I'm saying it's a leap of faith if you believe the Universe is inherently meaningless.  Saying it's meaningless but then giving your own desires and sufferings any significance is just a non-sequitur. There can be no logical justification for anything in a meaningless Universe.  If you assert that set x is meaningless and set x contains set y, set y is therefore also meaningless.  You should have no business talking about what's good or bad for you in a meaningless Universe.  

Saying you 'just happen' to be wired a certain way is like saying it 'just happens' that everything in the Universe adheres to mathematical laws...as if it were some kind of fluke.  Given that mathematical laws are meaningful, it's self-evidently the opposite.

Um, lots of places.

An education.

School?

Edit:  You lose.

Freedom for all to control their money as they see fit > redistribution

Do you like being dumb?

Of all the arguments you could've possibly chosen to discredit Bitcoin, you selected, "You can make money, but don't expect a 100,000% return on your investment?"

 

Hey fleabag, nice post history.  Not sure why you're so bitter, though... 

I don't believe the Universe is devoid of meaning.

I've bolded one of his primary assumptions, and this is generally a key atheist assumption in general.  The Universe is viewed as chaotic and devoid of all meaning outside of our individual opinions, and this is because it is assumed there is no god or Universal consciousness that self-evidently makes everything meaningful.  He has simply chosen to be consistent based upon his assumption in concluding that his survival is meaningless.  If you believe his assumption, you would also reach the same conclusion.

There's nothing at all wrong with wanting to survive.  But if you really think the Universe is inherently meaningless, then you must realize your assumption leads to the conclusion that there's no logical reason why it's better for you or for anything else to survive.  There's no logical reason to do 'good' things for yourself or anyone else, and there's no reason why it wouldn't be just fine to kill yourself.  Under this view, there is no such thing as objective morality, and thus no objective good and bad.  It's all about opinions and that's all it ever could be about.  The fact that you're "wired" to avoid pain doesn't imply it's good to do so. 

The fact that atheists still, on the whole, want good things to happen to themselves and to other people is an often-overlooked leap of faith.  Specifically, it's having faith that 'goodness' not only exists, but that it perpetuates itself.  But again, carrying the assumption that the Universe is inherently meaningless, there's no logical reason to want good things to happen to yourself or others.

lol

1)  Basically, yes.  The nature of the self is what underlies our practical conception of it, and this includes its relationships with other, stratified selves and the 'network' of non-stratified, global consciousness.  The stratified "selves" occupy various swathes of spacetime.  You would be one of those 'selves' at this moment, and another 'self' at this moment, and another at this moment, and another at...you get the idea.

2)  I think so too.

3)  Not at all.  I've said many times on this forum "ratio is the root word of rationale" and it applies here as well.  More perspective gives you better information and knowledge, but it's important that this 'truth of knowledge' so to speak is distributed to...well...multiple perspectives.  For example, in trying to describe reality, you could look at a set of empirical data and formulate a series of valid hypotheses about it.  These valid hypotheses will give you more perspective into your data than if you had only one valid hypothesis.  However, there are other ways to hypothesize and theorize about reality that aren't empirical but are completely valid.  Knowledge of this 'ratio' of valid approaches gives you perspective into the limitations of each one.  After exploring discipline after discipline for valid approaches to valid hypotheses and theories about reality, you might come to the conclusion that in order to minimize the overextension of concepts that occurs when arguing against one discipline while taking stakehold in another, you not only need to speak from the 'discpline of all discplines' (as it turns out, this is language itself, and philosophy is its closest academic relative), but you need to talk about it in a language whose rules supersede those of all other languages, or in what Christopher Langan calls a 'metalanguage.'

4) I overextend concepts like crazy, but less so when I stay particularly mindful about my language, such as in these conversations.  Invariably, it still happens quite often, mostly because I'm still refining my ideas (it's taken me about 12 years to get this far; literally thousands of hours of researching, hypothesizing, mathematical modeling, analysis, and meditation), because it's habit, and because I haven't completely mapped the boundary between 'typical' language and the metalanguage.

The "being" is with you always, and if you quiet your mind down you'll experience it more fully.  It's non-empirical because it isn't anything you observe, and to that extent it isn't a thing.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult than placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of a specific discipline.  For example, we might see a white guy rob a black guy on the street and a social worker may explain it in the context of "oppression" or "social injustice" while a neuroscientist might explain it in the context of "neurochemicals and electrical signals."  The problem with this is that all of a sudden you have concepts being overextended and being applied to things where they have no business being applied to (e.g. I'm dating my girlfriend because of "neurochemicals and electrical signals"...or maybe it's because I just fucking want to).  People get away with being careless when theorizing from these disciplines specifically because the overextension of these concepts often goes ignored, undetected, or unchallenged.

I didn't say that there are only two "things" in the Universe, I'm saying that when it comes to isolated, conditional phenomena, that phenomena is arbitrary to the extent that there are many, perhaps even an infinite number of possible and valid explanations for that phenomena depending upon the context you place it in.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult, but it's fun because that's when you get to resolve paradoxes.

To take the middle ground, I think it's important to recognize both perspectives.

Is there "arbitrary phenomena"?  Yes.  What happens when people study isolated, arbitrary phenomena?  You get arguments for and arguments against some position.

Is there some absolute truth that supersedes arbitrary phenomena?  Yes.

Is there something we can lean from this?  Yes.  Definitely.  And it can lend itself to utility. 

Personally, I treat arbitrary phenomena practically.  I use inference as anyone else to make decisions on the fly and to navigate the world.

But when I get home, I reflect upon everything.  In recognizing isolated phenomena as arbitrary, it simply makes it easier to go with the flow of things, to enjoy the uncertainty and unpredictability in life, and to remember that if I'm having a shitty day, it was only due to some arbitrary phenomena that has come and gone, or will go.  But, I also remember that there is an absolute truth that is anything but arbitrary, and this is where I build my foundation.  If I build my foundation upon conditional phenomena, then that foundation is going to be weak because it too will be conditional.  If I build my foundation upon absolute truth, then I will be stronger, tougher, and more capable of dealing with the bullshit that comes and goes in life.

There is benefit in recognizing that, as dank said, things just "are" is that, if you recognize this enough, you will become much more relaxed and comfortable and satisfied with life. 

Ever sit in a room without a friend or family member to talk to?  Without radio, without tv, without the Internet, without a book, without food or water...without any distraction at all.  What happens?  Well, you probably start to get fidgety and bored and you wish you had some distraction nearby to remove the monotony.

But...wtf?  Why is virtually every person a walking ADD case without distractions?  Why can't the vast majority of people just be with themselves and be content with that? 
Well, if your focus is on arbitrary, conditional phenomena and you think that's all reality has to offer, then it makes sense that you would seek comfort through distraction.

On the other hand, if you shift your focus to the ever-present 'being' of existence, then you can become content and satisfied simply 'being'.  The utility this provides is limitless.

Some notes to remember about Bitcoin.

1) It's a different market, and the world hasn't seen one like it as far as I'm aware.  Thus, to make the assumption that you can analyze or predict the economy based upon effective market analysis tactics in the same way that you would analyze fiat currencies or the gold markets isn't necessarily true.

2) If you do some research about Bitcoin and simply look at the math behind it, mass adoption of Bitcoin would likely necessitate the formation of what would appear to be some of the most gargantuan bubbles ever seen.  Hell, even an influx of only 1% of the worlds GDP over the course of a few years would create a 'bubble' so large that our heads would be spinning in euphoric delirium.

3) New systems, let alone economic ones, are prone to mass instability/volatility.  They have to be, and this is an inevitable result between the ratio in size between the smaller system and the larger system(s) in which it is nested, and with which it receives and relays its inputs and outputs.  As systems grow and become more balanced, the effects of "extreme cases" (in Bitcoin, these are your whales and your 'manipulators') are minimized.

TL;DR:  If you've been around this market for more than a year or two, $20-$30 swings in a day isn't very shocking...you just take this into account when safeguarding your assets.

Yep, and that lack of knowledge is frightening to me if they're using Bitcoin in spite of their fear.  Rather, I'm scared for them.

6) Statements made from people who know little to nothing about Bitcoin about why a particular element of Bitcoin or its community is "frightening."