Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;270246]You would have to play at a high roller table. There is a limit on a lot of tables. So unless you're a high roller, you can't just wager an infinite amount of money every time. That's why you have to start with $5.

ps- I already explained why I wouldn't go to Vegas, you're just not recalling. Scroll back, it's there.[/quote]

No, I'm recalling. You're not reading what I'm saying.

Sure you may have to start betting $5 at first. But if your system ALWAYS wins, as you stated and I quoted, then after a few days of betting $5 you can afford to start betting $10 at a time. Then after a few days winning at that level, double your bets to $20. And after a few days winning at that level, double your bets to $40, and so on. Keep doing that till you're at the high roller tables, betting the max they allow you in the entire casino. After a month of ramping up your bets, you'll be pulling in tens of thousands in profits each day. That is, if your system does indeed ALWAYS win. Which you stated. What is there to lose?

Haven't you ever thought of this? I mean you could be a multimillionaire with this system. Nothing would stop you. Can you answer me why you don't do it this way? Or are you just going to selectively skip over this post just like the last time I asked you this very same question in this very same thread?

If you can't answer it, it shows you're a fraud.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Ladies and gentlemen I have decided to created a religion of my own and would like to invite you to become a member of the Church of Rooting for God. Put your hands together for God folks. Put your hands together. :woot:

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

All are welcome at the First United Church of the Fonz.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;270249]What, peace and civility as well as love for Man is not good enough? You feel Christians need to "sell it".
Trust me when I say, there is nothing to sell. You either believe or you don't. You will always make excuses not to believe, and not a single one to believe. That's your choice. Enjoy.[/QUOTE]

I responded to a retort regarding this quote by you:

[QUOTE]"Why would you choose a path (not believing) that has absolutely no chance (that's 0%) of having a positive affect after death?"[/QUOTE]

Certainly, peace, civility, and love of your fellow man are also aspects of religion. But the predominant tenent of Christianity was Christ dying for the sins of man, so he can ascend into heaven. I've always thought that the purpose of organized religion is to amass as many members as possible, and to collect as much money as possible -- with the idea that if you live by a certain set of rules you'll be rewarded in the afterlife.

If you disagree with my thought, that's fine. I'm simply saying that's the way I've always seen it.

Since the dawn of man, when we evolved into a species whose brain developed to the point of the capability of cognitive thought; the fear of death, and what happens to us when we die is the single most perplexing and horrifying question we have ever faced. Someone came along with an idea to ease our fears, who claimed to know all the answers from a Supreme Being, and sold to all who were desperate for those answers a grand scheme for eternal life in paradise. I'm not saying that person was Jesus Christ -- those themes had been around long before the beginnings of Christianity.

In my mind, religion has been both a tool of the clever to prey upon the weak, just as it has been a force for good, and a philosophy by which we can strive for a purpose that's higher than ourselves.

I go back and forth with it. Sometimes I pray, sometimes I'm a card-carrying atheist. Just depends on my mood. It's a question we all have to ask and answer for ourselves. But it's not a question of "making excuses not to believe" -- sometimes, people just can't believe it.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Just got home from work- Thought beemnseven had some good point...

The one thing that actually turned me off from religion was the concept of faith. It seemed very sketchy that you [I]had [/I]to believe, and why a god would care whether or not we "believed" in him. What a shallow thing for him to ask from us. Just didn't make sense to me.

How can a man 100% purely good in the heart, who doesn't believe in an entity known as "God", defy what a relegion speaks of.

I also found it entirely plausible for someone, throughout the corse of time, to have created a religion and exploited people. It just all seems very likely for that to have happened.

Is it also possible that there is one right religion, sure... I just don't know which one it is, and wonder why so many people can be so sure that theirs is it.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;270288]Just got home from work- Thought beemnseven had some good point...

[B]The one thing that actually turned me off from religion was the concept of faith. It seemed very sketchy that you [I]had [/I]to believe, and why a god would care whether or not we "believed" in him. What a shallow thing for him to ask from us. Just didn't make sense to me.[/B]

How can a man 100% purely good in the heart, who doesn't believe in an entity known as "God", defy what a relegion speaks of.

I also found it entirely plausible for someone, throughout the corse of time, to have created a religion and exploited people. It just all seems very likely for that to have happened.

Is it also possible that there is one right religion, sure... I just don't know which one it is, and wonder why so many people can be so sure that theirs is it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the penalty for not believing seems a bit extreme for what everyone says is a loving God.

So ... when the originator of the concept of religion came up with the incentives for getting a pass to this alternate dimension, where the streets are paved with gold, and you get to live with everyone you've ever loved for all eternity, somewhere along the way, they realized that wasn't enough. There had to be a threat involved. That's when the concept of Hell was created. "Believe what I tell you, and you will live in paradise when you die -- but if you don't, you will descend into an awful place full of pain, agony, suffering, and flames."

If you think about it, everything adds up...

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=RobH4413;270288]Just got home from work- Thought beemnseven had some good point...

The one thing that actually turned me off from religion was the concept of faith. It seemed very sketchy that you [I]had [/I]to believe, and why a god would care whether or not we "believed" in him. What a shallow thing for him to ask from us. Just didn't make sense to me.

How can a man 100% purely good in the heart, who doesn't believe in an entity known as "God", defy what a relegion speaks of.

I also found it entirely plausible for someone, throughout the corse of time, to have created a religion and exploited people. It just all seems very likely for that to have happened.

Is it also possible that there is one right religion, sure... I just don't know which one it is, and wonder why so many people can be so sure that theirs is it.[/quote]

Help me clarify Rob,
are you the 100% pure person? or who is? metaphor?
In the next paragraph, who are you referring to? Who exploited people?
Just curious, thanx



How can a man 100% purely good in the heart, who doesn't believe in an entity known as "God", defy what a relegion speaks of.

I also found it entirely plausible for someone, throughout the corse of time, to have created a religion and exploited people. It just all seems very likely for that to have happened.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=RobH4413;270288]
The one thing that actually turned me off from religion was the concept of faith. It seemed very sketchy that you [I]had [/I]to believe, and why a god would care whether or not we "believed" in him. What a shallow thing for him to ask from us. Just didn't make sense to me.[/quote]

That's always been one of my big gripes with religion.

This crap about non-believers going to hell is all about controlling people with fear.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

I'm surprised this thread has lasted so long without any flaming. Good job at being civil, guys! I knew you could do it. j/k :goodjob:

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Mattyk72;270315]That's always been one of my big gripes with religion.

This crap about non-believers going to hell is all about controlling people with fear.[/quote]

That's maybe the coolest thing about it. Not one opinon, be it scientific, evolutionist, creationist can be PROOF POSITIVE substanciated.
By the time we figure out the truth, it may be to late, depending what you believe.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Hog1;270297]Help me clarify Rob,
are you the 100% pure person? or who is? metaphor?
In the next paragraph, who are you referring to? Who exploited people?
Just curious, thanx



How can a man 100% purely good in the heart, who doesn't believe in an entity known as "God", defy what a relegion speaks of.

I also found it entirely plausible for someone, throughout the corse of time, to have created a religion and exploited people. It just all seems very likely for that to have happened.[/quote]
Yeah, sorry... it was 4:00am when I wrote this...

I was referring to those kind of people that exploit people in general. They've always been here, and always will be here. So it's not hard to fathom that some random guy, or group of people, decided to make a religion and exploit a populations fear of death into some scam.

Secondly to clarify about a 100% pure person...I was speaking about the possibility that someone purely good can't go to heaven according to certain religions.

If Ghandi, for example, didn't believe in god and helped millions of people how could he not go to heaven? How could someone to fit every definition of what is a good person is in certain religions not reach the ultimate reward? Why is having faith so important?

In a world as confusing as this one is, it's hard to understand why faith is what gets you in. However, I do see faith as an important concept in general, but not necessarily in god par se.

In some ways, we all have to have "faith". If we were total skeptics about everything we would get nothing accomplished. We have to have faith that doing what's good is the right thing.

There really is no empirical evidence, aside from being raised a particular way or another, that doing "good" is right at all... so the concept of faith isn't totally unfamiliar.

See [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith]Leap of faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] . My philosophy teacher in high school totally broke the whole class down for a month. Made us all total skeptics, and then in the end... presented the "leap of faith" above and it blew us all away. I thought it was pretty cool.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;270251]No, I'm recalling. You're not reading what I'm saying.

Sure you may have to start betting $5 at first. But if your system ALWAYS wins, as you stated and I quoted, then after a few days of betting $5 you can afford to start betting $10 at a time. Then after a few days winning at that level, double your bets to $20. And after a few days winning at that level, double your bets to $40, and so on. Keep doing that till you're at the high roller tables, betting the max they allow you in the entire casino. After a month of ramping up your bets, you'll be pulling in tens of thousands in profits each day. That is, if your system does indeed ALWAYS win. Which you stated. What is there to lose?

Haven't you ever thought of this? I mean you could be a multimillionaire with this system. Nothing would stop you. Can you answer me why you don't do it this way? Or are you just going to selectively skip over this post just like the last time I asked you this very same question in this very same thread?

If you can't answer it, it shows you're a fraud.[/QUOTE]

Funny you bring this up again. Cause you intentions are completely honorable right? So if you TRUELY beleive that my system CAN'T work, then why would you insist on someone taking their life savings and going to Vegas????????
Even though I shouldn't tell you, my wife and I have a plan on this next cruise that we are going to try. If it works, we might actually go down the road you speak of. Time will tell. It's hard to leave your comfort zone and your insurance.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;270416]Yeah, sorry... it was 4:00am when I wrote this...

I was referring to those kind of people that exploit people in general. They've always been here, and always will be here. So it's not hard to fathom that some random guy, or group of people, decided to make a religion and exploit a populations fear of death into some scam.

Secondly to clarify about a 100% pure person...I was speaking about the possibility that someone purely good can't go to heaven according to certain religions.

If Ghandi, for example, didn't believe in god and helped millions of people how could he not go to heaven? How could someone to fit every definition of what is a good person is in certain religions not reach the ultimate reward? Why is having faith so important?

In a world as confusing as this one is, it's hard to understand why faith is what gets you in. However, I do see faith as an important concept in general, but not necessarily in god par se.

In some ways, we all have to have "faith". If we were total skeptics about everything we would get nothing accomplished. We have to have faith that doing what's good is the right thing.

There really is no empirical evidence, aside from being raised a particular way or another, that doing "good" is right at all... so the concept of faith isn't totally unfamiliar.

See [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith]Leap of faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] . My philosophy teacher in high school totally broke the whole class down for a month. Made us all total skeptics, and then in the end... presented the "leap of faith" above and it blew us all away. I thought it was pretty cool.[/QUOTE]

No person can be 100% pure. It's impossible. That aside, I actually understand exactly where you're coming from. That's why I said my comments about grace in a previous post, and comments about "why do all the religions have the same common demoninator in God with several different saviors?"
I also look at it like this, if God loves us unconditionally, then why would he set us up for certain doom. Maybe, just maybe, the bible is a way of scaring us straight. Kind of like when you parents said "you'll get hairy palms if you masterbate (or go blind)", or "if you take a hit of marijuana, you'll die". etc. Their intentions are honorable, but they are trying to scare you from doing something that could hurt you.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;270522][B]No person can be 100% pure[/B]. It's impossible. That aside, I actually understand exactly where you're coming from. That's why I said my comments about grace in a previous post, and comments about "why do all the religions have the same common demoninator in God with several different saviors?"
I also look at it like this, if God loves us unconditionally, then why would he set us up for certain doom. Maybe, just maybe, the bible is a way of scaring us straight. Kind of like when you parents said "you'll get hairy palms if you masterbate (or go blind)", or "if you take a hit of marijuana, you'll die". etc. Their intentions are honorable, but they are trying to scare you from doing something that could hurt you.[/quote]
It was an exaggeration to emphasize a point...


Organized religions are human institutions. Anything human is always very, very corrupt. You can look at governments to understand that. I'm not saying that they're totally evil things, but I think they do alot more harm then most people can come to terms with.

Your second point I tend to agree with. If you look at every religion, you'll find a similar path; be God like. This is taken both literally and metaphorically in some religions... where some believe that one will become god and lose their individuality, or that we are to look to a "God" as a guide to live by.

Christianity is living like Jesus, and Jesus is in-fact God.

I hate to bring the same quote from earlier in the thread, but..

[quote=311]In times of trouble
Everyone joins a team
No one waves a flag
For all human beings
No one's excited
Unless they are divided
Someone's going to have to give
It seems uncertain
I'd like to be
One of the faithful millions
But what I see
Is an excuse for the killing

Your denomination
Should be a private thing
How about a spirit
For all human beings
How could something well guided
Turn out to be divisive
Mostly wondering
It seems uncertain[/quote]

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;270525]It was an exaggeration to emphasize a point...


Organized religions are human institutions. Anything human is always very, very corrupt. You can look at governments to understand that. I'm not saying that they're totally evil things, but I think they do alot more harm then most people can come to terms with.

Your second point I tend to agree with. If you look at every religion, you'll find a similar path; be God like. This is taken both literally and metaphorically in some religions... where some believe that one will become god and lose their individuality, or that we are to look to a "God" as a guide to live by.

Christianity is living like Jesus, and Jesus is in-fact God.

I hate to bring the same quote from earlier in the thread, but..[/QUOTE]

#1- What the hell are you doing up so late / early?
#2- Quoting a racist group (311...ie: 3, 11 being the K in the alphabet as the 11th letter...3 K's...KKK.) is not a good thing.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;270527]#1- What the hell are you doing up so late / early?
#2- Quoting a racist group (311...ie: 3, 11 being the K in the alphabet as the 11th letter...3 K's...KKK.) is not a good thing.[/quote]

#1) I work at a bar/restaurant called "Hard Times Cafe"... I get out of there around 3:00/3:30 so Im usually up for a good hour after I get off. My schedule varies greatly, so some Im always on at awkward times.

#2) You just irked every 311 fan in the world on that one. I'll clear the air for ya:

[quote=http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/311_(band)] In [URL="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/1997"][COLOR=#336600]1997[/COLOR][/URL] the band started to receive criticism due to perceived racism as "311" is used as a symbol, particularly in prison tattoos, for the [URL="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan"][COLOR=#336600]Ku Klux Klan[/COLOR][/URL] because K is the 11th letter of the [URL="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Alphabet"][COLOR=#336600]alphabet[/COLOR][/URL] (Three 11s = Three Ks = KKK) [URL="http://www.reference.com/go/http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_311.asp"][IMG]http://cache.lexico.com/r/g/link-extern.gif[/IMG][/URL] It was also rumored that Nick Hexum was a member of [URL="http://www.reference.com/go/http://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Front"][COLOR=#336600]The National Front[/COLOR][/URL], which is a [URL="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/White_supremacy"][COLOR=#336600]white supremacy[/COLOR][/URL] group.

The name actually came from a [URL="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Skinny_dipping"][COLOR=#336600]skinny dipping[/COLOR][/URL] incident when Jim Watson, the band's former guitarist, was charged with [URL="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Indecent_exposure"][COLOR=#336600]indecent exposure[/COLOR][/URL] by the [URL="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Omaha_Police_Department"][COLOR=#336600]Omaha Police Department[/COLOR][/URL] and was escorted home handcuffed and naked. The police code which appeared on the citation was "311". Nick Hexum has said: After the humor of the name wore off, we still kept it because we liked that it was just abstract and that it did not define us in any way. The name did not describe our sound or our politics, it just let the music speak for itself.
Released in 1994 on [I]Grassroots[/I], long before the KKK rumor surfaced, the song "Silver" provides some strong words about racism:
Of the racist institutions, simple minds belong;Not happy being human, no wish to get along.Little people need exclusions; sucker groups to throng.It makes them feel special; it makes them feel strong.Now I've got a clique but it's more like a family.Not an ethnic trip more like an ethic sea.I write the rhyme today, tell it to you later.Whether we're comin' in whack or what.It's a waste to be a hater.
In response to the rumors, Nick Hexum began to write a song for the 1997 release [I]Transistor[/I] titled "**** The KKK". After thinking about the title and how it wasn't true to the positive nature of 311, he revised it and ended up with "Electricity", the sixth track on the album.
First two lines from "Electricity":
This song started as a rant against hatersBut that'd be giving in to the instigators
Last verse:
A call out for unityIn every province and city.What do you think we've been saying''Since we first started playing?
(These last lines can be seen as a reference to the early 311 song "Unity".) It should also be noted that singer Doug "SA" Martinez is of [URL="http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Latino"][COLOR=#336600]Latino[/COLOR][/URL] descent. [/quote]

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

LOL I love the fact that stupid 311 rumor is still alive and kicking 10 years later.

If you know anything about 311, their music, and their message, you would understand just how stupid that tie in to the KKK really is. Nothing could be further from reality.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;270522]I also look at it like this, if God loves us unconditionally, then why would he set us up for certain doom. Maybe, just maybe, the bible is a way of scaring us straight. Kind of like when you parents said "you'll get hairy palms if you masterbate (or go blind)", or "if you take a hit of marijuana, you'll die". etc. Their intentions are honorable, but they are trying to scare you from doing something that could hurt you.[/QUOTE]

By that logic, the Bible and/or religion is a set of lies to "scare us straight" -- albeit with honorable intentions. Yet, isn't lying a sin? That is a contradiction.

EDIT: you did say "kind of like when your parents...", so I guess it was just a bad example.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;270519]Funny you bring this up again. Cause you intentions are completely honorable right? So if you TRUELY beleive that my system CAN'T work, then why would you insist on someone taking their life savings and going to Vegas????????
Even though I shouldn't tell you, my wife and I have a plan on this next cruise that we are going to try. If it works, we might actually go down the road you speak of. Time will tell. It's hard to leave your comfort zone and your insurance.[/quote]

Sounds like lack of confidence in your system, to me.

A couple pages ago, you said "my system ALWAYS works." You even capitalized the word ALWAYS. If it always works, why are you uncomfortable with putting your savings on the line? If it ALWAYS works, there's no risk at all, and there's nothing to lose.

You're so full of crap.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Schneed, jsarno hasn't done anything (that I've seen) to warrant your snide remarks.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=cpayne5;270581]Schneed, jsarno hasn't done anything (that I've seen) to warrant your snide remarks.[/quote]

I disagree. He's trying to pump a roulette "system" that "Always works", while at the same time showing that he's afraid to try it with a significant amount of money on the line.

He has also said that he has written/is writing a book on this "system", and hopes one day to get it published.

That's part and parcel to crime in my opinion. Every gambling expert on Earth, including Donald Trump, knows that there is no way to consistently beat roulette. When I hear that someone plans on selling a book on how to make money when it's completely bogus, the first thing I think of is "con artist."

I think con artists are full of crap. And I'm not backing down from that stance.

If Jsarno was so confident in his system, he'd try it himself with something more significant than $5 on the line.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

I could care less about the roulette. The personal insults are what I believe to be out of line on your part.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=cpayne5;270588]I could care less about the roulette. The personal insults are what I believe to be out of line on your part.[/quote]

I don't really care. I think it's warranted. If a mod slaps me on the wrist, so be it.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;270589]I don't really care. I think it's warranted. If a mod slaps me on the wrist, so be it.[/QUOTE]

I wouldnt consider this a slap on the wrist, but everyone knows this was going to be a very sensitive thread to begin with, so just make sure no insults get thrown either way, because this will get out of hand real quick.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

i like to talk politics, but every political thread around here gets closed. is there really any difference between politics and this thread?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

and how religion and gambling come together....

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

This thread has maintained a level of calmness that few political threads do.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Gmanc711;270591]I wouldnt consider this a slap on the wrist, but everyone knows this was going to be a very sensitive thread to begin with, so just make sure no insults get thrown either way, because this will get out of hand real quick.[/quote]

It's kind of ironic, you'd think this thread would lead to a flame fest, but everyone has been very cool calm and collected when it comes to religion so far. I however am fired up by the notion that there is a scam artist on the site.

First, the gambling and religion discussions are a wee bit related, it all started by Jsarno saying that there are gambling patterns in roulette that you just can't explain, just as there are religious things you just can't explain.

I'm just bothered by this guy coming on here, talking about a book he wrote on this system, how one day he'd like to publish and sell it, and at the same time he's not confident enough in his system to try to make any real money off of it. Is anybody else's moral compass thrown for a complete loop on that one, or is it just me?

I'm not calling for jsarno to get scolded. But I'm calling a spade a spade. He's full of crap.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;270584]
When I hear that someone plans on selling a book on how to make money when it's completely bogus, the first thing I think of is "con artist."
[/QUOTE]

I do not play roulette but to say that a person who plans on selling a book about their system is a "con-artist", well then the world must be filled with them.

Just about every gambling book ever written tells you how to "win" at what ever game you are playing.

For example:

[B]Thirteen Against the Bank[/B] - Author: Norman Leigh
The True Story of How a Roulette Team Broke the Bank With an Unbeatable System.


[B]Professional Roulette Prediction: Volume 1 - Basic Methods[/B] - Author: Laurance Scott
Product Description
Professional Roulette Prediction: Volume 1 - Basic Methods presents the author's time-tested visual prediction method in an easy-to-understand format and is the first step in becoming serious about playing roulette for money. This is the most comprehensive analysis of the game ever published, an expert-level methodology that will teach you to beat roulette by visually predicting the outcome. All aspects of the game are covered, from commonly asked questions to determining your edge to strategy implementation.

About the Author
Laurance Scott is a legend in the world of professional roulette, playing internationally for many years both on teams and for himself, and helping players with his books and consultations. Few devotees of the wheel have as much experience and knowledge as this enigmatic figure, and fewer still have dared to share their secrets with the public.


[B]The Roulette Formula[/B] - Author: Kimo Li
How to Predict the Exact Number


Here are just three books that can be easily found on Amazon.com when you search roulette. All three books claim that they can beat the "roulette system". Therefore all three must be "con artists". Like I said I dont care about roulette at all but to call someone a "con artist" simply because you feel strongly that their "system" is flawed, that is no better than a jehovah witness comming to your door and pumping their faith to you...

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Con-artist is definitely an extreme because it implies that the person is knowingly committing a crime. I don't think jsarno is trying to rob someone by pitching his system. Like everything else in life, things happen by chance, but then again smart risk taking yields people like Warren Buffet. The stock market a is a big game of chance after all.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=saden1;270601]Con-artist is definitely an extreme because it implies that the person is knowingly committing a crime. I don't think jsarno is trying to rob someone by pitching his system. Like everything else in life, things happen by chance, but then again smart risk taking yields people like Warren Buffet. The stock market a is a big game of chance after all.[/quote]

No it's not, not even close. You can make money in the stock market by knowing an industry and a particular business's operations very well. There is a degree of luck involved, but by and large, you can pick winning stocks if you're a brilliant business mind, like Warren Buffett. He's widely regarded as one of the smartest businessmen that's ever lived. Are you going to tell him he just got lucky??

Roulette involves guessing which number the ball's going to land on. You can't research that.

Anyone who writes a book on beating roullette is either a crook or a moron. Ask any Vegas casino, they'll tell you. Systems don't work. So the guy writing the book either knows systems don't work and wrote the book anyway, or he just doesn't understand roulette.

jsarno claimed his system ALWAYS works. But he hasn't tried it by betting any more than $5 at a time. If he truly felt his system was foolproof, there'd be no risk for him, and he would have made millions on it already. Seems like he knows it's bogus, otherwise he'd be betting thousands in Vegas as we speak.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;270629]

Roulette involves guessing which number the ball's going to land on. You can't research that.


jsarno claimed his system ALWAYS works. But he hasn't tried it by betting any more than $5 at a time. If he truly felt his system was foolproof, there'd be no risk for him, and he would have made millions on it already. Seems like he knows it's bogus, otherwise he'd be betting thousands in Vegas as we speak.[/quote]
im not for judging people, or name calling. but i agree with this statement. if anyone had a foolproof way to make money, they would definitely use it and become rich

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;270643]im not for judging people, or name calling. but i agree with this statement. if anyone had a foolproof way to make money, they would definitely use it and become rich[/QUOTE]

Professional Roulette Prediction: Volume 1 - Basic Methods - Author: Laurance Scott
Product Description
Professional Roulette Prediction: Volume 1 - Basic Methods presents the author's time-tested visual prediction method in an easy-to-understand format and is the first step in becoming serious about playing roulette for money. This is the most comprehensive analysis of the game ever published, an expert-level methodology that will teach you to beat roulette by visually predicting the outcome. All aspects of the game are covered, from commonly asked questions to determining your edge to strategy implementation.

About the Author
Laurance Scott is a legend in the world of professional roulette, playing internationally for many years both on teams and for himself, and helping players with his books and consultations. Few devotees of the wheel have as much experience and knowledge as this enigmatic figure, and fewer still have dared to share their secrets with the public.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;270629]No it's not, not even close. You can make money in the stock market by knowing an industry and a particular business's operations very well. There is a degree of luck involved, but by and large, you can pick winning stocks if you're a brilliant business mind, like Warren Buffett. He's widely regarded as one of the smartest businessmen that's ever lived. Are you going to tell him he just got lucky??

Roulette involves guessing which number the ball's going to land on. You can't research that.

Anyone who writes a book on beating roullette is either a crook or a moron. Ask any Vegas casino, they'll tell you. Systems don't work. So the guy writing the book either knows systems don't work and wrote the book anyway, or he just doesn't understand roulette.

jsarno claimed his system ALWAYS works. But he hasn't tried it by betting any more than $5 at a time. If he truly felt his system was foolproof, there'd be no risk for him, and he would have made millions on it already. Seems like he knows it's bogus, otherwise he'd be betting thousands in Vegas as we speak.[/QUOTE]

Warren Buffett is probably bad example as he does his homework before doing anything but the point I was making is that he too had luck on his side. When he was younger he took a lot of risk. Even with experience and analysis you're still taking a chance when you're buying stocks. I mean, how many businesses that exist today do you think will exist 100 years from now? Then of course you have market crashes (1929 ring a bell?). You just have to hope that when you retire we'll have a bull market. You can off course mitigate your risk by transitioning your money into safer investments as you near retirement age.

I personally don't believe in systems, but just maybe, jsarno's "system" is based on not risking with too much money. Playing now and then. Perhaps system is a bad word. How does strategy sound?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=saden1;270673]Warren Buffett is probably bad example as he does his homework before doing anything but the point I was making is that he too had luck on his side. When he was younger he took a lot of risk. Even with experience and analysis you're still taking a chance when you're buying stocks. I mean, how many businesses that exist today do you think will exist 100 years from now? Then of course you have market crashes (1929 ring a bell?). You just have to hope that when you retire we'll have a bull market. You can off course mitigate your risk by transitioning your money into safer investments as you near retirement age.

I personally don't believe in systems, but just maybe, jsarno's "system" is based on not risking with too much money. Playing now and then. Perhaps system is a bad word. How does strategy sound?[/quote]
It's not that hard to make money in the stock market. Companies are growing, and if you find a hot product, or trend... you help them get off the ground and you'll get rewarded for your investment.

You can also analyze trends of differente types of companies. Swing trading is as addictive as gambling, and people learn to identify the habits of certain stocks. There is definitly a rhyme and reason to it...
-----------------------------------------------
With gambling, to my knowledge there couldn't possibly be a rhyme or reason to it. That's the very reason they're in the casinos... they always make money.

Granted I'm sure it's possible they set up certain "Games" to attract you to the casino, only to have you shell that money out elsewhere... a different game... buying food... etc.

From what I've heard, Blackjack has the best odds... and the house will make money 9 times out of 10 anyways. Seems like a lost cause to try and "beat the system"... bunch of hooplah to try to get you out there and spend money. Sounds like a "myth" meant to ecourage you to become and addictive gambler. Have fun with that.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=saden1;270673]Warren Buffett is probably bad example as he does his homework before doing anything but the point I was making is that he too had luck on his side. When he was younger he took a lot of risk. Even with experience and analysis you're still taking a chance when you're buying stocks. I mean, how many businesses that exist today do you think will exist 100 years from now? Then of course you have market crashes (1929 ring a bell?). You just have to hope that when you retire we'll have a bull market. You can off course mitigate your risk by transitioning your money into safer investments as you near retirement age.

I personally don't believe in systems, but just maybe, jsarno's "system" is based on not risking with too much money. Playing now and then. Perhaps system is a bad word. How does strategy sound?[/quote]

When someone says that their system (or strategy, whatever, it's all semantics to me) ALWAYS works (in other words, NEVER FAILS), that means they think it provides a foolproof way to make money. And yet amazingly, he's not using it. It is the very definition of a sham.

Ever hear the expression "if it sounds too good to be true, it is"? This is a perfect example, and in my mind, this behavior is indefensible.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;270681]When someone says that their system (or strategy, whatever, it's all semantics to me) ALWAYS works (in other words, NEVER FAILS), that means they think it provides a foolproof way to make money. And yet amazingly, he's not using it. It is the very definition of a sham.

Ever hear the expression "if it sounds too good to be true, it is"? This is a perfect example, and in my mind, this behavior is indefensible.[/quote]
Schneed... I think your right... and I agree...but

I think you've made that point like 4 times (its all good)...

Some people choose to ignore reason, and using reason won't budge them. I'd let it go just cause it's not going anywhere...

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=RobH4413;270683]Schneed... I think your right... and I agree...but

I think you've made that point like 4 times (its all good)...

Some people choose to ignore reason, and using reason won't budge them. I'd let it go just cause it's not going anywhere...[/quote]

You're right. It's time to let go. Some people just don't get it.

If anyone out there wants to try jsarno's system, and really agree that it's foolproof, by all means, take your life savings to Vegas and go for it. According to him, it ALWAYS works.

Any takers?

Didn't think so.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Roulette is regarded as one of the worst odds in a casino. In other words it is a game that keeps the casino open because the odds are so stacked against the player as to gurantee that the player cannot win. To assert that there are any patterns in a clearly random game is foolish. Every spin is independent of all other spins and therefore logical and reasonable statistics can be used to show how it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to play roulette for the long term and make money at it. It is VERY POSSIBLE to play roulette on a very short term basis and make money simply due to luck but eventually that luck will wear out. Everything evens out in the end. The stats do not lie. To assert that there is a system that can predict what number or color or whatever is coming is simply dumb. I am sorry but your system sounds like you have just been fantastically lucky if it has 'worked' for you.

And all those books someone posted about roulette are like someone else said either written by a moron or by someone who is dishonest.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=FRPLG;270686]Roulette is regarded as one of the worst odds in a casino. In other words it is a game that keeps the casino open because the odds are so stacked against the player as to gurantee that the player cannot win. To assert that there are any patterns in a clearly random game is foolish. Every spin is independent of all other spins and therefore logical and reasonable statistics can be used to show how it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to play roulette for the long term and make money at it. It is VERY POSSIBLE to play roulette on a very short term basis and make money simply due to luck but eventually that luck will wear out. Everything evens out in the end. The stats do not lie. To assert that there is a system that can predict what number or color or whatever is coming is simply dumb. I am sorry but your system sounds like you have just been fantastically lucky if it has 'worked' for you.

And all those books someone posted about roulette are like someone else said either written by a moron or by someone who is dishonest.[/quote]

This is assuming you're wagering on anything other than red or black. As Schneed pointed out earlier, you're chances of landing on red or black are 47 or 48.xxx (I forget exactly). As far as gambling goes those odds ain't half bad. If you wager on a specific color and use probability to figure out the chances of a specific color being rolled out of say 6 or 7 times then you increase your chance of winning provided that you cover all of your total losses thus far on each subsequent wager until your fixed color (red or black) finally comes up. With this simple method you're gambling that your color will come up 1 out of 6 or 7 times. If you win you start the wagering process all over again. The only times you get screwed is if your color doesn't come up after a 7th roll. Again, you're just playing the odds that your color will come up eventually. Whether you have the financial resources to keep up is another story. Regardless, it's not foolproof and you can get burned if your color doesn't come up (10 straight reds or 6 reds followed by 0 then followed by 3 more reds).

Out of 7 consecutive rolls, you're wagering would look something like this: $5, $10, $20, $40, $80, $160, $320. If you play a fixed color the entire time and finally that color comes up you'll win $5 dollars. It's slow and tedious but fairly effective.