I agree. I think church is wrong in how they handle the topic of sex, especially the Catholic church it seems which almost seems to revere those who are celibate or don't have sex at all (such as priests and nuns.) The Church likes to add things to scripture and that is where alot of the problems come from and hence why it is important to read the Bible for ourselves so we can know what is just traditions and what is really the truth.
But the church uses those same scriptures to defend their position. They don't write anything extra into the margiins. So, how do we, as outsiders, believe you over the word of the church? Or the word of one church over the many other denominations? You see the dillema here? You claim one thing, others claim another. Ask every Christian, Jew, or Muslim, and they will give you a different answer. The easiest conclusion to come to is "none of them actually know the answer." |
|
|
|
I just think the cultures in those days was more vicious and warlike. There were tribes of people that were very heartless, like the Vikings lets say, and they were out to kill all other people groups without any concern for them. Perhaps God knew that their hearts were corrupt and allowed for war? That is just one example.
Hey, don't be dissing on Norway and Iceland. When the Viikinds "discovered" America, they didn't really mess with the natives too much, and didn't try to conquer or exploit them. Well, they did once, but got their asses handed to them. When the godly Christian Columbus and his men "discovered" America, they exploited, mutilated, and killed the natives, and ended up turning them into slaves. Hell, Columbus and company were responsible for wiping out something like 95% of the native population in America, thanks to bringing their diseases here. Why would god allow for such an enormous swath of his people to just die out needlessly? (I'm sure some would say it's to clear the land of the godless heathens, so that the good christian folk can settle it, but if some said that, I'd have to slap them) Seems to me like the wise thing to do in your case is to have a brutally honest discussion with God. Tell Him directly why you don't think he is fair. Tell Him why you don't think He is real. He can handle it. You might just be surprised how He answers you.
Would you be surprised if someone did that, and told you they got no response? Or would you chuck that up to some excuse like "you didn't believe, or were sincere, enough?" |
|
|
|
even sex was a gift from God.
I thought sex, and the subsequent reproduction and childbirth, was a punishment from god for the original sin? If it was a gift, why would so many churches throughout history be so condemning of it? |
|
|
|
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.
I'm not sure how that follows. Atheists are writed to to avoid pain and stimulate pleasure centers, those things are directly influenced by their actions, which just happen to correlate with "good" and "bad"" (or, more correctly, opinions of what's good and what's bad are based on those stimulations), and thus atheists want good things to happen, simply because the are wired like that. Why does faith have to enter into this? |
|
|
|
Hey guys. So, our stash is up to $30k now (yay). Of the 5 charities I was personally introduced to, one is still working on it (I guess?) and the other one, after staying quiet for weeks, just wrote me an email saying they are very enthusiastic about getting the donation, and asking what more they have to do (accepting bitcoin would be a good start  ). So... I guess keep soliciting? I swear, I'll never be rid of this damn stash of cash  Anyway, just got a PM on the topic Hello, My name is Nikos Bentenitis and last Saturday I heard Jason King talk in the Bitcoin mini symposium here in Austin. He mentioned Bitcoin100 and although I was familiar with the organization for the first time I put 2+2 together and I realized there is a non-profit in my neighborhood that would greatly benefit from Bitcoin. The non-profit is Eqsquina Tango, that builds community through dance, see www.EsquinaTangoAustin.com. Monica Caivano, the director of the non-profit, is very interested and wants to start accepting Bitcoins right away... I was wondering what the procedure for nominating Esquina Tango. Thank you very much, Nikos Bentenitis www.linkedin.com/in/nikosbentenitisnikos.bentenitis@gmail.com512-524-7791 To reply to the question here, the procedure is basically to bring it up for discussion. If it's non-religious and non-political in nature, it'll pretty much be accepted. In that case, just get them to add a bitcoin donation option on their website, and let us know when it's ready (I would suggest BitPay or BIPS, depending on where they are and what currency they use). |
|
|
|
charity is a must. i would say that it is a major component of this event.
(here's where I get branded as a coldhearted sonofabitch. c'est la guerre) I disagree. Vehemently. I have no problem in celebrating those at the event who donate, and perhaps even make fundraising a big part of the activities. But out of the proceeds of the attendance fees? No way. What you feel is a worthwhile charity may be opposed to some of my principles, and vice-versa. We have funds for a celebration, and funds for worthy causes. Why the heck would you commingle these funds? There is no good reason to. As a Bitcoin100 dude, I agree wholeheartedly. It's difficult to pick something that will satisfy everyone. Also, I may be a tad biased, because bitcoin reaching $1,000 will be entirely our (bitcoin participant's) doing, not the charities, and charities have actually been rather reluctant to accept it. We are STILL having trouble giving money away |
|
|
|
Don't mean to tamp down on the enthusiasm but it may be extremely early to get into this planning.
Oh ye of little faith.  I see what you did there!  |
|
|
|
Does anyone have the table for all addresses that have a balance, grouped similarly as here?
Someone posted in august a list of all addresses with balance. I saved a copy and can easily aggregate the balances in log buckets. Would that be ok for your purposes considering that it's 2.5 months old? This may be somewhat useless for this, as active wealthy bitcoin holders split up their holdings into lots of smaller parts, so as not to reveal their learge wealth moving around whenever they want to buy something. |
|
|
|
But although surprising, it seems that with our remaining stash of BTC1,000 we both fit into Bitcoin top-1000 Our remaining stash? How do you come to conclusion that I have a BTC1,000 stash? |
|
|
|
Well, others argue the other way round: Freedom and capitalism is a contradiction. Why? Because of the acquisition of property (especially land) leads to inequalities, especially over generations.
What's the difference between a land owner and a state really.
Eventually, someone owning a lot of land will find people needing to live on his land because they'll starve anywhere else. So he rents his land out to those people. Thus, these people will have to pay him rent just to exist. How is this "freedom" anymore? How is it not conceivable that this would lead to different classes of people?
And this land owner in most cases didn't even earn it through hard work, but rather through inheritance over generations. To prevent unrest, his ancestors probably invented things like religion to pacify the plebs, and to justify their rule "by the grace of God". Later, in the more educated phase of history, of course "democracy" was invented for the same purpose, to pacify the plebs.
How would those landowners passify the plebs if democracy was no longet an option, I wonder? |
|
|
|
no i bet my life on it.
Will you literally do that once that is an option? |
|
|
|
If someone kills someone then the justice for that crime would be death. If someone else then came along and offered to stand in for the crime then justice would be served.
Do you actually believe this? Let's say your next door neighbor killed you mom or your child. Would you be ok with someone else taking the death penalty for him, while your neighbor continued to live right next to you, "exhonorated" from his deeds? This "scapegoating" phenomenon that came out of that time never really made sense to me. I get that. Would someone dying because they murdered solve the problem? Then two people are dead. But if there was no penalty for crimes then people would just continue to murder so there needs to be some payment for it. Then the question bbecomes, how is someone else duying in his stead a "penalty" for the murderer? And doesn't that make everyone who kills the person in the murdered's stead murderers themselves? They would be killing an innocent person, regardless if it was as a pennance for someone else's sin/crime. Are you of the notion that there should be no price paid for crimes committed?
Of course not. I'm of the notion that whoever dealt it, smelt i.. I mean should take the blame and responsibility for it. That's the only fair way of handling it, and the only real way of preventing them from doing it again. Can you imagine if others can be "sacraficed" to attone for a murdere's sin? If I was a murderer with the intent to kill, that would mean I could be TWICE as productive, simply by killing one person and having another one killed for me every time! I would think a true atheist view point would be a "survival of the fittest" mentality so morality is more of a cultural thing and the consequences are a result of what society says should be the penalty for crime instead of a moral code that goes above what the society says is "right and wrong."
Actually, if you're thinking "biology" and "evolution," it's more of a survival of the species, not of the individuals. Survival of the fittest doesn't work if it's just within the species itself. You'd end up with barely anyone left to reproduce. So atheists fully recognize that we as humans survive as a social species, with social responsibilities and such. That whole golden rule thing still applies. But since we can't rely on god's word as absolute, we have to figure out what is moral from our own more logical perspective. That's where weird things like Non-Aggression Principle, Gay rights, and Women's rights comes from (despite society and religion often fighting very hard against it because of their scripture) |
|
|
|
Healthcare is simply viewed differently here, it is the third emergency service alongside the police and fire service.
Sorry for bit off-topic, but reading this, while reading some other stuff I'm researching, I wonder if eventually Europe will have to add a fourth emergency service that deals with grey goo or nanomachine outbreaks, and a fifth one that deals with 3D micro-printed designer viruses. Maybe even a sixths one that deals with relativity and physics related issues, such as from some dumb kid accidentally creating a black hole or some dangerous time dialation event... |
|
|
|
Don't mean to tamp down on the enthusiasm but it may be extremely early to get into this planning. I suspect that bitcoin will have at least one or two bubbles (current rise included) before we reach $1,000, with each drop feeling like a lot of sad disappointment. Plus if we get all hyped up for this right now, we may be a bit tired of this when it actually happens a year or two from now. 6 months is an EXTREMELY long time in bitcoin time (6 months ago we were just hitting the Cyprus peak). Imagine what it will be like in a year. People will be going, "Oh... that party thing is still being planned? That idea felt like it formed YEARS ago... " |
|
|
|
FYI, I sold a bit over BTC1,000, a lot of it as cash through localbitcoins.com, back when they were $22 |
|
|
|
If someone kills someone then the justice for that crime would be death. If someone else then came along and offered to stand in for the crime then justice would be served.
Do you actually believe this? Let's say your next door neighbor killed you mom or your child. Would you be ok with someone else taking the death penalty for him, while your neighbor continued to live right next to you, "exhonorated" from his deeds? This "scapegoating" phenomenon that came out of that time never really made sense to me. Regardless, Jesus came to be the ultimate sacrifice for us so that animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.
That's not regardless, that still implies that at one point they were necessary. And it really seems silly now. (and that's the nicest way I can put it) We have the choice to thank Him for that and accept the payment for our sins or we can reject or ignore Him.
Or we can just agree that murdering people and animals as an offering or for scapegoating was just a stupid idea to begin with, regardless of who came up with it. Now, if God was actually coming down to earth for burgers every couple of months, then yeah, I'd understand. |
|
|
|
The Romans were MUCH further developed in their reasoning given their environment, tools, and timing. Jesus came about after the empire fell. When we hit the dark ages. When illiteracy was rampent. When reason couldn't flourish.
I think your time may be a bit off. Jesus was around during the Roman Empire. It fell about 300 or 400 years later, just because empires fall, but the subsequent fallout, combined with extreme religiosity and fanaticism of the new religion's followers (that being Christianity) was what brought on the Dark Ages. Would we have had the Dark Ages without Christianity? I don't know. We may have reverted to some other form of mysticism. But Christianity definitely didn't make things any better. |
|
|
|
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.
I am very much like that. But I get fidgety, because there is so much to so, read, learn, and explore in the world, and so little time to do everything. So to me, just "being" sounds really lazy |
|
|
|
Yes, but when are you going to stop asking why and start affirming some beliefs?
That will happen when I start to think that I know everything there is to know about something, and that I don't want to bother learning anything new about it, regardless of what new information someone else may come up with. So... Probably never. |
|
|
|
Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice for our sins so the animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore thankfully!
Why would animal sacrifices ever be necessary? At what point in time is paying tribute in someone/something else's blood is OK? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
