On the contrary, it looks more like this:

Weak Atheism: There probably is not a God
Strong Atheism: There is no God

Agnostic Theism: There probably is a God
Gnostic Theism: There is a God

So as we can see, claiming that there is no God or that there is a God as absolute certainty is always irrational, for we cannot know this.  OTOH, we can argue whether what's more likely, while keeping our doubts that either must be true.

The problem, then, is the fact that the big three (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are Gnostic religions, as they claim God created the world and space and everything in it.  If you will argue the existence of God at a rational level, I recommend taking a stance with Deism.

Sweetheart, socialism is what you're sitting in right now.  Anarchism is the exact opposite of state socialism.  And, if you would read my very first post here, you'll understand what you're asking is impossible: there isn't even any land still in existence that isn't owned by government, and even if there was, the people who tried to develop an anarchistic society would be conquered quickly by the surrounding states.

This three part series should give you some idea of how law would work without a central government.

Then he gives it to himself.

That doesn't matter; the point is, there was a private currency, and the U.S. Government shut it down, ultimately for the reason explained: "making, possessing, and selling his own currency".  It is illegal under federal law to print your own currency.

Seeking more work!

I'm afraid this isn't true; the US has a vested interest in ensuring its currency has no competition, thereby forcing people to use that instead of an alternative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar

I once tried this software, but I didn't like it at all.  IIRC, it's loaded with distractions that take away from the time you could've been writing, and its editor is just a pain, which is something I couldn't get over.

What I do recommend:

Q10: A simple full-screen plain text editor with different settings; I set mine up to look like this.  I wrote the entirety of my first novel in this thing; I love it because it lets you focus, it blocks everything else out and lets you just write.  It auto-indents every paragraph, too, which is an oft overlooked feature in many editors.

Couple this with dropbox, and you can keep all your notes and drafts organized in separate folders across multiple machines.

And of course, a word processor, such as MS Word or LibreOffice, used only after you're done writing the first or second draft.

I can faithfully say, advanced software does not make you any better or more efficient of a writer; only through reading, writing and practicing philosophy will you improve.

Now...we wait.

Is this the same thing as that rumor from a while back?  The article says it was published on the 30th of July

I tend to agree; if the adage of "United we stand, divided we fall" is true, then treating a community as just you, your lover and your kids is almost as divided as it gets; we're so disconnected from other people that some of us feel nothing when taking from another person, whether their personal belongings or their life.

Although, I'm not certain of what causes this division; I know fluoride calcifies the pineal gland, which is what you use to remain connected to reality (and thus leads to such conditions as autism), but I believe this division is also a problem in nations which do not fluoridate; it appears, the larger any community is (referring specifically to huge cities), the less people know one another, and crime tends to increase in those areas; in more rural areas, where businesses can actually remember the names of their customers, crime isn't nearly as common.  So what exactly causes the disconnect in larger communities?  I know people have a limit to how many other people they can remember, but I'm otherwise stumped on the matter.

The various wallet software/websites coupled with BitPay seem to do a fair job at anything PayPal could offer.

One less than before; all depends on what we think constitutes as a planet tomorrow, which I can't predict

Of course, in a thousand years, we'll look back at today and think, "Wow, what a bunch of idiots!"  But I don't believe there's anything wrong with acknowledging the accomplishments we've made from the last thousand years, so long as we understand there will never be an end to what we know.  The point was, if we stop and say, "Well, I don't know how this works or why, so I'll just say God did it", then we stagnate.  If we all did that from a thousand years ago until now, we would be in the same spot we were in a thousand years ago.


I'm trying to wrap my head around this; so nihilism, in the context of atheism, results from someone first questioning God, realizing their questioning was justified, and then making the decision to be entirely and coldly rational about everything, or selectively be rational about one thing, and then irrational about something else (like karma, or horoscopes)?

Though you are right--there is the "yet" factor, where we may prove his existence in the future--at this moment, because we have been unable to provide evidence of him to this date, he is, as of right now, non-existent.

The universe itself violates common sense; if we believe the universe has a beginning, we must believe the universe has an end.  If the universe had a beginning, what became before the universe?  What will come after the universe?  Does time stop?  Does it begin?  And if we're assuming the universe was born from a conscious being, does he live in an alternate universe?  Does it have a form?  Is it merely energy, without form or conscious, which we call God?

My point is, since we cannot know, we shouldn't automatically assume it must be God; cultures from the dawn of time, having failed to explain the various happenings around them, instead assigned them to higher beings.  Before the single God, most cultures had multiple gods, each of which was in charge of different things, such as the rain gods and the love gods and the god of wine and the god of war etc.  Religion, when viewed in this light, was the original science; it was a way to explain the inexplicable.  Who could blame them?--they did not have any foundation to understand why the sun rose and fell, why the sky had clouds and why they sometimes struck with violent flash and thunder.  It was all mystical, majestic, magical; without any prior knowledge to the scientific method (which did not come about until loooong after most modern religions were created), your only choice was to believe there was some higher power making these things happen.

But now we know more than we used to, and we know what causes the floods, what lightning is and what it can do, what causes tornadoes and volcanoes and earthquakes.  Still, to this day, when faced with what we do not or cannot know, we assign it to God; my belief is, if we do not know, we shouldn't be so quick to assume it's the work of God, but instead seek the answer to the questions we have.  We cannot answer a mystery with a mystery; we cannot say it's the work of God if we cannot explain the work of God, for that does not answer our initial question.

Actually, in the scientific method, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

To drive this point home, there is no evidence of a nation named Hooloocooloogooloo.  We might argue that, since there is no evidence of this nation existing, that doesn't necessarily mean a nation named that doesn't exist.  However, because we are aware of all the nations in the world, and know there aren't any other continents to be found on the planet, then the absence of evidence of the nation named Hooloocooloogooloo is the evidence of absence.

There might be; nothing is impossible.  But it's so highly unlikely, to say it doesn't exist is as close as you'll ever get to the truth; there may be no certainty, but it's beyond reasonable doubt.

Likewise, all evidence of God has proven either from shaky sources or religious testimony, but there is no hard evidence of Him.  He exists only in stories, whether in books or told by peers.  So, without any indication of there being a God, we can only assume He isn't there.  It's entirely possible He is, but as rational beings, we know better than to say there exists such a being without the ability to present hard evidence.  Nothing has ever not existed so much as God and the spaghetti monster; they're essentially the end-roads to something not existing: no evidence whatsoever.

Yes, you're not alone there; Bitcoin is a revolutionary technology, and much more than just a currency to speculate on.

Holliday got it right; atheism is a broad term that blankets any person who does not include any god in their beliefs.  Although we may believe anything, even something completely and utterly irrational, so long as those beliefs do not include god, it's still atheism.

I believe it's better to define atheism not as itself a belief, but more of a "who cares"; there's more important things to worry about than whether or not there's a God, such as what's on TV, or what I might eat for dinner tonight.  There cannot be an atheist without a theist, for if we have one and not the other, it's as strange as noticing that there's oxygen everywhere; we don't often think about the moments when there isn't.  Although it may be obvious that there's a stark contrast between theist and atheists today, there was a time when atheism was downright impossible to imagine, and I believe there will be a time in the future where upon learning that most people of today believed in mythological creatures, the future-people will draw long and odd glances.

However, I must disagree with you on the point of life; if the point of life is to change life, or to accomplish some unthinkable goal, then life is pointless, for our time here is limited, and we'll never be able to accomplish, and surely not alone, whatever end-game life has in store for us (I imagine that moment isn't going to be fun), nor would we even be around to see it.  If, on the other hand, we may view life solely to appease our sense of happiness, then the one who spends more of his time here happy is ultimately the winner in his own end.  If we're under the belief that nothing happens once we die, it is imperative to accomplish such a task while we're still aware we can accomplish it.

With this in mind, the person who believes in God and is also happy, is doing better than the person who does not believe in God and is unhappy; however, if it is true that God brings happiness, there would be no atheists.  So what brings happiness?  Is it the truth?--no, the truth, as we've examined in the various "smarter" folk on this planet, often makes people unhappier than those who are blissfully ignorant (and with good reason; who could be happy knowing what governments are doing to this world?)  If the truth does not bring happiness, then why do we seek it?  Perhaps, then, we are not naturally inclined to be happy, but naturally inclined to survive; it is at this point there is a disconnect between what makes an organism human and what makes him like any other creature on the planet, for if we are to assume human beings are just clusters of smaller organisms that occur over a stretch of time, powered by whatever other organisms it will consume, then surely life appears to not have a point; after all, the grass does not grow because it wants to, it is simply programmed to do so.

So if we look at life this way, through a cold and logical lens, we will never find a reason for it; it just is; it's not until we use what no other animal has that we can find meaning in it, for we are the only creatures who have the capacity to apply meaning.  But this, as you say, is where atheism ends; atheism applies to just one, singled-out idea.  I'm not sure if there is a word for belief in nothing; I believe nihilism would be appropriate.

They will most definitely be an issue; this is also why no exchange uses credit cards, the risk is just not worth the hassle.  The only secure way to move money from A to B is through a wire transfer, and those are slow and cost a higher fee than CC & PP combined.

And windows you can't throw a chair or brick through

Not gonna lie; I have no fucking clue what you're on about   But if that's the world you want, by God, go for it, kokjo.

I feel it's necessary to say, I'm not a gun-person.  In fact, I spend most of my free time writing, painting, on the piano and playing video games--and on this forum, too.  Simply because I know how to handle a weapon does not mean I actively go forth and seek people to shoot and kill; the last thing I ever want to happen to me is to be in a position to use a weapon against a person, but on the gigantic list of priorities I keep, being alive outranks not shooting my attacker.


That's ideal.  But murderers aren't necessarily the brightest bunch, otherwise they'd figure out how to take from you without having to kill you (unless it's your life they want, in which case, good luck either way.)  And no, I'd rather not shoot a person unless I have to, but I'm not going to wait until the moment after I'll say, "Damn, I should've shot earlier!"  Lets just agree that you not enter my home uninvited, and I'll not enter yours; do you not prefer peace over violence?  The gun is just a promise of violence if violence is used against me; as mdude points out, the more this promise is made, the less violence ensues.  The less this promise is made, the easier it is for violence to happen; nobody wants to attack the armed man, but the criminal flocks to a disarmed people.