He is saying that to believe in profit from the stock market, you must be superstitious. Because all profits are in that case is some special equation that breaks down when looked at. The truth is that YES the electron is still there even when you're not looking at it, and YES, the tree makes a sound. Every time.
@SaveTheWheat Science is in a dynamic sense, essentially a method of prediction. It has been defined as being the method of the determination of the most probable.
In tossing a coin, how does one know how many times heads will turn up? How does an insurance company know how many people will die next year? How does a geologist know where to drill for oil? How does the designer of a building determine how many elevators will be required? How does the weather bureau predict what the weather will be tomorrow? How can the astronomers predict to within a second an eclipse of the sun 150 years hence?
@SaveTheWheat These are all illustrations of scientific predictions. Some of these predictions, as you well know, are more exact than others, but they are all based on the same fundamental principles of reasoning from the basic facts. When more facts are known, more accurate predictions can be made. That is what is meant by the most probable; not that by this method one knows exactly what will happen, but by it's use he can determine more nearly what will happen than by any other method.
@SaveTheWheat But machines must be operated in accordance with their design. If you wish to speed up your automobile, you must press the accelerator pedal. Into this problem enter no abstract considerations whatever, such as, is it ethical to speed up an auto this way, or is this the best of all possible ways of doing it?
@SaveTheWheat The machine is built simply to accelerate in response to this one operation. This is a useful lesson to digest. No machine, no group of machines may be properly operated except as specified by their design. America's idle factories, her wanton destruction of food supplies while her citizens remain undernourished are results of trying to operate a system by other criteria.
DUH !! What kind of people go to doctors ? Come on it should not be difficult for an economist .Yes sick people .A truly shameful use of statistics by someone who should know better
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
@FlipThatBond This may be biased but I generally agree. A healthy dose of skepticism is good for knowing when to question the logic and trading of the herd. I am a good trader because I know understand psychology but also rely a lot on my attempt to be objective when doing fundamental research. Regarding your statement, I think skepticism is key for beating the market over the long-haul. Now are skeptics more likely to be atheists, my guess is yes. Either way resist dogma in any facet of life.
@DaveRB2 If they put a large raise of the debt ceiling through, stocks should get a pretty good pop. The follow through of the QE is wearing off though, so after the pop, I'm expecting a big decline, probably 20%, which will cause a "deflation scare" and an excuse for QE3. Once QE3 is announced, silver will explode.
@FlipThatBond I agree. That is why I am mostly in cash, standing ready to play the bounce, but wary that economic data will continue to disappoint and we will shortly thereafter proceed downwards. The risk/reward is not favorable right now.
My fear is that the terms of the debt ceiling will not satisfy the market and possibly the useless rating agencies. I think the U.S. has the means to maintain their credit rating but our dysfunctional political system seems to be on the path self-sabotage.
@FlipThatBond Also I think the Fed has it's hands tied. QE3 may set off another wave of growth killing inflation. QE certainly helps inflate asset prices and net worth but disproportionately helps the wealthy but does very little for the real economy.(hiring, demand) Without any dramatic policy changes, especially to our regressive tax system, I see a global recession ahead mixed with social unrest and hopefully a movement for political reason. Sadly first time I've been bearish in 2 years.
@FlipThatBond I assume you're an atheist, yes? Well I have to disagree: just because you can look past "social pressures" doesn't mean you're a good trader. Is an atheist better prepared to deal with what happens when a market crashes, seeing their wealth reduced by 75%? Nobody can claim to not be affected by that, not even the best hedge fund managers of all. Ability to predict the markets consistently is non-existent, and that to deal with them is not really related to one's spiritual beliefs.
@josepharte Ability to consistently predict the markets does exist and I'll prove it to you: stocks and oil drop until the Fed announces it's next round of bond purchases and then the price of silver will go crazy. Real estate will lose over 50% of its value in real terms within the next 18 months.
@FlipThatBond My point (and Taleb's too) is that we are ignorant and arrogant if we assume that the future will follow our perceived expectations. Thus, atheists and religious people alike are not very well prepared for such a proceeding. And our track record of future prediction is very dismal indeed. Read his book, "The Black Swan"; I hope you'll understand what I mean...
@josepharte Are you saying that preparing for the future is futile?..because that's just pathetic. It's not one big crapshoot, some consequences of actions are predictable. Also, the world is filled mostly with people that can't think for themselves..bunches and bunches of sheeple. And those who can't think for themselves are going to be worse thinkers. The sheeple effect is exactly why the world is being run on one giant fiat money system..that system is ending..and few are ready.
With that last part, I think we can agree. But for the former, you're not going to change my mind, and neither me, you, while arguing on the Internet. So I guess only time will tell.
@JakeMansonNYC "Worshiping" science would be absurd. It would be like worshiping algebra or history. Science is simply the method we use to make the best picture of the universe as we can with the tools we have available. I have never met an atheists that "worships" science.
@JakeMansonNYC No, we don't worship anything. If we believe anything, it is that evidence and reason are the best tools for deciding how we view the universe and our existence. If new evidence comes to light, we can adopt these new ideas into our thinking. Religion discourages thinking, it discourages reasoning, it discourages critism and evidence. Religion demands obedience, it demands ignorance, and it should be treated as the foolish, pathetic, childish way of thinking that it is.
Although I do take his point about the hypocrisy of investing certainty in stock markets but not in religion - it is a good point that bears thinking about, and I see no reason why a skeptical writer (no need to be a Neo-Darwinian or even to agree with Dawkins) couldn't address the irrationalities of this kind of 'belief' in the markets. Although, having said this, financial analysts and the like do at least try to test data empirically much of the time, which religious thinkers may not do
The atheist claim is just a straw man anyway. Perhaps after he produces his figures about whether the religious are better or worse at predicting patterns in or believing in arbitrary, 'random' systems such as the stock market, in comparison with atheists, then we'll have a true comparator with which to judge his claim. But as it stands, simply conflating 'atheist' with 'believes in the stock market' is inaccurate and weak, as atheists just as likely to support socialism or some other system..?
(continued)...be validated, it would have to be the case that medicine continued to result in more deaths than the lives it saved. Now, I don't have statistics on preventable deaths in hospitals coming about through routine treatments or suchlike, but surely the near disappearance of diseases like smallpox and the plague, the fact mothers and babies don't die in childbirth as often anymore, and many other medical advances (in developed countries anyway), mean that his claim is just wrong?
pretty disappointing really - was expecting more from him. 'More people die from going to doctors than not going to them', as proved in the 18th century? Didn't really hear where he explained this claim at all, although perhaps I need to be fair and watch the full video elsewhere... Perhaps, in the 18th century, many who had ailments died after going to doctors, instead of being cured. Granted, as a science in an early experimental stage, there were bound to be mistakes, but for his claim to...
As much as I love Nicholas Taleb, this argument he makes is very graspy and obviously emotionally attached to religion. I am skeptical of the bishops, and the financial pundits.
I watched this video ok and tried to learn something ok and I read some of the comments ok on this video ok, and I'm not sure if I got anything out of it ok
1) Atheist (for the most) recognize so many falsehoods and hypocrisy and "evil" with religion that the priests invoke this nauseating feeling of distrust while there is little to link the image of the analyst to "bad things" like the cause of economic distasters etc therefore the nauseating feeling of doubt is less prevalent; this is with MOST ppl not just atheists (about the stock analyst)
2) I personally DO view the analyst's words with scrutiny
One more thing while I'm whining. It always bugs me when people like Taleb act like what we now know to be obvious. It seems to me to be an insult to Cohn, Koch and Pastuer's decades of hard, dangerous and bountiful work just to act like medicine could have realized that microbes were the cause of many diseases.
Also, while men as far back as Erasistratus thought bloodletting might not have been justified Empiricus did not repudiate it and it was not for centuries that the practice was exposed.
The problem is that Taleb is full of theories: from anthropological theories about the behavior of cavemen to psychological theories about power. He just doesn't represent them AS theories. To hear him, you'd think he actually knew that cavemen spent a lot of time at rest with occasional bursts of activity.
When he's so wrong about things I have knowledge of (the history of medicine, for ine) it makes me question his expertise in economics. Of course, what would I know?
My problem with Taleb, if it counts for anyone, is how often he gets the facts wrong. Not about economics, I don't know those ones. But his account of the history of medicine is laughable. Medicine was not invented in 1928 (which is when penicillin was shown to have medicinal properties). There were thousands of discoveries made by men from Avicenna to Pastuer that saved and heleped people.
"Anybody invested in the stock market who is critical of religion is a hypocrite."
lolwhut? This guy is a nutjob. He didn't even effectively explain his position. Atheism (or religion) and the stock market have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with each other. It's obvious he doesn't know much about the stock market either. Anybody can do well in the stock market when they diversify their portfolio, choose large or mega- cap stocks, and choose company specific stocks after research.
Math is accurately depicted in all things, though. For example there is a mathematical formula for gravity. When it is tested, it works. This rationally proves that the math representing it is factual. Also, understand that math can not be disproved. One plus one is always two, based on the purist definition of what one is.
Math is not only a system of notations we created, although we did, because the entire universe follows its laws. This is something we can prove. Religion is not.
Yup. You put the words right out of my mouth. It really is hard to have a rational conversation with someone who's thoroughly convinced of their superiority.
I am an Atheist and I put money in the stock market. It was too complex for me to predict and I lost money. I stopped. How is this being inconsistent? I suppose this video might have been taken out of context, but even if it was I think we have a hard enough time convincing people that beliefs in gods is irrational without a video making it sound like atheism itself is inconsistent.
However, I *bet* the entire talk is good and serves as a warning for atheists to be rational always.
'I don't believe in beliefs. I believe we humans use beliefs to act." Excuse me? Each time we go thru a green light it is because we 'believe' other drivers will obey their own red light. And, did the poster of this vid cut out some part in which the speaker cited an exhaustive study which showed that those who are suspicious of bishops are suckers in the market? In my experience, investing favors skeptics, not blind believers. And you DO listen to economists. It's strategists you ignore.
What's not to understand about this video? He's basically saying that if you believe Warren Buffett is a billionaire, then you are a hypocrite not to believe in God.
Yeah, I guess you're right, medicine itself is just like a lucky charm.
Can you relate that to why doctors wear that chic german stetho on their neck?
Y'know, after the XVIII century, they figured religion could no longer stand as tall as it ever was, so they made medicine the new way of controlling people.
ok i'm done. this guy just doesn't make much sense, Well, he had only 3 minutes, but meh.
I was not aware that Dawkins believes in stock market analysts. I personally know no atheists that do. Further, I know many religious people that gamble and talk about how much money they have made at it.
That is the most retarded thing I have heard all day. So you claim that polytheisms aren't religions? Hinduism isn't a religion? Are you seriously saying that no religion can allow gambling?
Well, sense we are not dealing with reality any more, I will say that it is against religion to believe God communicates through books. that is part of irreligion, for example Islam, to believe God's words is in a book.
@DayfallKat Polytheisms are actually irreligions. If you refer to religion originating from monotheism and polytheism as the decay formed by that religious instruction. Hinduism is a term to describe the many religious beliefs by the people of the Indus Valley. If we look at Sanatan Dharma, it is not polytheistic.
We are dealing with reality, but whether you want to believe what you were taught was in truth, that is your choice. I think you should refer to: /watch?v=aWUy_luMq0Q
@faro0485 "If you refer to religion originating from monotheism..."
Well, I don't. Polytheism is older. Monotheism is the decay.
You intend to change the meaning of the word. Nothing precludes gambling in religions. As nothing precludes lying. I might say that lying is irreligious. But Islam allows lying and I think you will say that it is a religion.
@DayfallKat Polytheism is older? Monotheism is the decay? So where does atheism fit into this? Before polytheism? Or after monotheism? As far as the evidence goes, both historical and neurological /watch?v=v0WC9VPsAqg Hedging one's bet is the gambling that we see arise in polytheism. While gambling teaches materialistic philosophy, monotheism teaches trade and charity. Polytheism is that, worship of many materials. Since when does Islam allow lying?
@faro0485 Atheism is after monotheism. "worship of many materials" Well, ancient Gods were thought to be material. Angels and demons were too. And most Muslims believe in a physical hell (real fire) and physical heaven (sex with voluptuous virgins). Islamic Heaven even had multiple layers which is a form of materialism.
Gods have been moved further away. Christians pray to Jesus because they think God is too far away to talk to.
@DayfallKat contd... "Since when does Islam allow lying?
Since Muhammad. He clarified that little white lies to make peace were not really lies. Also lies to whom you are fighting is not really lying either. Given verses like 9:123, muslims can justify lying. Hence Islam is "irreligious".
I have heard a Christian say to NEVER lie because God will protect you for being righteous. Also NEVER kill; for the same reason. That sounds like a true religion.
@DayfallKat The prophet is said to have responded to a question with, "a muslim cannot be a muslim if he lies, except in three cases. War, to save a life, matrimonial harmony". Each of these cases are states caused by compulsion. You know what true lying is? As jokes, pranks, fibbing, sarcasm, deceit, fraud, tricks, fiction. These are forbidden, and all done when their is nothing compelling a person to lie other than self satisfaction. Exodus 1:15-21, John 16:12 + Isaiah 42.
@DayfallKat Is atheism after monotheism as seen by those ancient greeks? Or was it after polytheism, and has it been after pseudo-monotheism since the 18th c.? The ancients began with one god, re: Shang di, Ahuramazda, tablets from Uruk, "The Origin and Growth of Religion", "Lectures on the Science of Language" (you can find these texts on Project Gutenberg). Quran 112:1-4
Christians who pray to Jesus, contradict Jesus's instructions and a heresy of the earliest churches.
@DayfallKat Are you as an irreligious person defining religion when you have no experience of war, matrimony or saving a life?
If atheists started believing in gods, does that make them atheists? E.g. pagan atheists...
When I mentioned those deity references, you were to refer to the development of more gods such as the tablets of Jamdet Nasr. The decline of man from monotheism to polytheism is shown there. Personally, Inanna = hislops goddess theory.
@DayfallKat You should use the etymology of a term, otherwise the reason why people chose the term to identify terms with things would be lost. I prefer arabic root system because of that.
I referred to Hislop in regards to Inanna being the original Semiramis who made herself a god, the attributes of her and the many other Semiramis versions are strikingly similar.
Are you saying you committed an act of lie thus an immoral act on your own part? I only know of you as you write.
@faro0485 Might I ask that you update the Wikipedia page on irreligion to include pantheism and whatever else you think irreligion should include.
"Are you as an irreligious person defining religion when you have no experience of war, matrimony or saving a life?"
Boy, that is begging the question if I ever saw it. Oh sorry, I didn't realize I must have been in a war in order to define religion. Am I allowed to define irreligion, or is that your prerogative?
@DayfallKat Well I obviously do not accept the line that religion is Religion, one is a term towards it's etymology, the other is a legal term equating it as under the auspices of culture. I do not except the term Religion, neither do I accept the symbols there are being part of religion, perhaps apart from the Omkara.
I recommend you play chess at least if you want to experience war. You are allowed to study the origin of the terms & understand/equate it's overall purpose of use.
@faro0485 For me personally, I tend to use words as I expect it will be understood. Your way makes communication impossible because we both have different views on the history of religion.
"I recommend you play chess at least if you want to experience war."
And may I then define religion? (Boy, your mode of thinking is tiresome)
@DayfallKat No my understanding of communication is based upon etymology, roots. If we lose this, then we lose the connections made between terms and we end up no where thanks to the illusions and misconceptions placed between a word. Well of course we'd have different views on religion, if we didn't then we'd be of the same religion.
Well I assume you've at least played chess. Please do define religion.
@DayfallKat But that doesn't equate with the arabic دين I think you should go back to it's latin roots because what was common to the use before 1530s (due to forbidden education to the masses as compared to today) may not have been precise to it's meaning.
Actually China believe in nothing, yet there are many MANY gamblers there. Far more than westerns, even kids gamble. At the airports they gamble, in the coffee shops gamble, its everywhere. And Chinese are obsessed with money and thats the ONLY topic that I know of that they talk about, or it is something related to money. Even chinese farmers use the stock market and gamble, remember they are not religious, but believe in money! So there relgion is money.
@DayfallKat Taleb is not being very clear but he is NOT saying that Dawkins believes in stock market analysis. He is merely sourcing Dawkins double-standard example.
Is this man comparing Pascal's wager to the stock market? His point is so loose it is difficult to construct as a premise, or as anything intelligable. If so, gambling money in the stock market, is quite different from "gambling" with your eternal soul on whether a supreme dictator is going to burn you alive or not. For a start, the stock market doesn't know what you are thinking.
Even atheists display the magical thinking that is common to all humans. They can't really help it, because it is hardwired into their brains. It's a byproduct of how we humans perceive and interpret the world. Atheists may reject specific faiths but they can still display irrational patterns of thinking, such as fatalism.
Therefore, do not be surprised if, on some abstract level, atheists possess the same flaws they condemn it their religious peers.
He's arrogant and not so bright. Scientists were oppressed by religion for thousands of years. Because those in power don't like people questioning things. And yet, greatest discoveries are made by inquisitive minds. Thanks to science, we can fly, and see other wolds! That's more then our ancestors could ever dream about. Science is the most honest way people can pursue knowledge.
Some porn stars wear a cross. Does that say anything about Christians? Of course not!
You are the one who's 'not so bright' if you perceive the world in such didactic and infantile terms.
1. Taleb isn't bashing science. He is bashing atheism. Atheists are incredibly arrogant if they think atheism equals science - which it clearly does not.
2. To claim that 'scientists were oppressed by religion for thousands of years' is to fly directly against historical evidence. Medieval Europe's best scientists were Catholic priests.
@1tephania Scientists WEREN'T oppressed??? Ever heard of Galileo? Ever wonder why Copernicus delayed publication of his own work until the end of his life, even though he had formulated it decades earlier? Come on, man. Look at the facts.
The Catholic Church's clampdown on people like Galileo and Copernicus was a rather temporary phenomenon in the late 16th to early 17th century arising from the Counter-Reformation. This was a period when both Protestantism and Catholicism took super hardliner steps to prove to the people that they were more religious than the other - hence the hysterical attitudes towards science, heretics and witches.
Even cases like Galileo Galilei's famous trial is overblown. Galileo had powerful backers in the Catholic Church and at one time the Pope himself supported him. Galileo was also treated very leniently and the only reason he was convicted was because he lost in a political fight - long story.
Otherwise, the Catholic Church's sponsorship of science and learning remained consistently high for most of Europe's history. Even the freedom of expression during the Counter-Reformation was not as badly stomped on as people think, considering that this is an age where freedom of expression was an unknown concept. The image of science and religion in a perpetual headlock with each other for thousands of years is more or less a myth propagated by sensationalists.
I agree! While I don't think the economy & religion is necessarily analogous, there are too many of my fellow atheists who apply their critical thinking to religion, but fail to do so in any other aspect of life.
I believe that Taleb is letting some of his own bias cloud the argument he tries to make in this video. The epistemological structure, and consequential the type of evidence/scepticism applied, differs massively between the arguments for God and the stock market.
Surely a great many people do not understand the "nature" of the stock market but the the existence of it's apparatus is without doubt. Warren Buffet.
@smujismuj Anywhere you invest your money, is a gamble. The question is how much of a gamble? By investing in the stock market as a whole, I gamble on the whole economy. By investing anywhere else you gamble on some small part of what I'm gambling on. If the entire economy fails, then every investment loses but the chances of this are not as great as the failure of any one investment.
Except the stock market is rigged by the international banking cartels, unless your very well connected to the upper echelon, you might as well play keno.
@smujismuj I don't "follow" the stock market either I just invest in funds that do. I understand what you mean and yes some people have been swindled due to their ignorance but that's what ignorance does to you in any endeavor. There are plenty of sources out there to educate one's self there is really no excuse not to. If you're young, take risks, you can always mitigate them as you go. If you're older take less risk, you can't afford as much. If you're ready to retire get guarantees.
When the profit-motive-ideologists conned the government into privatizing pensions and retirements, many people were forced into a system they little or nothing about. And even if they did, they weren't necessarily even the ones who made the ultimate decisions about which stocks they became connected to.
The stock market seems designed to absolve anyone from accountability for the, often extremely destructive, actions of private interests.
@smujismuj Gambling has a negative return on average. The stock markets, especially ones that deal with bigger market caps like the S&P 500, have a positive return on average. So no, it's not gambling if you know what you are doing.
"knowing what your doing" would certainly raise the probability that you receive a positive return, but I doubt it would necessarily entail one in all situations. That aside, your right, this guy is a dumbass.
Tell that to all of the people who were forced into the market through their pension and retirement funds and lost their shirts when those funds got caught up in the derivatives scandal.
Since many private corporations are publicly insured, we are all forced into a system that some may not want anything to do with.
Again, if everyone understood the market, if the market was transparent, if the stock market was absolutely fair, I might feel differently.
Nassim Taleb is right, medicine did kill more people than it saved. The faith healer did not cure you, but he kept you out of the doctor who in his effort to cure you would have inadvertently ended you. And here is a 100% genuine atheist saying just that.
Here is another common form of hypocrisy: If you believe in evolution, then you cannot believe that ANYONE is born gay. The popularity of such beliefs shows how internally inconsistent many can be. Personally, I believe in neither evolution NOR that fact that people are born gay. yes, i know, i am opening up myself to the trolls.
@aaronhedberg belife in evolution has nothing to do with the effects of chemical imbalances in the womb triggering abnormal brain development. think about it for a moment, creatures that live in large groups would have huge problems of every member held nothing but contempt for members of its own gender. thusly tolerence of then the ability to feel affection (friendship) for members of ones own gender would be selected for. one more step and a desire to mate is possible.
@QCreyton Wow, that is my favorite line from pseudo-science: 'chemical imbalances.' LOL. I can't make out the rest of your response due to the run-on sentences, grammar mistakes, and other problems. Your inability to communicate through text is no doubt the result of 'chemical imbalances' you suffered in the womb. I'll make it simple for you:: 'natural selection' would pick those genes that CAN ACTUALLY REPRODUCE; any 'homosexual genes' would simply die off. to be continued...
@QCreyton Anyways, any straight guy who is decent looking and has lived in big cities like LA or NYC [that contain large gay populations] will tell you that gay guys are ALWAYS trying to 'recruit' straight guys over to their side. You see, everyone is BORN straight; but I know for a fact that you too will enjoy being gay PROVIDED YOU TRY IT ONCE. It is no different than drugs: No one is born addicted to heroin. Try it once and you'll be hooked for life. Gays are simply sex-addicts.
@aaronhedberg they're not trying to recruit you idiot they fall for a straight guy and then try to get him to try it in the hopes he may actualy be gay or bi and is either in denial or has simply never tried it. straight men simply can't maintain an erection while copulating with another man because the act simply does not turn them on. also you may wish to check your facts because you don't get addicted to anything with one try, you may enjoy it, but enjoyment and addiction are not the same.
@QCreyton Let me make myself clear: I've had 2 problems with gays in the past year. I made it crystal clear to them that I am not gay. They would not stop harassing me. For instance:: one guy tried to cop a feel on my inner thigh, and when I told him 'i'm not interested' he wanted to start a fight. Later I fight him and succeed in getting this bitch in a head lock. He struggles a bit, realizes its 'game over' for him, then he attempts to rip my balls off. Later, he calls the cops on me,
@aaronhedberg thats only 1 problem. and you've decided you dislike an entire group based on the actions of one individual? i see... clearly every gay person in the world has no self control or respect for others... oh wait that makes no sense based on a single encounter. that wouldn't even be a logical deduction based on 100 similar encounters.
So atheists can be *gasp* religious! Which brings us back to the comments on this video.
I've read a couple of pages of comments and there was only ONE atheist who got Taleb's point about atheists not being as rational as they claim to be. Others were fulminating and going apeshit because their belief was insulted.
.. Much like the Muslims who went apeshit when Mohammed was insulted in a Danish newspaper.
So there's a disconnect here; atheists claim that they are so rational and that's why they are free of religious beliefs. Then how come this rationalism/skepticism doesn't serve them everywhere?
My answer (and not Taleb's) is this; atheism has become a form of belief over the recent years in which it was popularized by Dawkins et al. People do NOT think to arrive at atheism; they merely accept it as a form of belief because at first glance, it sounds cool and seems reasonable enough.
Atheists going crazy over this video is precisely the kind of atheists that Nicholas Taleb is making fun of in this video.
He isn't saying atheism is wrong; rather, he is saying that atheists, while being skeptical of religion, are usually suckers for everything else. This is the 'double standard' that he is referring to.
Atheists claim to be non-religious because they apply their reason to the fullest when it comes to religion; and yet they are still capable of thinking irrationally.
@1tephania yeah, I agree, it's easy to see he isn't directly criticizing atheists, which by the way I am, but rather the behavior of people as a whole who only apply skepticism to one field. If one is critical of demagogues of all forms, stock market analysts are nothing more than financial demagogues. Financial fortunetellers is probably a more accurate description.
@1tephania Of course Atheists are capable of irrational thought: everyone is. Of course I haven't read his book, but at which point does Taleb actually say anything with substantial evidence? Aside from making a couple statements about the similarity between stock market and religion, and the fact that they both host "belief," what valid points does he make and prove?
I'm going to continue this thought on my next reply.
@1tephania There is also a huge generalization improperly placed on Atheists, and that is that all Atheists are so for the same reason. You pointed out that "Atheists claim to be non-religious because they apply their reason to the fullest when it comes to religion" when this is not the case. I for one am not Atheist for this reason, and to believe that Atheists in general fell this way is simply naive.
Additionally, there is nothing irrational about the stock market.
Nothing irrational about the stock market? REALLLY... in the long run, probably. All information gets priced in eventually. But how long does that take? And how many bubbles need to burst before that happens?
And your second comment sounds like sophistry. Math does not accurately depict all that exists, since it's only a man-made system and if the finance whizzes make wrong assumptions, math will blindside you to certain aspects of the market that you should know.
Taleb, you are making a comparison between the stock market and religion when it simply cannot be done. One is a man made identity and the other isn't. No, math is not a man made identity, but rather a representation for reality. Math accurately depicts all that exists -- nothing more although plenty less. The basis for my own disbelief in religion is its lack of mathematical proof. I do not believe in the stock market, but rather trust in it. There is a difference.
It's also interesting that you define God as a man-made entity, while you define math as a representation of reality. You almost make it sound like we should be able to see mathematical formulas in bubbleheads for all objects and movements in this world when we walk down the street.
No, math is only a system of notations that humans created to describe this world. Math is subject to the same amount of failures as we humans are, since we are the one who created math and use it.
@1tephania Taking act in the stock market is not rational or irrational, it is simply a perpetrator of risk management. When you take part in the stock market, you are not making an irrational decision what so ever. If you think you can prove otherwise, I dare you to.
Math does not blindside people, but rather how you interpret the math of a market does. The poor decision of choosing a bad market is human error, not mathematical, because the math only represents what is current.
@1tephania God is a man-made entity. So is Math. Math however, can be proven through trial and error, logistics, reasoning, an rationality. God cannot. Why would I be suggesting that we see mathematical equations in all around us? Math is not physical so that would make me a madman. What I think is slightly more absurd than that, though, is the belief that something exists in nothingness, and the basis for this belief being once again, nothing (Yes, I speak of god).
heh well people do what people do , most are followers but they choose to be so, anyhow this vid is kinda random he swtiches from topic to topic and doesnt make a point though this is a short vid. anyhow beleive in what you want , i know their is no god as i know humanity is not the only thing with a soul, all life has a soul or spirit as i say. silly arrogant people will now put me down for saying what i beleive in, but go ahead beleive in what you all want and let no one put you down ;).
yes. bechose belive in something that there is evidence is same as beliveing in something that there is no evidence rigth? this guy does no know shit about economical science. when somebady asks what is echonomy i can show them that economy is model of trade and money. if you have faith in economy you are gonna get fucked. you have to have knowlege of trends and products. that is why so many bankers got fucked bechose they did not have clue to who they where borowing money to.
Collossal, gargantuan, titanic, complete and utter fucking moron.
This man just demonstrated to my satisfaction that someties mere ad hominem *will* suffice, because when it is this patent that someone is this complete and utter a fucking moron, nothing else needs be said -though it can't quite be said enough.
Ben Stein right before the 2008 recession: "The credit crunch is way overblown...I think stocks will be a heck of a lot higher a year from now than they are now."
And yes, this is the same Stein behind "Expelled" and "Science Leads to Killing People".
Taleb has some insightful things to say about risk & how humans behave. As a portfolio manager his work has helped finesse the risk management tools we use to better handle Black Swan events - and maybe even profit from them in future. However his criticism of atheists, and scientists such as Dawkins is rather silly and shows that a great mind in one area can be lacking in another.
Non belief in god/s due to lack of evidence is not the same as under-estimating risk.
@frankibear What Taleb is saying is that non belief in God due to a lack of non evidence is the same as under estimating risk. That is the premise of the Black Swan. Non belief in a black swan because of having not ever seen one does not mean that it does not exist. It's also an elementary mistake in logic. You should read his book.
@andrewsltd I have read the BS but the analogy he used seemed bizarre. You can have no idea what a future BS event may look like but still have sufficient evidence from the past to know that BS events happen and that you should be prepared for the unexpected. This is different to believing in something for which there is and never has been evidence for (ie, god). Otherwise this logic can be used to believe in anything that doesn't exist - e.g. Santa Clause which then becomes absurd.
I havent read the Black Swan yet..guess it is time to pick up the book! We live in a complex system that delivers extreme deviations. Current risk management and economic analyses methods fail us in such a system because of low predictability. What should we do in such an environment? At the IMD OWP 2010, Nassim Nicholas Taleb will present simple rules (lower leverage, less reliance on deficit spending, less mathematical risk management) for a black swan robust economic system.
I'm atheist and I've always been anti-stock market. So, I am 100% consistent.
Actually, the stock market is not entirely random: this guy IS right about stock market analysts: they ARE worse than nothing. The stock market is rigged ALWAYS against the players. It favors ONLY insiders, CEOs, stock brokers.
@duck24x Hey, duck24x - you're a fucking idiot & moron who should be killed.
:(
Now that I give whatever credit I CAN to this guy: yeah, you just KNOW the rest of his lecture will be totally full of shit, ESPECIALLY with this totally unproven hypothesis that "medicine has killed more people than it has cured". BS! Even Ralph Nader does not say THAT, and I am a big supporter of Nader (Nader claims it kills more than doctors claim, but I think even Nader is wrong on this point).
suggestibility is directly related to pattern recognition. I haven't read Black Swan, but isn't it that the exception makes, and ruins, the rule? I think Charles Pierce's 1877 article "Fixation of Belief" illustrates best the stickiness of belief.
Wow Fora dropped the ball on this one. Ridiculous arguments.
If people went to the temples instead of the doctors, modern medicine would never have come to existence.
And stock markets and bishops.......possibly the worst analogy ever. Our scepticism isn't domain dependent. Whether our scepticism is always working in other domains or not, in religion we are meant to put scepticism on hold and this be a praise worthy action.
If you can not get something out of nothing, then how can you get intelligence out of non intelligence. What is God ? God could be an Infinite superior being / entity or organization of superior beings that administer over a sector of the Infinite or even the Infinite ( infinite intelligence, energy and matter ). What is the driving force that makes infinite minute particles bond. Energy cannot be created or destroyed ( infinite chemicaly and geometricaly ) Without a force there is no action.
good work here
staranjela 1 week ago
very interesting video thanks
prchecker 1 week ago
great video thanks
SuperDogbrown 1 week ago
very interesting video thanks
bribribri56 1 week ago
he makes no sense
success2k 1 month ago
what does he recommend we invest our money into then?
jayjaygeebee 2 months ago
@jayjaygeebee
Gaining skills, creating products, providing services.
SaveTheWheat 1 week ago
Economics is not science. Science does not concerns itself with either values or opinions, and money is a value. Axiology is the study of values.
Investigate Technocracy Inc. for more information about a science based social synthesis.
TechnocracyNow 6 months ago 10
@TechnocracyNow
Economics doesn't involve values or opinions. You are pretty ignorant about economics. It's a science of human behavior and the choices they make, restricted to human interactions in the economy. Economics doesn't tell *what* you should do, only what people most likely will do as rational agents in specific situations.
LogicalFlawDetector 3 months ago
@TechnocracyNow
It absolutely IS a science. Morality is a branch of science as well. He is saying that to believe in profit from the stock market, you must be superstitious. Because all profits are in that case is some special equation that breaks down when looked at. The truth is that YES the electron is still there even when you're not looking at it, and YES, the tree makes a sound. Every time.
SaveTheWheat 1 week ago
@SaveTheWheat Science is in a dynamic sense, essentially a method of prediction. It has been defined as being the method of the determination of the most probable.
TechnocracyNow 1 week ago
@SaveTheWheat
In tossing a coin, how does one know how many times heads will turn up? How does an insurance company know how many people will die next year? How does a geologist know where to drill for oil? How does the designer of a building determine how many elevators will be required? How does the weather bureau predict what the weather will be tomorrow? How can the astronomers predict to within a second an eclipse of the sun 150 years hence?
TechnocracyNow 1 week ago
@SaveTheWheat These are all illustrations of scientific predictions. Some of these predictions, as you well know, are more exact than others, but they are all based on the same fundamental principles of reasoning from the basic facts. When more facts are known, more accurate predictions can be made. That is what is meant by the most probable; not that by this method one knows exactly what will happen, but by it's use he can determine more nearly what will happen than by any other method.
TechnocracyNow 1 week ago
@SaveTheWheat But machines must be operated in accordance with their design. If you wish to speed up your automobile, you must press the accelerator pedal. Into this problem enter no abstract considerations whatever, such as, is it ethical to speed up an auto this way, or is this the best of all possible ways of doing it?
TechnocracyNow 1 week ago
@SaveTheWheat The machine is built simply to accelerate in response to this one operation. This is a useful lesson to digest. No machine, no group of machines may be properly operated except as specified by their design. America's idle factories, her wanton destruction of food supplies while her citizens remain undernourished are results of trying to operate a system by other criteria.
TechnocracyNow 1 week ago
After watching this video, I take issue with ForaTv's subtitle.
pperezklein 6 months ago
DUH !! What kind of people go to doctors ? Come on it should not be difficult for an economist .Yes sick people .A truly shameful use of statistics by someone who should know better
Radicalindifference 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
shieldsff 7 months ago
Atheists have the best chance at beating the stock market because they're able to look past social pressures and see what really is.
FlipThatBond 8 months ago
@FlipThatBond This may be biased but I generally agree. A healthy dose of skepticism is good for knowing when to question the logic and trading of the herd. I am a good trader because I know understand psychology but also rely a lot on my attempt to be objective when doing fundamental research. Regarding your statement, I think skepticism is key for beating the market over the long-haul. Now are skeptics more likely to be atheists, my guess is yes. Either way resist dogma in any facet of life.
DaveRB2 6 months ago
@DaveRB2 If they put a large raise of the debt ceiling through, stocks should get a pretty good pop. The follow through of the QE is wearing off though, so after the pop, I'm expecting a big decline, probably 20%, which will cause a "deflation scare" and an excuse for QE3. Once QE3 is announced, silver will explode.
FlipThatBond 6 months ago
@FlipThatBond I agree. That is why I am mostly in cash, standing ready to play the bounce, but wary that economic data will continue to disappoint and we will shortly thereafter proceed downwards. The risk/reward is not favorable right now.
My fear is that the terms of the debt ceiling will not satisfy the market and possibly the useless rating agencies. I think the U.S. has the means to maintain their credit rating but our dysfunctional political system seems to be on the path self-sabotage.
DaveRB2 6 months ago
@FlipThatBond Also I think the Fed has it's hands tied. QE3 may set off another wave of growth killing inflation. QE certainly helps inflate asset prices and net worth but disproportionately helps the wealthy but does very little for the real economy.(hiring, demand) Without any dramatic policy changes, especially to our regressive tax system, I see a global recession ahead mixed with social unrest and hopefully a movement for political reason. Sadly first time I've been bearish in 2 years.
DaveRB2 6 months ago
@FlipThatBond I assume you're an atheist, yes? Well I have to disagree: just because you can look past "social pressures" doesn't mean you're a good trader. Is an atheist better prepared to deal with what happens when a market crashes, seeing their wealth reduced by 75%? Nobody can claim to not be affected by that, not even the best hedge fund managers of all. Ability to predict the markets consistently is non-existent, and that to deal with them is not really related to one's spiritual beliefs.
josepharte 5 months ago
@josepharte Ability to consistently predict the markets does exist and I'll prove it to you: stocks and oil drop until the Fed announces it's next round of bond purchases and then the price of silver will go crazy. Real estate will lose over 50% of its value in real terms within the next 18 months.
FlipThatBond 5 months ago
@FlipThatBond My point (and Taleb's too) is that we are ignorant and arrogant if we assume that the future will follow our perceived expectations. Thus, atheists and religious people alike are not very well prepared for such a proceeding. And our track record of future prediction is very dismal indeed. Read his book, "The Black Swan"; I hope you'll understand what I mean...
josepharte 5 months ago
@josepharte Are you saying that preparing for the future is futile?..because that's just pathetic. It's not one big crapshoot, some consequences of actions are predictable. Also, the world is filled mostly with people that can't think for themselves..bunches and bunches of sheeple. And those who can't think for themselves are going to be worse thinkers. The sheeple effect is exactly why the world is being run on one giant fiat money system..that system is ending..and few are ready.
FlipThatBond 5 months ago
Comment removed
josepharte 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With that last part, I think we can agree. But for the former, you're not going to change my mind, and neither me, you, while arguing on the Internet. So I guess only time will tell.
josepharte 5 months ago
@JakeMansonNYC "Worshiping" science would be absurd. It would be like worshiping algebra or history. Science is simply the method we use to make the best picture of the universe as we can with the tools we have available. I have never met an atheists that "worships" science.
ryan84160 8 months ago
@JakeMansonNYC No, we don't worship anything. If we believe anything, it is that evidence and reason are the best tools for deciding how we view the universe and our existence. If new evidence comes to light, we can adopt these new ideas into our thinking. Religion discourages thinking, it discourages reasoning, it discourages critism and evidence. Religion demands obedience, it demands ignorance, and it should be treated as the foolish, pathetic, childish way of thinking that it is.
PumpkinSmasher85 8 months ago
Although I do take his point about the hypocrisy of investing certainty in stock markets but not in religion - it is a good point that bears thinking about, and I see no reason why a skeptical writer (no need to be a Neo-Darwinian or even to agree with Dawkins) couldn't address the irrationalities of this kind of 'belief' in the markets. Although, having said this, financial analysts and the like do at least try to test data empirically much of the time, which religious thinkers may not do
WarrenGreig 8 months ago
The atheist claim is just a straw man anyway. Perhaps after he produces his figures about whether the religious are better or worse at predicting patterns in or believing in arbitrary, 'random' systems such as the stock market, in comparison with atheists, then we'll have a true comparator with which to judge his claim. But as it stands, simply conflating 'atheist' with 'believes in the stock market' is inaccurate and weak, as atheists just as likely to support socialism or some other system..?
WarrenGreig 8 months ago
(continued)...be validated, it would have to be the case that medicine continued to result in more deaths than the lives it saved. Now, I don't have statistics on preventable deaths in hospitals coming about through routine treatments or suchlike, but surely the near disappearance of diseases like smallpox and the plague, the fact mothers and babies don't die in childbirth as often anymore, and many other medical advances (in developed countries anyway), mean that his claim is just wrong?
WarrenGreig 8 months ago
pretty disappointing really - was expecting more from him. 'More people die from going to doctors than not going to them', as proved in the 18th century? Didn't really hear where he explained this claim at all, although perhaps I need to be fair and watch the full video elsewhere... Perhaps, in the 18th century, many who had ailments died after going to doctors, instead of being cured. Granted, as a science in an early experimental stage, there were bound to be mistakes, but for his claim to...
WarrenGreig 8 months ago
As much as I love Nicholas Taleb, this argument he makes is very graspy and obviously emotionally attached to religion. I am skeptical of the bishops, and the financial pundits.
flaccidpackage 9 months ago
Nassy T. is the man
avq5 9 months ago
I watched this video ok and tried to learn something ok and I read some of the comments ok on this video ok, and I'm not sure if I got anything out of it ok
MagiMysteryTour 9 months ago
what a horrible representative of UMass Amherst. I assure you that this fool does not represent the scientific community of UMass.
This guy is a fucking retard
Olsonic 10 months ago
@Olsonic
Wha?
1tephania 10 months ago
Everyone can think irrationally including atheists, but religion is the limit of irrational thinking...
amiyaiitkgp 10 months ago
@amiyaiitkgp
Not really. Have you seen the North Korea fanboys?
1tephania 10 months ago
1) Atheist (for the most) recognize so many falsehoods and hypocrisy and "evil" with religion that the priests invoke this nauseating feeling of distrust while there is little to link the image of the analyst to "bad things" like the cause of economic distasters etc therefore the nauseating feeling of doubt is less prevalent; this is with MOST ppl not just atheists (about the stock analyst)
2) I personally DO view the analyst's words with scrutiny
3)hes an expert therefore hes more credible
underballbutter 10 months ago
One more thing while I'm whining. It always bugs me when people like Taleb act like what we now know to be obvious. It seems to me to be an insult to Cohn, Koch and Pastuer's decades of hard, dangerous and bountiful work just to act like medicine could have realized that microbes were the cause of many diseases.
Also, while men as far back as Erasistratus thought bloodletting might not have been justified Empiricus did not repudiate it and it was not for centuries that the practice was exposed.
GolumTR 10 months ago
The problem is that Taleb is full of theories: from anthropological theories about the behavior of cavemen to psychological theories about power. He just doesn't represent them AS theories. To hear him, you'd think he actually knew that cavemen spent a lot of time at rest with occasional bursts of activity.
When he's so wrong about things I have knowledge of (the history of medicine, for ine) it makes me question his expertise in economics. Of course, what would I know?
GolumTR 10 months ago
My problem with Taleb, if it counts for anyone, is how often he gets the facts wrong. Not about economics, I don't know those ones. But his account of the history of medicine is laughable. Medicine was not invented in 1928 (which is when penicillin was shown to have medicinal properties). There were thousands of discoveries made by men from Avicenna to Pastuer that saved and heleped people.
GolumTR 10 months ago
great
freeSCALPINGindicato 11 months ago
"Anybody invested in the stock market who is critical of religion is a hypocrite."
lolwhut? This guy is a nutjob. He didn't even effectively explain his position. Atheism (or religion) and the stock market have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with each other. It's obvious he doesn't know much about the stock market either. Anybody can do well in the stock market when they diversify their portfolio, choose large or mega- cap stocks, and choose company specific stocks after research.
CrappyCaptureDevice 11 months ago
Comment removed
CrappyCaptureDevice 11 months ago
Math is accurately depicted in all things, though. For example there is a mathematical formula for gravity. When it is tested, it works. This rationally proves that the math representing it is factual. Also, understand that math can not be disproved. One plus one is always two, based on the purist definition of what one is.
Math is not only a system of notations we created, although we did, because the entire universe follows its laws. This is something we can prove. Religion is not.
zenben1126 11 months ago
@CommonRaven
Yup. You put the words right out of my mouth. It really is hard to have a rational conversation with someone who's thoroughly convinced of their superiority.
1tephania 1 year ago
I am an Atheist and I put money in the stock market. It was too complex for me to predict and I lost money. I stopped. How is this being inconsistent? I suppose this video might have been taken out of context, but even if it was I think we have a hard enough time convincing people that beliefs in gods is irrational without a video making it sound like atheism itself is inconsistent.
However, I *bet* the entire talk is good and serves as a warning for atheists to be rational always.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
Sorry, in that last post I meant to quote the author saying 'we do not use beliefs to act.'
ytdsgdjgfueyxn537 1 year ago
'I don't believe in beliefs. I believe we humans use beliefs to act." Excuse me? Each time we go thru a green light it is because we 'believe' other drivers will obey their own red light. And, did the poster of this vid cut out some part in which the speaker cited an exhaustive study which showed that those who are suspicious of bishops are suckers in the market? In my experience, investing favors skeptics, not blind believers. And you DO listen to economists. It's strategists you ignore.
ytdsgdjgfueyxn537 1 year ago
What's not to understand about this video? He's basically saying that if you believe Warren Buffett is a billionaire, then you are a hypocrite not to believe in God.
Does this make sense to you?
AsunFriere 1 year ago
By going to doctor you are playing dice?
Yeah, I guess you're right, medicine itself is just like a lucky charm.
Can you relate that to why doctors wear that chic german stetho on their neck?
Y'know, after the XVIII century, they figured religion could no longer stand as tall as it ever was, so they made medicine the new way of controlling people.
ok i'm done. this guy just doesn't make much sense, Well, he had only 3 minutes, but meh.
Mixarenan 1 year ago
"there is an inconsistency there"
I was not aware that Dawkins believes in stock market analysts. I personally know no atheists that do. Further, I know many religious people that gamble and talk about how much money they have made at it.
I am very curious about the tests he mentions.
DayfallKat 1 year ago 6
@DayfallKat It's against religion to gamble... it's part of irreligion, for example polytheism, to gamble.
faro0485 1 year ago
@faro0485 "It's against religion to gamble"
That is the most retarded thing I have heard all day. So you claim that polytheisms aren't religions? Hinduism isn't a religion? Are you seriously saying that no religion can allow gambling?
Well, sense we are not dealing with reality any more, I will say that it is against religion to believe God communicates through books. that is part of irreligion, for example Islam, to believe God's words is in a book.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
@DayfallKat Polytheisms are actually irreligions. If you refer to religion originating from monotheism and polytheism as the decay formed by that religious instruction. Hinduism is a term to describe the many religious beliefs by the people of the Indus Valley. If we look at Sanatan Dharma, it is not polytheistic.
We are dealing with reality, but whether you want to believe what you were taught was in truth, that is your choice. I think you should refer to: /watch?v=aWUy_luMq0Q
faro0485 1 year ago
@faro0485 "If you refer to religion originating from monotheism..."
Well, I don't. Polytheism is older. Monotheism is the decay.
You intend to change the meaning of the word. Nothing precludes gambling in religions. As nothing precludes lying. I might say that lying is irreligious. But Islam allows lying and I think you will say that it is a religion.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
@DayfallKat Polytheism is older? Monotheism is the decay? So where does atheism fit into this? Before polytheism? Or after monotheism? As far as the evidence goes, both historical and neurological /watch?v=v0WC9VPsAqg Hedging one's bet is the gambling that we see arise in polytheism. While gambling teaches materialistic philosophy, monotheism teaches trade and charity. Polytheism is that, worship of many materials. Since when does Islam allow lying?
faro0485 1 year ago
@faro0485 Atheism is after monotheism. "worship of many materials" Well, ancient Gods were thought to be material. Angels and demons were too. And most Muslims believe in a physical hell (real fire) and physical heaven (sex with voluptuous virgins). Islamic Heaven even had multiple layers which is a form of materialism.
Gods have been moved further away. Christians pray to Jesus because they think God is too far away to talk to.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
@DayfallKat contd... "Since when does Islam allow lying?
Since Muhammad. He clarified that little white lies to make peace were not really lies. Also lies to whom you are fighting is not really lying either. Given verses like 9:123, muslims can justify lying. Hence Islam is "irreligious".
I have heard a Christian say to NEVER lie because God will protect you for being righteous. Also NEVER kill; for the same reason. That sounds like a true religion.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
@DayfallKat The prophet is said to have responded to a question with, "a muslim cannot be a muslim if he lies, except in three cases. War, to save a life, matrimonial harmony". Each of these cases are states caused by compulsion. You know what true lying is? As jokes, pranks, fibbing, sarcasm, deceit, fraud, tricks, fiction. These are forbidden, and all done when their is nothing compelling a person to lie other than self satisfaction. Exodus 1:15-21, John 16:12 + Isaiah 42.
faro0485 1 year ago
@DayfallKat Is atheism after monotheism as seen by those ancient greeks? Or was it after polytheism, and has it been after pseudo-monotheism since the 18th c.? The ancients began with one god, re: Shang di, Ahuramazda, tablets from Uruk, "The Origin and Growth of Religion", "Lectures on the Science of Language" (you can find these texts on Project Gutenberg). Quran 112:1-4
Christians who pray to Jesus, contradict Jesus's instructions and a heresy of the earliest churches.
faro0485 1 year ago
@faro0485 "caused by compulsion" So someone can be forced to be immoral? No religion with a god can say such.
"contradict Jesus's instructions" that is irrelevant. They still believe it.
Ahuramazda is too recent; after the Egyptian religions. Uruk tablets? that mentions many gods. Inanna and Anu are two.
Atheism is the final step after all the gods die.
Oh, well the Quran says there is only one god. Well, it must be true. huh.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
@DayfallKat Are you as an irreligious person defining religion when you have no experience of war, matrimony or saving a life?
If atheists started believing in gods, does that make them atheists? E.g. pagan atheists...
When I mentioned those deity references, you were to refer to the development of more gods such as the tablets of Jamdet Nasr. The decline of man from monotheism to polytheism is shown there. Personally, Inanna = hislops goddess theory.
If you agree the quran is true.
faro0485 1 year ago
@faro0485 I actually use the dictionary for my definition of religion.
What is a pagan atheist?
Hislops was a nutcase. There were many goddesses not just one that is renamed.
"If you agree the quran is true."
No, I don't. I think you knew that.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
@DayfallKat You should use the etymology of a term, otherwise the reason why people chose the term to identify terms with things would be lost. I prefer arabic root system because of that.
I referred to Hislop in regards to Inanna being the original Semiramis who made herself a god, the attributes of her and the many other Semiramis versions are strikingly similar.
Are you saying you committed an act of lie thus an immoral act on your own part? I only know of you as you write.
faro0485 1 year ago
@faro0485 Might I ask that you update the Wikipedia page on irreligion to include pantheism and whatever else you think irreligion should include.
"Are you as an irreligious person defining religion when you have no experience of war, matrimony or saving a life?"
Boy, that is begging the question if I ever saw it. Oh sorry, I didn't realize I must have been in a war in order to define religion. Am I allowed to define irreligion, or is that your prerogative?
DayfallKat 11 months ago
@DayfallKat Well I obviously do not accept the line that religion is Religion, one is a term towards it's etymology, the other is a legal term equating it as under the auspices of culture. I do not except the term Religion, neither do I accept the symbols there are being part of religion, perhaps apart from the Omkara.
I recommend you play chess at least if you want to experience war. You are allowed to study the origin of the terms & understand/equate it's overall purpose of use.
faro0485 11 months ago
@faro0485 For me personally, I tend to use words as I expect it will be understood. Your way makes communication impossible because we both have different views on the history of religion.
"I recommend you play chess at least if you want to experience war."
And may I then define religion? (Boy, your mode of thinking is tiresome)
DayfallKat 11 months ago
@DayfallKat No my understanding of communication is based upon etymology, roots. If we lose this, then we lose the connections made between terms and we end up no where thanks to the illusions and misconceptions placed between a word. Well of course we'd have different views on religion, if we didn't then we'd be of the same religion.
Well I assume you've at least played chess. Please do define religion.
faro0485 11 months ago
@faro0485 We can't even communicate about communication. I have bookmarked the online etymology dictionary so I can decipher your sentences.
communication: "to make common". So now you want to make common my meaning for the word religion.
religion: Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.
DayfallKat 11 months ago
@DayfallKat But that doesn't equate with the arabic دين I think you should go back to it's latin roots because what was common to the use before 1530s (due to forbidden education to the masses as compared to today) may not have been precise to it's meaning.
faro0485 11 months ago
@DayfallKat I think you should end your questions in a ?
faro0485 11 months ago
@DayfallKat I know an atheist who gambles LOL
AgrivatedKillah 9 months ago
@DayfallKat
Actually China believe in nothing, yet there are many MANY gamblers there. Far more than westerns, even kids gamble. At the airports they gamble, in the coffee shops gamble, its everywhere. And Chinese are obsessed with money and thats the ONLY topic that I know of that they talk about, or it is something related to money. Even chinese farmers use the stock market and gamble, remember they are not religious, but believe in money! So there relgion is money.
yoyuepz 9 months ago
@DayfallKat Taleb is not being very clear but he is NOT saying that Dawkins believes in stock market analysis. He is merely sourcing Dawkins double-standard example.
Josh9000series 8 months ago
LOL WAT?
MrWrof 1 year ago
Is this man comparing Pascal's wager to the stock market? His point is so loose it is difficult to construct as a premise, or as anything intelligable. If so, gambling money in the stock market, is quite different from "gambling" with your eternal soul on whether a supreme dictator is going to burn you alive or not. For a start, the stock market doesn't know what you are thinking.
positiveprojtheory1 1 year ago
being skeptical of religion and playing the stock market is inconsistent? pardon me, but how the fuck are those 2 things related
ibreakkidslegs 1 year ago
"I don't believe that we humans use beliefs to act. I believe that beliefs have some other purpose" What does he mean by that?
FranzZdyb 1 year ago
Non sequitur nuff said...
MeetYourMeaker 1 year ago
Even atheists display the magical thinking that is common to all humans. They can't really help it, because it is hardwired into their brains. It's a byproduct of how we humans perceive and interpret the world. Atheists may reject specific faiths but they can still display irrational patterns of thinking, such as fatalism.
Therefore, do not be surprised if, on some abstract level, atheists possess the same flaws they condemn it their religious peers.
LordBifford 1 year ago
He's arrogant and not so bright. Scientists were oppressed by religion for thousands of years. Because those in power don't like people questioning things. And yet, greatest discoveries are made by inquisitive minds. Thanks to science, we can fly, and see other wolds! That's more then our ancestors could ever dream about. Science is the most honest way people can pursue knowledge.
Some porn stars wear a cross. Does that say anything about Christians? Of course not!
tuzmor 1 year ago
@tuzmor
You are the one who's 'not so bright' if you perceive the world in such didactic and infantile terms.
1. Taleb isn't bashing science. He is bashing atheism. Atheists are incredibly arrogant if they think atheism equals science - which it clearly does not.
2. To claim that 'scientists were oppressed by religion for thousands of years' is to fly directly against historical evidence. Medieval Europe's best scientists were Catholic priests.
1tephania 1 year ago
@1tephania Scientists WEREN'T oppressed??? Ever heard of Galileo? Ever wonder why Copernicus delayed publication of his own work until the end of his life, even though he had formulated it decades earlier? Come on, man. Look at the facts.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
The Catholic Church's clampdown on people like Galileo and Copernicus was a rather temporary phenomenon in the late 16th to early 17th century arising from the Counter-Reformation. This was a period when both Protestantism and Catholicism took super hardliner steps to prove to the people that they were more religious than the other - hence the hysterical attitudes towards science, heretics and witches.
1tephania 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
Even cases like Galileo Galilei's famous trial is overblown. Galileo had powerful backers in the Catholic Church and at one time the Pope himself supported him. Galileo was also treated very leniently and the only reason he was convicted was because he lost in a political fight - long story.
1tephania 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
Otherwise, the Catholic Church's sponsorship of science and learning remained consistently high for most of Europe's history. Even the freedom of expression during the Counter-Reformation was not as badly stomped on as people think, considering that this is an age where freedom of expression was an unknown concept. The image of science and religion in a perpetual headlock with each other for thousands of years is more or less a myth propagated by sensationalists.
1tephania 1 year ago
I agree! While I don't think the economy & religion is necessarily analogous, there are too many of my fellow atheists who apply their critical thinking to religion, but fail to do so in any other aspect of life.
EpistemicFusion 1 year ago
I believe that Taleb is letting some of his own bias cloud the argument he tries to make in this video. The epistemological structure, and consequential the type of evidence/scepticism applied, differs massively between the arguments for God and the stock market.
Surely a great many people do not understand the "nature" of the stock market but the the existence of it's apparatus is without doubt. Warren Buffet.
That the market is virtual matters not.
oldpond24 1 year ago
Religion is dogma.
The stock market is gambling.
smujismuj 1 year ago 24
@smujismuj Anywhere you invest your money, is a gamble. The question is how much of a gamble? By investing in the stock market as a whole, I gamble on the whole economy. By investing anywhere else you gamble on some small part of what I'm gambling on. If the entire economy fails, then every investment loses but the chances of this are not as great as the failure of any one investment.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
Except the stock market is rigged by the international banking cartels, unless your very well connected to the upper echelon, you might as well play keno.
smujismuj 1 year ago
@smujismuj Is that why my investments have averaged nearly 12% per year over the last 22 years? You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone
Unlike you, most people don't follow the stock market.
Most people aren't drawn to gamble their savings.
They have been forced to play the market when their pension funds and retirement funds were invested in spite of their ignorance.
smujismuj 1 year ago
@smujismuj I don't "follow" the stock market either I just invest in funds that do. I understand what you mean and yes some people have been swindled due to their ignorance but that's what ignorance does to you in any endeavor. There are plenty of sources out there to educate one's self there is really no excuse not to. If you're young, take risks, you can always mitigate them as you go. If you're older take less risk, you can't afford as much. If you're ready to retire get guarantees.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@smujismuj
Don't be stupid. As long as you know what you are doing you can beat the market. Oh wait, you probably don't know what the term means anyways.
1tephania 1 year ago
@1tephania
Insults, gee, thanks for your input.
smujismuj 11 months ago
@smujismuj
When did I insult you o_O
1tephania 11 months ago
@smujismuj you know nothing about stocks
buddy
it is not gambling. it is doing hard studies on companies and reaserch.
mateohellabay78 1 year ago
@mateohellabay78
That is my point.
When the profit-motive-ideologists conned the government into privatizing pensions and retirements, many people were forced into a system they little or nothing about. And even if they did, they weren't necessarily even the ones who made the ultimate decisions about which stocks they became connected to.
The stock market seems designed to absolve anyone from accountability for the, often extremely destructive, actions of private interests.
smujismuj 11 months ago
@smujismuj Gambling has a negative return on average. The stock markets, especially ones that deal with bigger market caps like the S&P 500, have a positive return on average. So no, it's not gambling if you know what you are doing.
CrappyCaptureDevice 11 months ago
Comment removed
1iguerra 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrappyCaptureDevice
"knowing what your doing" would certainly raise the probability that you receive a positive return, but I doubt it would necessarily entail one in all situations. That aside, your right, this guy is a dumbass.
1iguerra 11 months ago
@CrappyCaptureDevice
Tell that to all of the people who were forced into the market through their pension and retirement funds and lost their shirts when those funds got caught up in the derivatives scandal.
Since many private corporations are publicly insured, we are all forced into a system that some may not want anything to do with.
Again, if everyone understood the market, if the market was transparent, if the stock market was absolutely fair, I might feel differently.
smujismuj 11 months ago
@smujismuj its only gambling if you don't know what your doing. :D lol.
KoalaBearWarrior 11 months ago
This guy in the video is a clown judging by his video.
osityan 9 months ago
Nassim Taleb is right, medicine did kill more people than it saved. The faith healer did not cure you, but he kept you out of the doctor who in his effort to cure you would have inadvertently ended you. And here is a 100% genuine atheist saying just that.
watch?v=w2mMpkBpxaA
82abhilash 1 year ago
Here is another common form of hypocrisy: If you believe in evolution, then you cannot believe that ANYONE is born gay. The popularity of such beliefs shows how internally inconsistent many can be. Personally, I believe in neither evolution NOR that fact that people are born gay. yes, i know, i am opening up myself to the trolls.
aaronhedberg 1 year ago
@aaronhedberg belife in evolution has nothing to do with the effects of chemical imbalances in the womb triggering abnormal brain development. think about it for a moment, creatures that live in large groups would have huge problems of every member held nothing but contempt for members of its own gender. thusly tolerence of then the ability to feel affection (friendship) for members of ones own gender would be selected for. one more step and a desire to mate is possible.
QCreyton 1 year ago
@QCreyton Wow, that is my favorite line from pseudo-science: 'chemical imbalances.' LOL. I can't make out the rest of your response due to the run-on sentences, grammar mistakes, and other problems. Your inability to communicate through text is no doubt the result of 'chemical imbalances' you suffered in the womb. I'll make it simple for you:: 'natural selection' would pick those genes that CAN ACTUALLY REPRODUCE; any 'homosexual genes' would simply die off. to be continued...
aaronhedberg 1 year ago
@QCreyton Anyways, any straight guy who is decent looking and has lived in big cities like LA or NYC [that contain large gay populations] will tell you that gay guys are ALWAYS trying to 'recruit' straight guys over to their side. You see, everyone is BORN straight; but I know for a fact that you too will enjoy being gay PROVIDED YOU TRY IT ONCE. It is no different than drugs: No one is born addicted to heroin. Try it once and you'll be hooked for life. Gays are simply sex-addicts.
aaronhedberg 1 year ago
@aaronhedberg they're not trying to recruit you idiot they fall for a straight guy and then try to get him to try it in the hopes he may actualy be gay or bi and is either in denial or has simply never tried it. straight men simply can't maintain an erection while copulating with another man because the act simply does not turn them on. also you may wish to check your facts because you don't get addicted to anything with one try, you may enjoy it, but enjoyment and addiction are not the same.
QCreyton 1 year ago
@QCreyton Let me make myself clear: I've had 2 problems with gays in the past year. I made it crystal clear to them that I am not gay. They would not stop harassing me. For instance:: one guy tried to cop a feel on my inner thigh, and when I told him 'i'm not interested' he wanted to start a fight. Later I fight him and succeed in getting this bitch in a head lock. He struggles a bit, realizes its 'game over' for him, then he attempts to rip my balls off. Later, he calls the cops on me,
aaronhedberg 1 year ago
@aaronhedberg thats only 1 problem. and you've decided you dislike an entire group based on the actions of one individual? i see... clearly every gay person in the world has no self control or respect for others... oh wait that makes no sense based on a single encounter. that wouldn't even be a logical deduction based on 100 similar encounters.
QCreyton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaronhedberg what does that have to do with the video????
gazz12345a 1 year ago
So atheists can be *gasp* religious! Which brings us back to the comments on this video.
I've read a couple of pages of comments and there was only ONE atheist who got Taleb's point about atheists not being as rational as they claim to be. Others were fulminating and going apeshit because their belief was insulted.
.. Much like the Muslims who went apeshit when Mohammed was insulted in a Danish newspaper.
1tephania 1 year ago 5
So there's a disconnect here; atheists claim that they are so rational and that's why they are free of religious beliefs. Then how come this rationalism/skepticism doesn't serve them everywhere?
My answer (and not Taleb's) is this; atheism has become a form of belief over the recent years in which it was popularized by Dawkins et al. People do NOT think to arrive at atheism; they merely accept it as a form of belief because at first glance, it sounds cool and seems reasonable enough.
1tephania 1 year ago
Atheists going crazy over this video is precisely the kind of atheists that Nicholas Taleb is making fun of in this video.
He isn't saying atheism is wrong; rather, he is saying that atheists, while being skeptical of religion, are usually suckers for everything else. This is the 'double standard' that he is referring to.
Atheists claim to be non-religious because they apply their reason to the fullest when it comes to religion; and yet they are still capable of thinking irrationally.
1tephania 1 year ago 13
@1tephania yeah, I agree, it's easy to see he isn't directly criticizing atheists, which by the way I am, but rather the behavior of people as a whole who only apply skepticism to one field. If one is critical of demagogues of all forms, stock market analysts are nothing more than financial demagogues. Financial fortunetellers is probably a more accurate description.
mpower20 1 year ago
@1tephania Of course Atheists are capable of irrational thought: everyone is. Of course I haven't read his book, but at which point does Taleb actually say anything with substantial evidence? Aside from making a couple statements about the similarity between stock market and religion, and the fact that they both host "belief," what valid points does he make and prove?
I'm going to continue this thought on my next reply.
zenben1126 11 months ago
@1tephania There is also a huge generalization improperly placed on Atheists, and that is that all Atheists are so for the same reason. You pointed out that "Atheists claim to be non-religious because they apply their reason to the fullest when it comes to religion" when this is not the case. I for one am not Atheist for this reason, and to believe that Atheists in general fell this way is simply naive.
Additionally, there is nothing irrational about the stock market.
zenben1126 11 months ago
@zenben1126
Nothing irrational about the stock market? REALLLY... in the long run, probably. All information gets priced in eventually. But how long does that take? And how many bubbles need to burst before that happens?
And your second comment sounds like sophistry. Math does not accurately depict all that exists, since it's only a man-made system and if the finance whizzes make wrong assumptions, math will blindside you to certain aspects of the market that you should know.
1tephania 11 months ago
Taleb, you are making a comparison between the stock market and religion when it simply cannot be done. One is a man made identity and the other isn't. No, math is not a man made identity, but rather a representation for reality. Math accurately depicts all that exists -- nothing more although plenty less. The basis for my own disbelief in religion is its lack of mathematical proof. I do not believe in the stock market, but rather trust in it. There is a difference.
zenben1126 11 months ago
@zenben1126
It's also interesting that you define God as a man-made entity, while you define math as a representation of reality. You almost make it sound like we should be able to see mathematical formulas in bubbleheads for all objects and movements in this world when we walk down the street.
No, math is only a system of notations that humans created to describe this world. Math is subject to the same amount of failures as we humans are, since we are the one who created math and use it.
1tephania 11 months ago
@1tephania Above comment directed at you.
zenben1126 11 months ago
@1tephania Taking act in the stock market is not rational or irrational, it is simply a perpetrator of risk management. When you take part in the stock market, you are not making an irrational decision what so ever. If you think you can prove otherwise, I dare you to.
Math does not blindside people, but rather how you interpret the math of a market does. The poor decision of choosing a bad market is human error, not mathematical, because the math only represents what is current.
zenben1126 11 months ago
@1tephania God is a man-made entity. So is Math. Math however, can be proven through trial and error, logistics, reasoning, an rationality. God cannot. Why would I be suggesting that we see mathematical equations in all around us? Math is not physical so that would make me a madman. What I think is slightly more absurd than that, though, is the belief that something exists in nothingness, and the basis for this belief being once again, nothing (Yes, I speak of god).
zenben1126 11 months ago
Comment removed
Olsonic 10 months ago
Economists and stock market analysts don't use the scientific method to come up with their theories. That's a key difference to me.
victorbarovsky 1 year ago
heh well people do what people do , most are followers but they choose to be so, anyhow this vid is kinda random he swtiches from topic to topic and doesnt make a point though this is a short vid. anyhow beleive in what you want , i know their is no god as i know humanity is not the only thing with a soul, all life has a soul or spirit as i say. silly arrogant people will now put me down for saying what i beleive in, but go ahead beleive in what you all want and let no one put you down ;).
underfire987 1 year ago
yes. bechose belive in something that there is evidence is same as beliveing in something that there is no evidence rigth? this guy does no know shit about economical science. when somebady asks what is echonomy i can show them that economy is model of trade and money. if you have faith in economy you are gonna get fucked. you have to have knowlege of trends and products. that is why so many bankers got fucked bechose they did not have clue to who they where borowing money to.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
the stock market is a casino, the only people who get rich are the insiders and the people who start good companies and bring them public.
roger767 1 year ago
stupid shit deluded fucking atheists!!!
Melchior40 1 year ago
@Melchior40 and here come the trolls.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
Bad video, so we cant judge the man or his ideas.
Thedreamshaperabc 1 year ago
Fucking moron.
Complete fucking moron.
Colmplete and utter, unmitigated fucking moron.
Collossal, gargantuan, titanic, complete and utter fucking moron.
This man just demonstrated to my satisfaction that someties mere ad hominem *will* suffice, because when it is this patent that someone is this complete and utter a fucking moron, nothing else needs be said -though it can't quite be said enough.
Fucking.
Moron.
polymath7 1 year ago
Huh, he has said nothing. . .
Nades129 1 year ago
Wise, but somewhat hypocritical, words from a true modern-day shaman.
mcdojr 1 year ago
Here is a nice comparison:
Religious fundamentalists in the stock market:
Ben Stein right before the 2008 recession: "The credit crunch is way overblown...I think stocks will be a heck of a lot higher a year from now than they are now."
And yes, this is the same Stein behind "Expelled" and "Science Leads to Killing People".
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne I wouldn´t take Ben Stein´s opinion into consideration even if he was talking about ways to pick fruit at the grocery store!
EverEvolvingApe 1 year ago 2
I agree with him, and I am a fan of dawkins, and I think we athiest need to be atheist about everything.
thesparitan 1 year ago
Taleb has some insightful things to say about risk & how humans behave. As a portfolio manager his work has helped finesse the risk management tools we use to better handle Black Swan events - and maybe even profit from them in future. However his criticism of atheists, and scientists such as Dawkins is rather silly and shows that a great mind in one area can be lacking in another.
Non belief in god/s due to lack of evidence is not the same as under-estimating risk.
frankibear 1 year ago
@frankibear What Taleb is saying is that non belief in God due to a lack of non evidence is the same as under estimating risk. That is the premise of the Black Swan. Non belief in a black swan because of having not ever seen one does not mean that it does not exist. It's also an elementary mistake in logic. You should read his book.
andrewsltd 1 year ago 2
@andrewsltd I have read the BS but the analogy he used seemed bizarre. You can have no idea what a future BS event may look like but still have sufficient evidence from the past to know that BS events happen and that you should be prepared for the unexpected. This is different to believing in something for which there is and never has been evidence for (ie, god). Otherwise this logic can be used to believe in anything that doesn't exist - e.g. Santa Clause which then becomes absurd.
frankibear 1 year ago
I havent read the Black Swan yet..guess it is time to pick up the book! We live in a complex system that delivers extreme deviations. Current risk management and economic analyses methods fail us in such a system because of low predictability. What should we do in such an environment? At the IMD OWP 2010, Nassim Nicholas Taleb will present simple rules (lower leverage, less reliance on deficit spending, less mathematical risk management) for a black swan robust economic system.
IMD 1 year ago
oversimply much? this guy is full of it
Setzer 1 year ago
I'm atheist and I've always been anti-stock market. So, I am 100% consistent.
Actually, the stock market is not entirely random: this guy IS right about stock market analysts: they ARE worse than nothing. The stock market is rigged ALWAYS against the players. It favors ONLY insiders, CEOs, stock brokers.
duck24x 1 year ago 3
@duck24x Hey, duck24x - you're a fucking idiot & moron who should be killed.
:(
Now that I give whatever credit I CAN to this guy: yeah, you just KNOW the rest of his lecture will be totally full of shit, ESPECIALLY with this totally unproven hypothesis that "medicine has killed more people than it has cured". BS! Even Ralph Nader does not say THAT, and I am a big supporter of Nader (Nader claims it kills more than doctors claim, but I think even Nader is wrong on this point).
duck24x 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The concept of atheism
it is an epidemic seriously for the next generation
People without Religion is the degradation of the entire community
Atheism of the work of the devil
Save what can be saved before the occurrence of chaos
Ask pardon of your Lord and then turn unto Him (repentant).
My Lord is Merciful, Loving.
Or did you wish that wrath from your Lord should come upon you,
In addition, his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end.
osamyoosama 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The concept of atheism
it is an epidemic seriously for the next generation
People without Religion is the degradation of the entire community
Atheism of the work of the devil
Save what can be saved before the occurrence of chaos
Ask pardon of your Lord and then turn unto Him (repentant).
My Lord is Merciful, Loving.
Or did you wish that wrath from your Lord should come upon you,
In addition, his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end.
osamyoosama 1 year ago
suggestibility is directly related to pattern recognition. I haven't read Black Swan, but isn't it that the exception makes, and ruins, the rule? I think Charles Pierce's 1877 article "Fixation of Belief" illustrates best the stickiness of belief.
conzatorium 1 year ago
This guy is a joke! The Uri Geller of his field. Whatever the hell field it is. His last point; remarkable ignorance and pernicious.
soml 1 year ago
I hope that this excerpt was some sort of joke and that the balance of his lecture has something valid to say. This was very poor.
Galactu5 1 year ago
ehhhhhhhh... its a stretch.
pureperil 1 year ago
I am an atheist and I agree with his point.
rmeddy1 1 year ago 2
Wow Fora dropped the ball on this one. Ridiculous arguments.
If people went to the temples instead of the doctors, modern medicine would never have come to existence.
And stock markets and bishops.......possibly the worst analogy ever. Our scepticism isn't domain dependent. Whether our scepticism is always working in other domains or not, in religion we are meant to put scepticism on hold and this be a praise worthy action.
crisis123456789 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Reip187 1 year ago
If you can not get something out of nothing, then how can you get intelligence out of non intelligence. What is God ? God could be an Infinite superior being / entity or organization of superior beings that administer over a sector of the Infinite or even the Infinite ( infinite intelligence, energy and matter ). What is the driving force that makes infinite minute particles bond. Energy cannot be created or destroyed ( infinite chemicaly and geometricaly ) Without a force there is no action.
tazanastazio 1 year ago
No one really knows, but religion likes to pretend it does.
LBTennis 1 year ago
Little by little, the look of the country changes with the men we choose to admire. . .
(This quote describes both our recent decline -and- our current attempt to restructure our leadership.)
First we restructure the House - then -
the Senate.
Search & Watch from12/20/09
Tim Cox Founder GOOOH Get Out Of Our House - Fox And Friends
GOOOH (Get Out Of Our House!!)
iDaljeTako 2 years ago
His analogy with the bishop and the stock broker was really flawed.
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
Can you be more specific? In what way?
mephesh 2 years ago
Comment removed
Englishdosser86 2 years ago
Only when you are looking at it.
mephesh