Blockchain website =/= Blockchain ledger

The actual transaction history is fine.

The only other person in this thread to joke about my posts is BADecker.  I'd reflect on that.

If you don't like blacks living in America, there's nothing stopping you from going someplace where you'd feel more comfortable.  I'd even help crowdfund your ticket.  I'm sure plenty of whites would support the endeavor.

Lol BD, all this cause-and-effect rhetoric, and you cant even effect a conclusion that follows from your premises. 

The posterchild for reason who refuses to support an argument without succumbing to the use of the lowest forms of argument.  Ironic.   

Free will vs. determinism is a false dichotomy.  Compatibilism is a 3rd option, modeled as self-determinancy, and in which freedom and determinism exist simultaneously in perfect counterbalance.

Objective reality exists in relation to subjectivism.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and all rational statements are made meaningful through a subject-object relationship, or 'ratio.'  This is evident, for example, just by looking at our language.  Imagine I write a sentence, "Apple." Okay...apple what?  An apple is an object, but stating "apple" alone is entirely meaningless and does not convey any sort of a rational thought.  Now, if I instead say "this apple (subject) is red (objective classifier)," then the objective apple is subjectivized and ascribed with an objective classifier of 'redness.'  No meaningful objective reality of any kind exists independent of co-dependence with subjectivism.

So, the cat is real at any time it is subjectivized as real (including by itself).  Objective reality always has a subjective component.  This is inescapable.

I'd like to weigh in, here:

What is "reality" or "real" is inherently linked to a theory of what "real" is.  For example, if I say "this apple is real," this constitutes a theory of the apple inasmuch as it is theorized to be real.  In this case, because we could not identify the apple without our perceptions to verify its existence, the "realness" of the apple is linked to perception.  This can be said of any identfiable, "real" phenomenon -- i.e. what is "real" is a theory of something based upon how it is perceived.

Exhibit A:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg11715833#msg11715833

I know it was satire.  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were actually making a thoughtful contribution underneath it.  I also continue to assume you and I have something in common in that we appreciate the merit of sound ideas. You're calling that assumption into question.  As you continue to demonstrate, being an atheist apparently doesn't mean you won't be a complete jerk, let alone give proper respect to someone who takes the time to give you said benefit of the doubt and make a thoughtful response to engage you in meaningful conversation simply because you have a different opinion.  Case in point, you've made at least three foot-in-mouth posts to me in this thread wherein you were sharply corrected with respectable academic references (i.e. by your more educated peers), and it's become clear that you aren't as open to sound ideas, or academic progress (or, you know...the dictionary) as you purport.  It doesn't suit your best interest to be continually arrogant when you're running out of feet (or have a small mouth).

How is the general result any different from someone freely and non-dogmatically coming to the conclusion that their children should also be raised freely and non-dogmatically, as you would advocate?  (The point is that your disposition is generally no different, wherein you deem your own thinking about this matter to be 'more correct' based only upon your free-thinking opinion, just as any free-thinking "theistard" does.)

Basically, welcome to the club of opinions.  You and the free-thinking "theistards" have something in common, after all.

What if the result of raising your children to be free of dogma and giving them the freedom to make up their own minds is that they end up coming to the conclusion that there is an absolutely correct way of thinking/behaving, and that they decide it is necessary to teach this to their own children? 

Lol do you know how many times in the past you have criticized atheists for abusing their free will to ignore God?  You have the memory of a zygote.

Some ideas by notable sources that you would deem crazy:

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


There is both observational and logical falsification.


The validity of science cannot be inferred from itself.  That empirical falsification exists in the first place is due to this understanding (not yours, unfortunately).


What mathematics finds true is totally independent from observation.  Einstein agrees.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Abstraction/reason and truth are linked.


Logical principles are our fundamental basis for sound rationale, because we believe in the soundness of logic, and which are not dependent upon our observations of the uniformity of nature.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/


Yes, purely abstract "necessary truths" exist.


So much for a purely Empirical worldview.


Our knowledge of logical principles a prior gives plausibility to metaphysical claims.


That's what I've been doing for at least several dozen posts now.  Other atheists in this thread have certainly entertained their plausibility.  You can't even respond intelligently to them.

Do you have any idea how many countless millions of academics, including scientists, do not ascribe to a purely empirical worldview?  By your beliefs, every single meta-physicist and quantum scientist is bat-shit crazy -- there has never been a single shred of empirical evidence for either field.  They do absolutely nothing different than what I'm doing, i.e. using logic and mathematics to make abstract models that attempt to coincide with a classical understanding of our reality.

Lol trust me, they're not.  I've had more than enough acknowledgement from atheists in this thread.  You, on the other hand, have continually demonstrated a lack of capacity to formulate any kind of direct rebuttal.

Lol.  Yeah, dude.  Whenever you're ready to actually point out where and why I'm wrong, by all means, go for it

*Sigh*...really?

Okay, I'm going to keep focusing on one specific point -- one that you continually ignore and have not addressed even once, despite my repetition of it -- until you get it.  It's a point that's not in any way novel on my behalf, one that is accepted in academia, and one for which I can provide literally dozens of credible references for.  It's a critically important point, because you are forever a hypocrite until you acknowledge it.

Disclaimer:  This is going to sound patronizing, but it's not intended to be -- I'm just going to break it down as much as possible until you get it.  To your credit, the point is easily overlooked because of the ad populum opinion that scientific reasoning is the only kind that matters -- but it isn't.  It focuses specifically on the reasoning behind scientific reasoning.

Okay, here we go:

First, I'll start with a couple assumptions I have about your point of view based upon what you've said:

1) You believe only observable things are worth believing in, else it's some form of superstition.
2) You believe that empirical reasoning is the highest standard of (cognitive) knowledge.

Second, now that we have that out of the way, let's lay out a few of my own claims:

1) I know that some abstract things, which are not observable by definition, are worth believing in.  For example, a thought is not observable; a mathematical law is not observable; etc.
2) I know logical reasoning is the highest standard of (cognitive) knowledge.  For now, I'll just concentrate on showing you that it's a higher standard of knowledge than empirical knowledge.

Now, it's clarification time.  Empiricism is an abstract theory:


All theories adhere not to physical structure, but to an abstract mathematical/logical structure.  There is zero physical evidence to validate Empiricism.  In other words, you are believing in a theory yourself with absolutely zero physical evidence to support that theory.  The reason that Empiricism works is because of purely philosophical reasoning.  

Specifically, we defer to Philosophy and say, "Okay, if we want to objectively describe objects in terms of each other, then we must assume that observation has zero physical effect on objective reality.  So, we will simply control for participant observation and set an assumption that an observer causes no effect on physical phenomena."

This assumption has zero empirical basis, and is empirically unfalsifiable.  To empirically falsify this assumption would require that you collect empirical data, i.e. data collected via observation, in a world totally void of any and all observers.  Obviously, this leads to an irreconcilable contradiction, as it is impossible to observe something if the rule is there cannot be any observers to begin with.

So, taking your perspective, I can simply say, "Oh, look how irrational you are!  You believe in something imaginary!  You believe that observation has no effect on physical phenomena, but there's not a single shred of evidence anywhere to support this belief!"

And surely, you would refute this, claiming something to the effect of, "Dude, obviously Empiricism works.  Look at the technological advances we've made, and look how much knowledge and understanding we've gained of certain natural processes."

But what your explanation wouldn't include -- because you lack understanding of it -- is that, again, it works because of an underlying, purely philosophical validation.  That is, Empiricism "works" because we can simply rely upon inductive reasoning as a result of the limitation we have set (again, that limitation is imposed by simply assuming that observer participation has no effect on objective reality).

This makes you a hypocrite.  You are perfectly content believing in an invisible assumption for which there is no evidence.  It is purely abstract, empirically unfalsifiable, and the burden of proof entails deference to -- not evidence, but -- a purely logical argument.  And would ya look at that?!  Something "invisible" has been validated by -- you guessed it! -- logic.

In other words, you are willing to make a complete and total departure from science in order to validate Empiricism.  If you are willing to do such a thing (and you must in order to maintain your belief in its validity, whether you acknowledge it or not), then you are a hypocrite if you maintain that one cannot make a total departure from science in order to validate some other "imaginary" theory.

What matters is if the logical validation is sound.  Period.

Edit:  Here is your claim in the form of a deductive argument:

Premise 1: God is invisible, and therefore has no physical evidence.
Premise 2: If there is no physical evidence for something, it's stupid to believe in it.
Therefore:  It is stupid to believe in God.

Now, referring to Empiricism

Premise 1: The theory of Empiricism, and its underlying assumptions, are invisible, and therefore have no physical evidence.
Premise 2: If there is no physical evidence for something, it's stupid to believe in it.
Therefore:  It is stupid to believe in the theory of Empiricism, and its underlying assumptions.

 

Let me ask you a serious question: does it really sound like I'm just pulling all of this out of my you-know-what?

1) How do you confuse "superstitious" with a belief in something due to logical necessity?

2a) I acknowledge I'm religious to the extent that I believe ID is the mechanism by which realty self-creates (because it is logically necessary).  I make exact zero assumptions in formulating my belief.  Yes, I know what assumptions are.

2b) I already explained you how the burden of proof differs between an empirical claim and a logical claim, and also provided differences between respective falsification methods.  If you can logically falsify my claim, go for it.  Contrarily, I have absolute, tautological proof.  If something is logically necessary, what sane person wouldn't believe in it (assuming they are aware of the proof, e.g. if someone has spent ~13 years and committed multiple thousands of hours intensely exploring the subject matter)? 

2c)  The burden of proof for a belief in God is the same standard as a burden of proof for belief in the validity of Empirical exploration, i.e. it is a logical one.  There is exactly zero empirical evidence which validates empirical science; it is entirely validated through sound philosophical reasoning.  Whereas you seem unable to recognize that you must defer to purely abstract reasoning to validate its use, I do, and furthermore I recognize that the same type of philosophical reasoning can soundly be applied to rationalize about truth in general.  You can scream and shout all you want and think that a lack of empirical evidence is a good reason to not believe in ID; it isn't, provably.  This isn't even novel information.  See Hume.

I remind you again that I used to be an atheist.  It's a logically untenable position, and most atheists get stuck at the invalid assumption, "...But there's no physical evidence!"  Yeah, I was stuck there for years...until I understood why it's invalid.  Now, further regarding 'burden of proof,' if you want to make the argument that my burden is that I must present something physical and that logical proof doesn't count, then I'm going to call you simply uneducated on the subject, encourage you to learn more about the relationship between Philosophy and Empiricism, and come back when you concede logical proof is the highest standard for knowledge.  That point isn't up for debate.

Yes, He exists, and His existence is dual in nature.  On one hand, He exists as an absolute monistic entity; on the other hand, He simultaneously exists in terms of stratified constituents of His monistic self.  We are such stratified constituents, and we, too, are intelligent designers.  This serves to explain the claim that "God made man in His image."  We are isomorphic to God, at an infinitely smaller scale.

Uh, "my Bible?"  Who said I was a Christian?  Other than coming to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is the mechanism by which reality self-creates, I'm not even religious.  I was raised Catholic and slept on the pews.  Religious dogma gets in the way of sound logic.  I defer to no holy book, ever -- only the rules of logic.  I care about what is true first and foremost.  I have no problem conceding to a superior argument, which is precisely why I believe in Intelligent Design.  I was atheistic for quite a while until I found it's untenable.

I don't even start with a presupposition that God exists, let alone what He is.  I instead remove topological constraints from our understanding of reality to determine its roots, i.e. a foundation or limit of theorization that is impossible to penetrate, and then see what this limit implies as it relates categorically to objective reality.  It just happens to be that these roots implicate Intelligent Design by logical necessity, and there's no way around it.  In fact, it's impossible to get around it because any attempt to do so a priori reinforces Intelligent Design.  It's tautological.