I Miss This Guy!

[Guest]

Liberty and rk,

 

Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too.

 

Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence.

 

So, you believe in value investing, although evidence is clearly against it? Most academics largely dismiss value investing, even saying that Buffett's streak was luck.

 

Also, let's say you had a personal story like I discussed. Would that change anything?

 

Where is evidence clearly against value investing?

 

It's been a while since I check it out, but I think Burton Malkiel's Random Walk Down Wall Street has some information about it. I think someone posted a study on the board here a few months ago too about a new study. I haven't looked too much into the research since grad school or so.

[Rabbitisrich]

 

Yes I think this is the right way to think about it.  If there is no God, morality amounts to nothing more than social instincts, personal preference, biological influence, and the like.  There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong - it's all a matter of perspective.

 

Even with God, the same would hold. God would simply overlay an additional punishment/reward scheme.  You would still rely on social instincts, personal preference, et. al.

 

I'm not entirely sure what that second sentence means, but it doesn't seem like you disagreed with anything I said.  Maybe you are just emphasizing the second half of the conditional?

 

Not at all. The existence/non-existence of a god has little to do with your interaction with "morality". You currently have a body, which experiences the world in a certain way. Now God exists. So what? What, specifically, are the factors that now make morality intrinsically anything?

 

To clarify, let's say that God exists. Now let's say that aliens exist. There must be something unique about the existence of God that makes morality intrinsically right and wrong. Or perhaps the problem is with identifying what you mean by "intrinsically" right and wrong. Again, you have a body (and a soul? It doesn't make much difference), so you have constraints in your interaction with the universe.

 

1. What is the contribution of God's existence to intrinsic morality?

2. What effect on your tools (body, mind, soul(?)) clarifies "intrinsic" vs. subjective morality?

[Rabbitisrich]

Liberty and rk,

 

Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too.

 

Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence.

 

So, you believe in value investing, although evidence is clearly against it? Most academics largely dismiss value investing, even saying that Buffett's streak was luck.

 

Also, let's say you had a personal story like I discussed. Would that change anything?

 

Where is evidence clearly against value investing?

 

It's been a while since I check it out, but I think Burton Malkiel's Random Walk Down Wall Street has some information about it. I think someone posted a study on the board here a few months ago too about a new study. I haven't looked too much into the research since grad school or so.

 

This is a fairly common miscommunication between atheists and theists that is little more than a language problem around the word "belief". If someone tells you that Santa Claus certainly exists but in a form that is undetectable to all human methods of investigation, you would likely think, "No. No he does not exist." Why? Because his existence is simply unnecessary to explain anything. "I believe that Santa Claus, as you describe him, does not exist", generally does not imply that such a thing is impossible. It simply is an unnecessary feature in your model of the world.

[Packer16]

I think the evidence against value investing (for efficient markets) is the mutual fund records of value investors, esp large cap managers.  Even the masters, Longleaf and Sequoia have had worse or only marginally better records than index funds.  I think inefficiencies exist but I am really skeptical about large cap values.

 

Packer

[rkbabang]

rkbabang, thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'd like to comment on a couple points. By the way, what would make you believe? Liberty, I'd like your response, too.

 

There will, most likely, never be proof of god unless he shows himself (or isn't there...in which case we'll never find anything anyway!). We can only make assumptions based on what we know.

 

You have basically answered your own question.  We can only make assumptions based on what we know.    I would have to believe if I was given reasonable evidence for doing so.  This doesn't just go for a supreme being.  If there was proof of fairies in the garden or leprechauns or the Lochness monster I would believe in them as well.  My criteria is the same.  If the only evidence is a mix of hearsay, tradition, fear, and wishful thinking.  Well, I won't be convinced.  I find this world and the universe we inhabit infinitely wondrous and fascinating just contemplating the things we do know.  I feel no reason to make stuff up.  One thing that bothers me about religion is that I think it demonstrates a lack of imagination and appreciation for the universe as it is, for reality itself.  It's a form of escapism.    Science fiction author L. Neil Smith said (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to look it up) that religion is for people who either can't handle death, or can't handle life.    I agree, it is escapism either way. 

 

So to answer your question, short of god showing himself (or some other proof), I can't think of anything that would make me believe.  I do respect the "god of the gaps" people much more than the born again types who think the world is 5000 years old and god put all this geological evidence of an old Earth, as well as fossil evidence of evolution, just to "test our faith".    I mean, what a jerk.  If I thought there was a god and he pulled a move like that, I certainly wouldn't be getting on my knees and worshiping him.  Then I'd read in the bible how he hates women and gays, and indiscriminately slaughters people all over the place and I'd be declaring myself to be his enemy and joining the other side.  What it comes down to is that I just can't imagine worshiping anything or anyone.  If god exists and he wants me to believe he exists, he knows where I live.  He's welcome to come for a visit.  If not, hey, no skin off my back.  But if he wants me to worship him?  I don't care who or what he is, nor what he'll do to me....he's out of luck.  He'll need to earn my respect same as anyone else.  Hiding away in the gaps isn't something I respect. Making people doubt his existence or blindly follow what they've been told "on faith", isn't very respectful.    Which leads me to conclude only two possibilities, either god doesn't exist or there is a god who went through the trouble of creating the whole universe, but he's a big irresponsible jerk.  Occam's razor clearly points to the former.

[twacowfca]

rkbabang, thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'd like to comment on a couple points. By the way, what would make you believe? Liberty, I'd like your response, too.

 

There will, most likely, never be proof of god unless he shows himself (or isn't there...in which case we'll never find anything anyway!). We can only make assumptions based on what we know.

 

You have basically answered your own question.  We can only make assumptions based on what we know.    I would have to believe if I was given reasonable evidence for doing so.  This doesn't just go for a supreme being.  If there was proof of fairies in the garden or leprechauns or the Lochness monster I would believe in them as well.  My criteria is the same.  If the only evidence is a mix of hearsay, tradition, fear, and wishful thinking.  Well, I won't be convinced.  I find this world and the universe we inhabit infinitely wondrous and fascinating just contemplating the things we do know.  I feel no reason to make stuff up.  One thing that bothers me about religion is that I think it demonstrates a lack of imagination and appreciation for the universe as it is, for reality itself.  It's a form of escapism.    Science fiction author L. Neil Smith said (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to look it up) that religion is for people who either can't handle death, or can't handle life.    I agree, it is escapism either way. 

 

So to answer your question, short of god showing himself (or some other proof), I can't think of anything that would make me believe.  I do respect the "god of the gaps" people much more than the born again types who think the world is 5000 years old and god put all this geological evidence of an old Earth, as well as fossil evidence of evolution, just to "test our faith".    I mean, what a jerk.  If I thought there was a god and he pulled a move like that, I certainly wouldn't be getting on my knees and worshiping him.  Then I'd read in the bible how he hates women and gays, and indiscriminately slaughters people all over the place and I'd be declaring myself to be his enemy and joining the other side.  What it comes down to is that I just can't imagine worshiping anything or anyone.  If god exists and he wants me to believe he exists, he knows where I live.  He's welcome to come for a visit.  If not, hey, no skin off my back.  But if he wants me to worship him?  I don't care who or what he is, nor what he'll do to me....he's out of luck.  He'll need to earn my respect same as anyone else.  Hiding away in the gaps isn't something I respect. Making people doubt his existence or blindly follow what they've been told "on faith", isn't very respectful.    Which leads me to conclude only two possibilities, either god doesn't exist or there is a god who went through the trouble of creating the whole universe, but he's a big irresponsible jerk.  Occam's razor clearly points to the former.

 

Take it from this once apon a time atheistic, evolutionist free thinking basher of Christianity: if you will read the Bible, you will be amazed at what you'll find.  Don't limit your understanding to merely the history or a literal interpretation of the words.  The most important parts are metaphorical and  poetic, from the psalms of David to the parables of Jesus.

 

Start with Genesis.  If you are fluent in English literature, read a modified King James version. Otherwise try the easy to understand NIV Readers Bible.  Genesis in Hebrew means Beginnings.  The first part of Genesis is an almost perfect parallel with the modern scientific view of Cosmological and earthly evolution, except that occurred through an act of creation.  I say almost because the old evolutionist in me thinks a couple of things are a little bit out of order, such as the order in which the fishes appeared.  If you are minded to take every word in the Bible literally, that may bother you, but  try to see the big picture the first part of Genesis paints which is pretty close to the scientific evidence.

 

:)

[moore_capital54]

I bet if we did a poll the non believers are 40 or younger (the majority) while the believers are 40 or above. As someone that has spent a lot of time studying the teachings of Hawkings and Mlodinow, I find theoretical physics to be a complete joke, something like a map that tells you how to get to the bathroom at the mall. It's totally logical but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

For those that are open to more of an understanding of consciousness and how it may contradict the viewpoint that the universe is just a big nothing I suggest the documentary "The Quantum Activist" by Dr. Amit Goswami. I will keep my thoughts on religion to myself but I think that the intellectuals on this board have now shown their age twice, first with their support of the democratic party blindly while pretending to be capitalists (this is an investment board) and secondly by blindly subscribing to the logic that the world is flat (physics explanation of the universe).

 

I have been asked by a few other posters (the italian guy) and others in PMS for my thoughts on Gold and I truly cannot find the time to respond at length but I was recently emailed a very good presentation by Dr. Martin Murenbeeld given a few days ago in Colorado. I just finished watching it and believe all the posters supporting the democrats should watch (as well as those that asked for my opinion on gold) the presentation is long but does an almost perfect job at codifying my views on gold, central banking, and the fiscal dangers ahead due the structural flaws in the democratic platform:

 

http://www.gowebcasting.com/events/precious-metals-summit-conferences-llc/2012/09/05/kickoff-presentation/play/stream/5567

 

Specifically watch the section that starts @ 9:50 this is very relevant for the posters supporting the democratic party.

 

Finally I want to direct this question at Ericopoly the intellectual par excellence of this thread. Correct me of I am wrong but hadn't you previously mentioned  you are originally an Aussie? Please clarify this fact for me as I think that would explain a lot..

[Liberty]

if you will read the Bible, you will be amazed at what you'll find

 

I've heard a different saying: The best antidote to christianity is actually reading the bible.  ;)

 

The first part of Genesis is an almost perfect parallel with the modern scientific view of Cosmological and earthly evolution, except that occurred through an act of creation.

 

Really? Please elaborate on this, because that's an interesting claim about science as much as it is about religion. What do you see there that "almost perfectly parallels the modern scientific view of cosmological and earthly evolution" except in the broadest sense and most ex post facto fitting of the data? Do you see anything that convincingly couldn't have been written by people from that era? If it's such a good parallel, why doesn't evolutionary and cosmological science have roots in biblical texts (I mean, if it's all really "almost perfectly" there, seems like a good starting point to create testable hypotheses, no?) rather than having had to fight off untruths from the bible (heliocentrism, flat earth, young earth, living things being designed as finished entities, humans being separate from the animal kingdom, supernatural forces controlling everyday events, etc), and why have christians of all kinds fought evolution by natural selection so hard for so long (and still do in many cases)?

 

Are you sure you're not just rationalizing and cherry picking to make the data fit your new beliefs rather than looking at the evidence to figure out what it leads to? I think many people don't feel they can fight the mountain of evidence that science provides but they viscerally don't want to stop believing whatever they believe, so they kind of hand-wave it all away by saying "oh well, it all fits with the bible anyway". But saying that doesn't make it so; it's a testable claim, and looking at the bible and comparing it with the science shows it doesn't gel except if you really torture the meaning of things (in the way that reading too much into stuff does; not in the way it would read if someone who actually knew the facts would have transmitted the information). If the bible and the oral tradition of christianity didn't exist, could we just look at the world and figure out 'christian truths' about the origin of the universe and life based on observation? If not, why isn't there evidence of all those things while we're findings lots of evidence for lots of other alternative explanations? If you had read the bible without having learned about modern science, would you have come out thinking things that are compatible with scientific findings? Why try to graft the supernatural onto modern scientific theories (evolution, cosmology) that were devised entirely without finding any evidence of the supernatural, theories that work just fine without postulating these magical occurrences (ie. occam's razor)? Isn't that like saying that computer CPUs also run on a kind of magic that we just can't find evidence for? I mean, how likely is it that a world that is anything like what the bible describes would be so devoid of any evidence for those things that some people are still looking for even the smallest thing to hang onto hundreds of years later, without even speaking of the big things that could be incontrovertible evidence for all to see if they were present?

 

If you are minded to take every word in the Bible literally, that may bother you, but  try to see the big picture the first part of Genesis paints which is pretty close to the scientific evidence.

 

If you don't take the bible literally, how do you decide what should be taken literally, what shouldn't, and how to interpret what shouldn't? And if reality doesn't allow for every person to have their own personal truth, how come most christians seem to be interpreting things differently, and how do you know your interpretation is close to the truth? How do you decide which parts to follow and which parts to drop (all the childish tantrums thrown by god, mostly out of petty jealousy; the genocides, infanticides, and honor rapes of daughters and slavery and such -- I'm assuming you don't base your life on those, but why not?)? Why are those bad parts in there do you think? Doesn't fallibility in some places show that the rest can be false too? How do you know it's right to not believe in most of the gods and religious teachings that people have ever believed in (thor, vishnu, apollo, etc.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gods ) but that the christian god isn't like that? Why not go all the way and be atheistic about one more :)

 

I'm sorry, but everytime someone says how scientific and coherent with modern theories the bible is, it just raises all those questions to which I never saw good answers...

[Liberty]

I bet if we did a poll the non believers are 40 or younger (the majority) while the believers are 40 or above. As someone that has spent a lot of time studying the teachings of Hawkings and Mlodinow, I find theoretical physics to be a complete joke, something like a map that tells you how to get to the bathroom at the mall. It's totally logical but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

Age doesn't change facts, being old or young doesn't have anything to do with it. But being older and having grown up during a time in which it was more common to indoctrinate children before they were old enough to think critically probably has something to do with more older people believing certain things...

 

Go ahead and tell Hawkings and all the other physicists that they don't know what they're doing... Next you can tell Andrew Wiles that his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was flawed  :o

 

Our brains haven't evolved to intuitively grasp thinks like quantum mechanics or general relativity, and that's why they seem so weird and nonsensical to us (same reason why we can't think in 7 dimensions or about objects moving at relativistic speeds or whatever). But the math provides predictions that are testable with instruments and experiments, and at very very very very high levels of precision. This isn't just made up sh*t, we know a lot about how the universe works even if it doesn't make sense to you.

[moore_capital54]

I bet if we did a poll the non believers are 40 or younger (the majority) while the believers are 40 or above. As someone that has spent a lot of time studying the teachings of Hawkings and Mlodinow, I find theoretical physics to be a complete joke, something like a map that tells you how to get to the bathroom at the mall. It's totally logical but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

Age doesn't change facts, being old or young doesn't have anything to do with it. But being older and having grown up during a time in which it was more common to indoctrinate children before they were old enough to think critically probably has something to do with more older people believing certain things...

 

Go ahead and tell Hawkings and all the other physicists that they don't know what they're doing... Next you can tell Andrew Wiles that his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was flawed  :o

 

Our brains haven't evolved to intuitively grasp thinks like quantum mechanics or general relativity, and that's why they seem so weird and nonsensical to us (same reason why we can't think in 7 dimensions or about objects moving at relativistic speeds or whatever). But the math provides predictions that are testable with instruments and experiments, and at very very very very high levels of precision. This isn't just made up sh*t, we know a lot about how the universe works even if it doesn't make sense to you.

 

And how old are you Liberty? I say 35 or less..

 

You clearly didn't read my post or if you did you certainly didn't comprehend it. Fermat's Theory and the Theory of Relativity and any other theory that has been developed and proven by humans tells us how to get to the pooper at the mall. That's it. You're at the mall and you need to take a really bad crap, and you don't know how to find the crapper. Then a very brilliant scientist sets up an information booth with a map that tells you how to get there. That's what those theories are. They are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

How did you get to the mall? Why are you in the mall? What is the mall? Who built the Mall? Are you really in the Mall? - According to physics the mall just appeared as did you from nothing.... but hey we can tell you how to operate within the mall so thats all that matters stop wasting your time thinking about anything else! That is where modern theoretical physics is.

 

Don't get me wrong, science has done a fantastic job at teaching us almost everything there is to know about the physical mechanics of our existence (very good maps of how everything in the mall works) but has been extremely arrogant at assuming that this tiny little piece of the existence puzzle means they know with certainty that a higher being does not exist.

 

 

[Liberty]

And how old are you Liberty? I say 35 or less..

 

I'm 30. Is this an attempt to pull rank on me or something? An appeal to authority or some other logical fallacy that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my reasoning? A way to put me in the "young" bucket so you can more easily dismiss anything I say? Not that it matters; if I happened to be 50, you'd probably find some other way...

 

Next you'll say: "Oh, I was just like you when I was your age, but I grew out of it..." *sigh*

 

You clearly didn't read my post or if you did you certainly didn't comprehend it. Fermat's Theory and the Theory of Relativity and any other theory that has been developed and proven by humans tells us how to get to the pooper at the mall. That's it. You're at the mall and you need to take a really bad crap, and you don't know how to find the crapper. Then a very brilliant scientist sets up an information booth with a map that tells you how to get there. That's what those theories are. They are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

How did you get to the mall? Why are you in the mall? What is the mall? Who built the Mall? Are you really in the Mall? - According to physics the mall just appeared as did you from nothing.... but hey we can tell you how to operate within the mall so thats all that matters stop wasting your time thinking about anything else! That is where modern theoretical physics is.

 

Indeed, I did not fully comprehend what you meant in your first paragraph because it wasn't clearly stated. But now with this elaboration which clarifies your meaning, I can say:

 

Not knowing why there is something instead of nothing or how it happened or why (if there's a why - some things just happen without any entity that has a reason for them) just tells you that you don't know. It's not a license to fill that blank with anything pulled out of thin air anymore than not knowing how the sun worked was a license to call it a god. Fact is that all the evidence that we have access to is part of the observable universe, limited by the speed of light, and that anything inside that system probably can't tell you about whatever happened before the big bang. But there doesn't have to be something 'before' the big bang. Our intuitive grasp of time comes from our evolved past. Reality can be a lot more counter-intuitive than that. It is possible that the big bang was the beginning of time, or that it is one of many universes running in cycles, or that there's a meta-verse, or whatever.. Not knowing which of these or other possible hypotheses is the correct one doesn't mean there's a god behind it all, it means that we don't know. When we find evidence for a god, then that'll be something else entirely. It also doesn't mean that there needs to be a reason or a plan behind how things happen. Why is gravity what it is? How about it just is.

 

Questions about the origins of our universe are fascinating. But I don't like when mysteries are used to justify stuff for which there's no evidence (a compounding of mysteries).

[Green King]

how did you guys get here from politics ?  ???

I thought this was a investment forum doesn't look very productive or am i missing something.

 

I know next we should have armed combat to the death. 

[Parsad]

I bet if we did a poll the non believers are 40 or younger (the majority) while the believers are 40 or above. As someone that has spent a lot of time studying the teachings of Hawkings and Mlodinow, I find theoretical physics to be a complete joke, something like a map that tells you how to get to the bathroom at the mall. It's totally logical but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

Age doesn't change facts, being old or young doesn't have anything to do with it. But being older and having grown up during a time in which it was more common to indoctrinate children before they were old enough to think critically probably has something to do with more older people believing certain things...

 

Go ahead and tell Hawkings and all the other physicists that they don't know what they're doing... Next you can tell Andrew Wiles that his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was flawed  :o

 

Our brains haven't evolved to intuitively grasp thinks like quantum mechanics or general relativity, and that's why they seem so weird and nonsensical to us (same reason why we can't think in 7 dimensions or about objects moving at relativistic speeds or whatever). But the math provides predictions that are testable with instruments and experiments, and at very very very very high levels of precision. This isn't just made up sh*t, we know a lot about how the universe works even if it doesn't make sense to you.

 

And how old are you Liberty? I say 35 or less..

 

He's young enough to know that investing in gold is probably not a good idea.  While the guys over 35 think the world is going to hell in a hand basket as a black president socializes the United States of America. 

 

But even those guys are too young to remember what the world going to hell really looked like...when it wasn't even possible for a black president to sit in the Oval Office and have the opportunity to socialize the country!  Hey but back to the future!  ;D  Cheers!

[Parsad]

And how old are you Liberty? I say 35 or less..

 

I'm 30. Is this an attempt to pull rank on me or something? An appeal to authority or some other logical fallacy that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my reasoning? A way to put me in the "young" bucket so you can more easily dismiss anything I say? Not that it matters; if I happened to be 50, you'd probably find some other way...

 

Next you'll say: "Oh, I was just like you when I was your age, but I grew out of it..." *sigh*

 

It's ok Liberty.  As you get older, it will get much easier to be cynical, introverted, dismissive and stubborn in your ideas.  You'll realize that liberal values and capitalism cannot co-exist...Buffett and Steve Jobs were a figment of capitalism's imagination.  ;D  Cheers!

[Liberty]

It's ok Liberty.  As you get older, it will get much easier to be cynical, introverted, dismissive and stubborn in your ideas.  You'll realize that liberal values and capitalism cannot co-exist...Buffett and Steve Jobs were a figment of capitalism's imagination.  ;D  Cheers!

 

Well, I definitely need to lighten up and leave this thread and go back to listening to conference calls that's for sure! I'm not even on the West coast so it's quite late here :D

 

Cheers Parsad.

[moore_capital54]

And how old are you Liberty? I say 35 or less..

 

I'm 30. Is this an attempt to pull rank on me or something? An appeal to authority or some other logical fallacy that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my reasoning? A way to put me in the "young" bucket so you can more easily dismiss anything I say? Not that it matters; if I happened to be 50, you'd probably find some other way...

 

Next you'll say: "Oh, I was just like you when I was your age, but I grew out of it..." *sigh*

 

You clearly didn't read my post or if you did you certainly didn't comprehend it. Fermat's Theory and the Theory of Relativity and any other theory that has been developed and proven by humans tells us how to get to the pooper at the mall. That's it. You're at the mall and you need to take a really bad crap, and you don't know how to find the crapper. Then a very brilliant scientist sets up an information booth with a map that tells you how to get there. That's what those theories are. They are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

How did you get to the mall? Why are you in the mall? What is the mall? Who built the Mall? Are you really in the Mall? - According to physics the mall just appeared as did you from nothing.... but hey we can tell you how to operate within the mall so thats all that matters stop wasting your time thinking about anything else! That is where modern theoretical physics is.

 

Indeed, I did not fully comprehend what you meant in your first paragraph because it wasn't clearly stated. But now with this elaboration which clarifies your meaning, I can say:

 

Not knowing why there is something instead of nothing or how it happened or why (if there's a why - some things just happen without any entity that has a reason for them) just tells you that you don't know. It's not a license to fill that blank with anything pulled out of thin air anymore than not knowing how the sun worked was a license to call it a god. Fact is that all the evidence that we have access to is part of the observable universe, limited by the speed of light, and that anything inside that system probably can't tell you about whatever happened before the big bang. But there doesn't have to be something 'before' the big bang. Our intuitive grasp of time comes from our evolved past. Reality can be a lot more counter-intuitive than that. It is possible that the big bang was the beginning of time, or that it is one of many universes running in cycles, or that there's a meta-verse, or whatever.. Not knowing which of these or other possible hypotheses is the correct one doesn't mean there's a god behind it all, it means that we don't know. When we find evidence for a god, then that'll be something else entirely. It also doesn't mean that there needs to be a reason or a plan behind how things happen. Why is gravity what it is? How about it just is.

 

Questions about the origins of our universe are fascinating. But I don't like when mysteries are used to justify stuff for which there's no evidence (a compounding of mysteries).

 

Good then you agree with what I am saying which is that nobody can say with certainty that a higher being does not exist and the theoretical physicists have done nothing to dispute that.

 

And no its obvious that you are young and bursting with knowledge but the degree to which you try to dismantle every argument that is pro religion simply projects to me a naivete that will dissipate over time as you gain more life experience.

[moore_capital54]

And how old are you Liberty? I say 35 or less..

 

I'm 30. Is this an attempt to pull rank on me or something? An appeal to authority or some other logical fallacy that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my reasoning? A way to put me in the "young" bucket so you can more easily dismiss anything I say? Not that it matters; if I happened to be 50, you'd probably find some other way...

 

Next you'll say: "Oh, I was just like you when I was your age, but I grew out of it..." *sigh*

 

It's ok Liberty.  As you get older, it will get much easier to be cynical, introverted, dismissive and stubborn in your ideas.  You'll realize that liberal values and capitalism cannot co-exist...Buffett and Steve Jobs were a figment of capitalism's imagination.  ;D  Cheers!

 

Buffet is a product of conservatism not liberalism. Jobs, while socially liberal exemplified typical Ayn Rand qualities as a business person and I assure you that even he is against the deficit.

 

As for your bashing of gold I can now count several years of you bashing gold (as with Ericopoly) meanwhile in those years gold continues to set new highs and act as the perfect money. Eventually people like you will catch on about gold and at that point I will be selling it to you!

[Liberty]

Good then you agree with what I am saying which is that nobody can say with certainty that a higher being does not exist and the theoretical physicists have done nothing to dispute that.

 

As long as you agree that you can't disprove that there's an invisible dragon in my garage, fairies at the bottom of my garden, a magical teapot orbiting saturn, and that Thor actually runs the universe, and that technically you have to be agnostic about all those things because they can't be disproved.

 

Oh, and that you can never ever prove that anything doesn't exist (can't prove a negative), so that assertion has no value and doesn't make a "not disproved" thing more likely to exist.

 

Oh, and lastly, I wouldn't agree that physicists/scientists have done "nothing to dispute that". Many of the arguments used by religious people in the past have changed over time because science has shown that they weren't correct. That's certainly disputing something, and it does show how those who claim to have the truth can actually be pretty flexible in what they use to justify their beliefs.

 

he degree to which you try to dismantle every argument that is pro religion simply projects to me a naivete

 

I don't understand what you mean. Please elaborate on the link between explaining my reasoning on this topic and naïveté. Thanks.

[Liberty]

He's young enough to know that investing in gold is probably not a good idea. 

 

Ha! Honestly, I'm really attracted by gold, and even more by silver (which has more industrial uses). But that attraction is partly irrational, as I can't really give myself an argument in favor of buying some that is tight enough to allow me to do it. I really wish I could better value precious metals (though cash cost of production + exploration might be a good start, but what about on the demand side?)... I don't know. I'm still learning about them.

 

Anyway, I still prefer productive businesses :)

[moore_capital54]

I can think of a very good analogy between some of the posters understanding of gold and religion.

 

The posters focusing on disputing religion and a higher being as hogwash with so much energy and enthusiasm are the same ones that do not have the ability to think outside of the constraints of the centrally planned economy. A belief in gold is simply the belief that what has functioned as money since the beginning of time will continue to provide its owner with the preservation of purchasing power without having to rely on politically motivated human beings who seek to manipulate the value of money for the electorate.

 

The same feelings that drive some of you to not want to believe in a world where gold is necessary drive you to believe in a world where there is no higher being.  Everything can be explained by science! Gold is irrelevant as long as I buy shares in Fairfax! It is merely a lack of life experience as well as historical context that fuels such behaviour.

 

 

[moore_capital54]

He's young enough to know that investing in gold is probably not a good idea. 

 

Ha! Honestly, I'm really attracted by gold, and even more by silver (which has more industrial uses). But that attraction is partly irrational, as I can't really give myself an argument in favor of buying some that is tight enough to allow me to do it. I really wish I could better value precious metals (though cash cost of production + exploration might be a good start, but what about on the demand side?)... I don't know. I'm still learning about them.

 

Anyway, I still prefer productive businesses :)

 

An intelligent selection of productive businesses either directly or passively (securities) should outperform the price of gold bullion over time. Unfortunately if you have significant liquidity and keep it in cash or treasuries you will underperform gold. What you want is leverage to the gold price and the best way to achieve that is through the securities of businesses that are positively exposed to a rising gold price environment: Think Franco Nevada or Silver Wheaton (for silver).

[Liberty]

The posters focusing on disputing religion and a higher being as hogwash with so much energy and enthusiasm are the same ones that do not have the ability to think outside of the constraints of the centrally planned economy.

 

Building a strawman are ye?

 

 

A belief in gold is simply the belief that what has functioned as money since the beginning of time will continue to provide its owner with the preservation of purchasing power without having to rely on politically motivated human beings who seek to manipulate the value of money for the electorate.

 

I'm actually really sympathetic to the argument for gold, and think there's a very high chance that it will "work", probably partly because enough people believe that it will work. It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy because of that critical mass. I'm just not sure if it's the best use of my capital.

 

The same feelings that drive some of you to not want to believe in a world where gold is necessary drive you to believe in a world where there is no higher being.  Everything can be explained by science! Gold is irrelevant as long as I buy shares in Fairfax! It is merely a lack of life experience as well as historical context that fuels such behaviour.

 

Now that's going off the deep end. Blind faith in gold is one thing, but the price of gold is entirely set by human actions. The nature of reality and the universe isn't like that. If you have blind faith in something and it works, it doesn't mean that everything you have blind faith in will work too. That's logic 101.

 

Back to the strawman: I dislike how you seem to put words in my mouth and ascribe financial beliefs to me. You have no idea what my opinions are about monetary policy, governments, or whether I can think outside the box of whatever. Speak for yourself, and I'll speak for myself.

[moore_capital54]

The posters focusing on disputing religion and a higher being as hogwash with so much energy and enthusiasm are the same ones that do not have the ability to think outside of the constraints of the centrally planned economy.

 

Building a strawman are ye?

 

 

A belief in gold is simply the belief that what has functioned as money since the beginning of time will continue to provide its owner with the preservation of purchasing power without having to rely on politically motivated human beings who seek to manipulate the value of money for the electorate.

 

I'm actually really sympathetic to the argument for gold, and think there's a very high chance that it will "work", probably partly because enough people believe that it will work. It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy because of that critical mass. I'm just not sure if it's the best use of my capital.

 

The same feelings that drive some of you to not want to believe in a world where gold is necessary drive you to believe in a world where there is no higher being.  Everything can be explained by science! Gold is irrelevant as long as I buy shares in Fairfax! It is merely a lack of life experience as well as historical context that fuels such behaviour.

 

Now that's going off the deep end. Blind faith in gold is one thing, but the price of gold is entirely set by human actions. The nature of reality and the universe isn't like that. If you have blind faith in something and it works, it doesn't mean that everything you have blind faith in will work too. That's logic 101.

 

Back to the strawman: I dislike how you seem to put words in my mouth and ascribe financial beliefs to me. You have no idea what my opinions are about monetary policy, governments, or whether I can think outside the box of whatever. Speak for yourself, and I'll speak for myself.

 

Who are you to say I have blind faith in gold? Why don't you spend more time learning about the history of your civilization and the importance gold played in it before making such stupid accusations. I have spent decades learning about gold and central banking and the knowledge I share with you and others is based on the wealth of knowledge that I have accumulated.  Read Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises spend a little time doing it and see if you feel any different.

 

 

[Liberty]

An intelligent selection of productive businesses either directly or passively (securities) should outperform the price of gold bullion over time. Unfortunately if you have significant liquidity and keep it in cash or treasuries you will underperform gold. What you want is leverage to the gold price and the best way to achieve that is through the securities of businesses that are positively exposed to a rising gold price environment: Think Franco Nevada or Silver Wheaton (for silver).

 

Indeed, that's my conclusion too. I actually own shares in a business that sells picks & shovels (so to speak) to the mining industry and should do very well if precious metals (as well as base metals and other commodities) do well. I've also got a bunch of precious metal royalty/streaming companies on my watchlist, including those you mentioned, though I haven't bought any (I prefer other things, and they're harder to value than that service company I bought).

 

Since I don't ever hold that much cash for very long (that's a weakness of mine, I like to be almost fully invested when things I like get cheap enough), I don't fear the devaluation of my cash too much and feel that most of what I own should have decent to good pricing power in inflationary environments.

 

At some point I considered getting some silver bullion, but I ended up buying more shares of a business I liked instead. We'll see if that was a good decision over time..

[RichardGibbons]

Don't get me wrong, science has done a fantastic job at teaching us almost everything there is to know about the physical mechanics of our existence (very good maps of how everything in the mall works) but has been extremely arrogant at assuming that this tiny little piece of the existence puzzle means they know with certainty that a higher being does not exist.

 

This is a bizarre thing to say....  I'm pretty sure that science has never claimed certainty that a higher being doesn't exist.  Science doesn't claim anything with certainty.  It's ok, you probably just don't understand what science is.  Here's a primer to help you get up to speed:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method