Wealth is the ability to test new things.
That is true.However when you are rich , you are surrounded with people who want to abuse you or potential to abuse you.
And when you work you have millions of things in mind but when yo have the chance you sometimes prefer to stay at home and watch TV.
It depends on the people you keep around you. Getting rich with a low level of awareness allows for selfish or jealous people around you to influence you. A lot of poor people that win the lottery end up either less happy than before or broke from mismanagement of money. |
|
|
|
Christians aren't supposed to believe in reincarnation. I don't. My child, I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention to Teacher. Once again: Belief is not a choice. It's a compulsion beyond the realm of choice, based on observation/evidence; in science argument and consensus.
Desirability is not a requisite of the truth. I do not choose what I believe because I perceive it as the more attraction option. I'm compelled to believe what I think is true, whether I like it or not!
The truth does not require your approval. It simply is. I don't know of any religions that states that suicide is a good thing. It's murder (of oneself), and so it's a sin for Christians. Religion is how the power elite controlled the peasants for many generations before the Nation State took over that role. Fear is a prison for your mind. This tragic fear of divine retribution would likely prevent you from committing the self-mercy of suicide even if you were enduring days or week of torture. Not months, though, and certainly not years. Pain is an inexhaustible resource, just like pleasure. Under those circumstances, sooner or later your superstition would break, unable to bear the weight of such suffering. Eventually you'd come to your senses and end it. Deep down you know this to be true. "My child?" Wow, how pretentious can you get? You said you're a "psych major." What are you? Late teens? Early 20's? Bold, bold statements for a student to say... Equally as pretentious as the man in the church referred to as "father" who is not your father? I can't speak on Beliathon's behalf, but it looks to me like a joke, that has been taken very seriously  Another point for Buddhism, the only religion that has a sense of humour It isn't Buddhism that has the sense of humor. It's the Buddhists, 'cause they realize what a joke religion is. That's because they haven't encountered the pure sense that Christianity makes. It is Buddhism that allows a sense of humour, whether or not the followers have a sense of humour or not. So are you saying if a Buddhist encounters Christianity that they would lose their sense of humour? |
|
|
|
Christians aren't supposed to believe in reincarnation. I don't. My child, I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention to Teacher. Once again: Belief is not a choice. It's a compulsion beyond the realm of choice, based on observation/evidence; in science argument and consensus.
Desirability is not a requisite of the truth. I do not choose what I believe because I perceive it as the more attraction option. I'm compelled to believe what I think is true, whether I like it or not!
The truth does not require your approval. It simply is. I don't know of any religions that states that suicide is a good thing. It's murder (of oneself), and so it's a sin for Christians. Religion is how the power elite controlled the peasants for many generations before the Nation State took over that role. Fear is a prison for your mind. This tragic fear of divine retribution would likely prevent you from committing the self-mercy of suicide even if you were enduring days or week of torture. Not months, though, and certainly not years. Pain is an inexhaustible resource, just like pleasure. Under those circumstances, sooner or later your superstition would break, unable to bear the weight of such suffering. Eventually you'd come to your senses and end it. Deep down you know this to be true. "My child?" Wow, how pretentious can you get? You said you're a "psych major." What are you? Late teens? Early 20's? Bold, bold statements for a student to say... Equally as pretentious as the man in the church referred to as "father" who is not your father? I can't speak on Beliathon's behalf, but it looks to me like a joke, that has been taken very seriously Another point for Buddhism, the only religion that has a sense of humour 1) Exclusive from all else, it was exceedingly pretentious. Have you read the dude's posts? It wasn't a joke. 2) What man in the church? Neither the pope (the supposed vicar of Christ) nor Jesus claimed to be the Father. Do you mean God? This is just nitpicking. "Father" in such a context just refers to the thing we came from. Logical reductionism soundly leads to the necessity of a single "source" of everything. Given monistic reductionism, do you really take issue with such a metaphorical issue aside from the trivial fact that the "source" doesn't look like your dad or have a penis? For his 2nd point: He means Priest. You're supposed to call him "father (real name)" when speaking with them. That's also just Catholicism. Yet Christians do refer to strangers even, as brothers and sisters in Christ, because we are all God's children. But that's not a pretentious pronoun.... Thanks. I didn't think it was that vague, but as MakingMoneyHoney pointed out, I was referring to the priest. It was pretentious, but I think that is what the joke was |
|
|
|
|
The form of currency used isn't the main factor for taxation. Also, you'd still be responsible for paying taxes if you use bitcoin. Sure it may be more difficult to track, but it would be tax evasion, and if you were to be audited, you'd be caught.
When the majority of people demand lower tax, and the balancing cuts to government spending, it will happen. It's as simple as a politician proposing tax cuts and over 50% of the population voting him or her into power. As it stands right now, if a politician were to do that, he or she would likely not be elected because they wouldn't get majority votes. Especially with an aging population, more and more votes will go to those that propose social welfare and benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting thread and question.
Bitcoin goes against centralized banks, which most people have been conditioned to trust at the moment. So until the people demand decentralization, which will require the average person to have decent awareness of the monetary system, it won't happen. I think the likelihood of that happening is also very low.
I think it will be a good alternative currency, but likely not the global currency.
As for which fiat currency will win...really not sure. It will be interesting to see how the decline of the USD plays out...it will really shake up the whole world, so I think it will remain the global currency supported by limitless debt and an ignorant population.
|
|
|
|
Today it's obvious you can't make 1 btc easily, but if the question is retroactive, aka in the old days, it took me under a minute to
get 5 btc from bitcoin faucet. Now if only we could turn back time..
cheers
Ha ha I wish I knew about Bitcoin then. This is honestly my biggest regret! 5 BTCs from the faucet!! Man, this sounds unreal! What year was this? Was it just a matter of solving a captcha to receive 5 bitcoin, similar to faucets these days giving a few hundred satoshi? |
|
|
|
Christians aren't supposed to believe in reincarnation. I don't. My child, I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention to Teacher. Once again: Belief is not a choice. It's a compulsion beyond the realm of choice, based on observation/evidence; in science argument and consensus.
Desirability is not a requisite of the truth. I do not choose what I believe because I perceive it as the more attraction option. I'm compelled to believe what I think is true, whether I like it or not!
The truth does not require your approval. It simply is. I don't know of any religions that states that suicide is a good thing. It's murder (of oneself), and so it's a sin for Christians. Religion is how the power elite controlled the peasants for many generations before the Nation State took over that role. Fear is a prison for your mind. This tragic fear of divine retribution would likely prevent you from committing the self-mercy of suicide even if you were enduring days or week of torture. Not months, though, and certainly not years. Pain is an inexhaustible resource, just like pleasure. Under those circumstances, sooner or later your superstition would break, unable to bear the weight of such suffering. Eventually you'd come to your senses and end it. Deep down you know this to be true. "My child?" Wow, how pretentious can you get? You said you're a "psych major." What are you? Late teens? Early 20's? Bold, bold statements for a student to say... Equally as pretentious as the man in the church referred to as "father" who is not your father? I can't speak on Beliathon's behalf, but it looks to me like a joke, that has been taken very seriously Another point for Buddhism, the only religion that has a sense of humour |
|
|
|
I'm not claiming that any theory is fact, That's great. If I was pointing at your personal claims, I shouldn't have been, and didn't really mean to be. but the theory you're talking about (the big bang) doesn't use the scientific method, as it can't be observed. But if you track the speed and direction of matter in space, it is moving outwards from a single point. If you care to understand why they think that, you should watch the Cosmos series by Neil Degrasse Tyson, or a Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. Anyways, it remains a theory and it aligns with observable evidence today, but it's not fact. True about the Big Bang not being scientific method. Is it science? The line between what some people call science, and whatever else they might call it, can be very hazy at times. The point wasn't to focus on the Big Bang. The point was to focus on the fiction side of science. How are you coming up with the "fact" that God exist? What are the facts? This is not an easy subject. First, the scientific fact that God exists as explained by three of the fundamental laws of science, doesn't have anything to do with any of the religions on earth. At least not from the scientific standpoint. The three chunks of scientific law are: 1. Cause and effect (action and reaction); 2. Complex universe; 3. Entropy throughout the universe. I am not going to make a big thing out of this. I am not going to go and dig up all kinds of scientific teaching that shows links to it or other reference. I will simply explain it somewhat. My wording may not be the best, but you will get the idea. Once you have the idea, if you want to prove or disprove it to yourself, start researching. Entropy is all-pervading. Everything slows down, wears out, falls apart, oxidizes, dies, etc. Everything that is new and fresh becomes that way at the expense of something else wearing out. We see nothing in the universe that explains for a fact, the reverse of entropy... how things could exist without entropy having turned them to dust long ago. There is great complexity in the universe. Perhaps the mind of mankind is the greatest complexity of the universe. Perhaps it is man's brain. Whatever is greatest, these or something else, the facts of our thinking, our emotions, our consciousness, our personal identity... the facts that these exist show fantastically great complexity in the universe. Everything that we know of operates by cause and effect, action and reaction. Newton even made it into his Third Law. Because of this, from a pure science standpoint, everything in all the complexity, all our thinking and free will, has been caused by something causing it all to happen. Essentially, we don't have any free will. The thing that we call free will is a product of countless chemical and bio-electric actions and reactions in our bodies, and from without. If there is something outside of action and reaction (cause and effect), science has not found it. The very interesting point about cause and effect is that there is no pure random. The thing that we call "random" is simply our inability to see the multitudes of causes behind something. Everything that we know operates by cause and effect. Cause and effect over the thousands of years has maintained a tremendous amount of complexity in things in the face of entropy. This shows us the fact that the mind of mankind was far more able in the past before entropy had the time to tear down its abilities. Another thing this shows is that everything in the whole universe is "pre-programmed," by Whatever started cause and effect. Cause and effect must have had a start. Otherwise entropy would have neutralized everything by now. A person who is a billiards/pool player is good if he can, knowingly, set a string of five balls into action, the fifth going into a predetermined pocket. He taps the first ball, which hits the second, which knocks the third, which rolls into the fourth, which bumps the fifth into the pocket. Consider how great the Great First Cause must have been to have started all the cause-and-effect actions that continue to maintain this great amount of universal complexity in the face of all-pervading entropy. Because the mind and brain of man are as complex as they are, the mind of the Great First Cause must be complex beyond understanding. Why? Because greater does not come from lesser. Entropy keeps it from happening. The complexity of the Great First Cause makes It fit the dictionary definition of the word "God." Not only does God exist, but also, God is so extremely great beyond us that we are essentially less than nothing when compared with God. And if we are going to be religious, why is Christianity the religion of choice? Does it have something to do with being raised Christian? Have you taken as deep a look into other religions and consciously made a decision? Is your current perspective one that has been conditioned? I'm not trying to be offensive, but I'm asking rhetorically for you to think about it. There is a VERY high correlation of people selecting the religion that is dominant in their childhood environment. Meaning, if you were born in Indonesia, would Jesus still be your God? No, it wouldn't. You'd be conditioned to be Muslim, unless you lived in Bali, and then you'd be Hindu. Because of our remoteness, because of our inability to see the complexity in cause and effect, we use probability. Christianity is the religion of choice because of the odds it has overcome to be the religion that it is. In the way that Christianity came into existence, the nation of Israel, their activities, the way they made the Bible record, the prophesies that exist, have been fulfilled, and are being fulfilled, the fact that the true Hebrew Bible has changed little over the ages even though it was copied by many scribes over and over, the numbers of ancient copies and fragments, and a lot more things, show that the Christian religion as it stands today couldn't exist. Since it couldn't exist, yet it is here, shows that there is more to it than simply something mankind could do. The Christian religion is a God production. Do your own research into it. How is science fictional? When you get sick, do you go to a doctor or do you pray to God? You use all the technology that has been discovered by scientists, even the fact that you and I can communicate over electrical signals shows where science is at. Science sends rockets into orbit dude...how is it fictional if it works?
Not everything about science is fictional. God made science - combinations of complex actions and reactions, some of which we can see, other of which we can't see. But the scientific theories are fictions as far as we know. Until such a time that we prove them to be fact, they are fiction... and they stand right alongside science fact, so that often we do not know where the division lies. I'm aligned with most of what you said there, but all of that can be true with or without a god. That is to say that this evolution can be done with or without a supervisor. I understand how Christianity came to be, but I was asking why it came to be your religion of choice, and whether it had something to do with the way you're raised, or what your parents chose to believe in. I see very few people that have a choice beyond what their family believes in. For me, being atheist has little to do with science. It's not the choice of "believing" in science that voids religion. It's just because I wasn't conditioned to believe in something as a child. My parents were lightly religious, in that they probably felt a little guilt for not saying so, but there was no weekly get together in a building, or any prayers. So during my formative years, it wasn't pushed on me, and it never had any significance in my life. Also, the religious folks that I was exposed to as a child believed in blind faith, and were sheltered folks that I wouldn't say had the most open mind or diverse life experience. So it wasn't a group that I ever wanted to join, and there were also a lot of politics and gossip involved. So I grew up without subscribing to a religion seriously, and later gained an interest in it, not for belief, but just for how impressive it is that it gained almost the whole world's subscription, and of course at that time there was little tolerance for those that didn't believe. So religious belief was built into law, and it still is. If I was conditioned by my parents as a kid and all my friends were part of a social religious community, then I'd likely be religious too. I actually grew up in a very multicultural place, where there is no dominant religion and you can constantly see other versions of religion in front of you. I live in Toronto, and it's definitely one of the most multicultural cities in the world if not the the most. That has an effect on religion. Most people around here just lose touch with religion, as it is a significant commitment. It would be tough for me to fit religion into my life even if I wanted to. So in short what I'm saying is it's not based on science. It's the value of the religion in the surrounding environment...and the value here is low. Anyways man, you seem like a nice and patient individual, and that counts more to me than religious belief. Maybe one day you'll find yourself eating some psilocybin mushrooms/peyote/LSD/DMT/ayahuasca, and you'll better understand my point of view |
|
|
|
They must have got to you young. It's sad to see, but you have the freedom to subscribe to any ideology you wish.
My question is, if you were born 3000 years ago, what would you be referencing for religious guidance?
I read the bible (in college) because I wanted to. I was raised Catholic, and have renounced the Catholic specific teachings. But, I have already asked myself what if God didn't exist, and the answer came back that God does exist. I feel bad for those who have not felt the power that the Holy Spirit gives. I feel bad for those who are still waiting for scientists to teach them about antimatter, when all you really need to know about that is in the bible. Believing in the bible does not negate belief in scientific studies, no matter what Beliathon likes to say. It augments it. There are many ways to be spiritual without subscribing to a specific religion. You can experience it yourself by training and disciplining your mind with an art or meditation, or with psychedelics to get into that state of consciousness, or reference the words of someone else that has claimed to have been there. Catholocism seems to come with a fee. You need to pay for it. Like a business selling a service. A giant multi-billion dollar business, that requires subscribership. Countless people unnaturally abstaining from sexual encounters that end up molesting little kids. Something doesn't add up there. If this is one of the symptoms of a particular belief system, then it has failed. It's no good to have a system where people see god, and appointed members whose desires are obscure and morals are lacking. I'm not saying every Catholic is like this, but there is a pretty common theme of molestation, to the point that it's not an outlier. I'm not religious but one religion I am fond of is Buddhism. There is no fee to join. There is no god to pray to or be judged by. There is no salesman requiring subscribers. Instead of preaching it has meditation. You end up with a society that is pretty healthy, peaceful, kind, and tolerant of other points of view. I think religion as a whole is interesting. It's interesting to see how it came to be, and how it changed the world and used ignorance and fear to accomplish order. But I don't think it's something that is to be taken seriously. All of them are great stories, great reads, and very poetic...something to be appreciated by those who enjoy, but not to be forced on those who don't. It's the ignorance and fear thing. As long as science or something else can keep people in ignorance of the fact that they have no true control over their lives, and that the free will that people have is only an illusion of free will, then there will be no fear. All will be comfy-cozy until disaster overtakes us all. Of course, what's the dif? We don't have any control over protecting ourselves from disaster anyway, do we? Are you saying science keeps people in ignorance? The scientific method requires empirical evidence and doesn't accept opinion that is not observable. I don't think that keeps anyone ignorant of things that have yet to be discovered. It also welcomes testing and questioning and doesn't involve any taboo. Most people don't have a very good understanding of science, so I don't think it has much to do with the average person's belief system. The majority of religious folks were indoctrinated from a young age and then there's a minority that has chosen a religion later in life without being heavily conditioned into it. I'd say the greatest threat to religion is the internet and access to information. Just access to something outside of localized knowledge is detrimental to religious belief. How many kids do you know that were explained all religions and given the choice of what to believe? Religion is fine as long as there is tolerance, but with the amount of religious conflict in the world, you can see that it segregates humanity into teams, and at times that conflict results in death and war. Imagine two strangers with different belief systems trying to kill each other, and thinking "if only the rest of society wasn't ignorant like me". However, the scientific method is not all there is to science. There are all kinds of definitions of science all over the place that go way beyond the scientific method. ---------- First, there is theory. Theory is built right into the scientific method. Theory is not fact. Second, there is a lot of theory that has been around for a long time, yet it can't really be proven. For example, even though Big Bang Theory has been around for decades, there might not be any way to prove it without a literal time-dimension time-viewer. Yet, it is treated as fact by people from all walks of life, both high and low. Third, the other side is this. When you put cause and effect together with our complex universe, in the face of entropy - all scientifically proven laws and facts - you come up with the fact that God exists. You won't have any details about God to speak of. All that you have are the facts that He is super intelligent, and extremely powerful. Try it... putting those 3 things together in a scientific way to see what I mean. It may take a bit of work if you are not familiar with them: 1. cause and effect; 2. complex universe; 3. universal entropy. The point is, the thing that is called science is way more fictional than the idea that God exists. When people believe something fictional as being the truth, especially when it has as far-reaching effects as science does, they have themselves a religion. Science is a religion, even more than believing in God. I'm not claiming that any theory is fact, but the theory you're talking about (the big bang) doesn't use the scientific method, as it can't be observed. But if you track the speed and direction of matter in space, it is moving outwards from a single point. If you care to understand why they think that, you should watch the Cosmos series by Neil Degrasse Tyson, or a Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. Anyways, it remains a theory and it aligns with observable evidence today, but it's not fact. How are you coming up with the "fact" that God exist? What are the facts? And if we are going to be religious, why is Christianity the religion of choice? Does it have something to do with being raised Christian? Have you taken as deep a look into other religions and consciously made a decision? Is your current perspective one that has been conditioned? I'm not trying to be offensive, but I'm asking rhetorically for you to think about it. There is a VERY high correlation of people selecting the religion that is dominant in their childhood environment. Meaning, if you were born in Indonesia, would Jesus still be your God? No, it wouldn't. You'd be conditioned to be Muslim, unless you lived in Bali, and then you'd be Hindu. How is science fictional? When you get sick, do you go to a doctor or do you pray to God? You use all the technology that has been discovered by scientists, even the fact that you and I can communicate over electrical signals shows where science is at. Science sends rockets into orbit dude...how is it fictional if it works? |
|
|
|
They must have got to you young. It's sad to see, but you have the freedom to subscribe to any ideology you wish.
My question is, if you were born 3000 years ago, what would you be referencing for religious guidance?
I read the bible (in college) because I wanted to. I was raised Catholic, and have renounced the Catholic specific teachings. But, I have already asked myself what if God didn't exist, and the answer came back that God does exist. I feel bad for those who have not felt the power that the Holy Spirit gives. I feel bad for those who are still waiting for scientists to teach them about antimatter, when all you really need to know about that is in the bible. Believing in the bible does not negate belief in scientific studies, no matter what Beliathon likes to say. It augments it. I'm not religious but one religion I am fond of is Buddhism. There is no fee to join. There is no god to pray to or be judged by. There is no salesman requiring subscribers. Instead of preaching it has meditation. You end up with a society that is pretty healthy, peaceful, kind, and tolerant of other points of view. I think religion as a whole is interesting. It's interesting to see how it came to be, and how it changed the world and used ignorance and fear to accomplish order. But I don't think it's something that is to be taken seriously. All of them are great stories, great reads, and very poetic...something to be appreciated by those who enjoy, but not to be forced on those who don't. I appreciate those who act kindly to others, no matter if they believe in any god or not. Christianity is about tolerance, and being kind and peaceful. One thing in Christianity is that there are evil spirits trying to hurt people constantly. Followers of Jesus have His authority to drive them out in His name, but don't know it, for the most part. So they are free to mess with people. And if you were an evil spirit, you could see the ones that they would want to harass, would be Christians, to hurt them for following Jesus and trying to do right. Which then leads to the most sinful people being Christians, because they don't know what power they have to stop it, most don't even believe in evil spirits anymore (even though it's so clear in the bible), so they let it go on, sin, and make Christians as a whole look bad. Aren't there parts of the bible that reference going to hell if not for believing in Jesus? I am paraphrasing, but let me know if I am referencing something incorrectly. Otherwise, that doesn't sound tolerant to me. By what you say about Christians, there should be no Christian murderers, serial killers, rapists, or criminals in general. But there are, and there are shitloads of them. All humans require to be positive to society around them is empathy and compassion. As soon as empathy and compassion are gone, the moral landscape can get very flawed to the point where it harms others without feedback of sadness or guilt. |
|
|
|
They must have got to you young. It's sad to see, but you have the freedom to subscribe to any ideology you wish.
My question is, if you were born 3000 years ago, what would you be referencing for religious guidance?
I read the bible (in college) because I wanted to. I was raised Catholic, and have renounced the Catholic specific teachings. But, I have already asked myself what if God didn't exist, and the answer came back that God does exist. I feel bad for those who have not felt the power that the Holy Spirit gives. I feel bad for those who are still waiting for scientists to teach them about antimatter, when all you really need to know about that is in the bible. Believing in the bible does not negate belief in scientific studies, no matter what Beliathon likes to say. It augments it. There are many ways to be spiritual without subscribing to a specific religion. You can experience it yourself by training and disciplining your mind with an art or meditation, or with psychedelics to get into that state of consciousness, or reference the words of someone else that has claimed to have been there. Catholocism seems to come with a fee. You need to pay for it. Like a business selling a service. A giant multi-billion dollar business, that requires subscribership. Countless people unnaturally abstaining from sexual encounters that end up molesting little kids. Something doesn't add up there. If this is one of the symptoms of a particular belief system, then it has failed. It's no good to have a system where people see god, and appointed members whose desires are obscure and morals are lacking. I'm not saying every Catholic is like this, but there is a pretty common theme of molestation, to the point that it's not an outlier. I'm not religious but one religion I am fond of is Buddhism. There is no fee to join. There is no god to pray to or be judged by. There is no salesman requiring subscribers. Instead of preaching it has meditation. You end up with a society that is pretty healthy, peaceful, kind, and tolerant of other points of view. I think religion as a whole is interesting. It's interesting to see how it came to be, and how it changed the world and used ignorance and fear to accomplish order. But I don't think it's something that is to be taken seriously. All of them are great stories, great reads, and very poetic...something to be appreciated by those who enjoy, but not to be forced on those who don't. It's the ignorance and fear thing. As long as science or something else can keep people in ignorance of the fact that they have no true control over their lives, and that the free will that people have is only an illusion of free will, then there will be no fear. All will be comfy-cozy until disaster overtakes us all. Of course, what's the dif? We don't have any control over protecting ourselves from disaster anyway, do we? Are you saying science keeps people in ignorance? The scientific method requires empirical evidence and doesn't accept opinion that is not observable. I don't think that keeps anyone ignorant of things that have yet to be discovered. It also welcomes testing and questioning and doesn't involve any taboo. Most people don't have a very good understanding of science, so I don't think it has much to do with the average person's belief system. The majority of religious folks were indoctrinated from a young age and then there's a minority that has chosen a religion later in life without being heavily conditioned into it. I'd say the greatest threat to religion is the internet and access to information. Just access to something outside of localized knowledge is detrimental to religious belief. How many kids do you know that were explained all religions and given the choice of what to believe? Religion is fine as long as there is tolerance, but with the amount of religious conflict in the world, you can see that it segregates humanity into teams, and at times that conflict results in death and war. Imagine two strangers with different belief systems trying to kill each other, and thinking "if only the rest of society wasn't ignorant like me". |
|
|
|
They must have got to you young. It's sad to see, but you have the freedom to subscribe to any ideology you wish.
My question is, if you were born 3000 years ago, what would you be referencing for religious guidance?
I read the bible (in college) because I wanted to. I was raised Catholic, and have renounced the Catholic specific teachings. But, I have already asked myself what if God didn't exist, and the answer came back that God does exist. I feel bad for those who have not felt the power that the Holy Spirit gives. I feel bad for those who are still waiting for scientists to teach them about antimatter, when all you really need to know about that is in the bible. Believing in the bible does not negate belief in scientific studies, no matter what Beliathon likes to say. It augments it. There are many ways to be spiritual without subscribing to a specific religion. You can experience it yourself by training and disciplining your mind with an art or meditation, or with psychedelics to get into that state of consciousness, or reference the words of someone else that has claimed to have been there. Catholocism seems to come with a fee. You need to pay for it. Like a business selling a service. A giant multi-billion dollar business, that requires subscribership. Countless people unnaturally abstaining from sexual encounters that end up molesting little kids. Something doesn't add up there. If this is one of the symptoms of a particular belief system, then it has failed. It's no good to have a system where people see god, and appointed members whose desires are obscure and morals are lacking. I'm not saying every Catholic is like this, but there is a pretty common theme of molestation, to the point that it's not an outlier. I'm not religious but one religion I am fond of is Buddhism. There is no fee to join. There is no god to pray to or be judged by. There is no salesman requiring subscribers. Instead of preaching it has meditation. You end up with a society that is pretty healthy, peaceful, kind, and tolerant of other points of view. I think religion as a whole is interesting. It's interesting to see how it came to be, and how it changed the world and used ignorance and fear to accomplish order. But I don't think it's something that is to be taken seriously. All of them are great stories, great reads, and very poetic...something to be appreciated by those who enjoy, but not to be forced on those who don't. |
|
|
|
Atheists don't see themselfs as gods. 100% nonsense.
and atheists don' hate religion they just don't see the point of it.
Just Beliathon, I know. Because religion is a form of control. To control people. To keep them in line.
Also to fear people. "don't do this or you will burn in hell".
It funny because god loves us all but he will let you burn in hell if you don't believe..
And altho god is allknowing he created us all so how come he created rapers and murderers??
god is a weirdo...
As I said, there are plenty of verses in the bible that say "Fear Not." God is not about fearing things, just having a reverence for the Glory that created us. He created free will. If He didn't, you'd be mad you didn't have it. Bu free will, is why people fall away and don't believe, and become rapers and murderers. They must have got to you young. It's sad to see, but you have the freedom to subscribe to any ideology you wish. My question is, if you were born 3000 years ago, what would you be referencing for religious guidance? |
|
|
|
if you need to withdraw money use the ATM, if you have to pay something use the online paying system if you have one, or play your things on time and make a notice that everybody has a working time. The banks work with your money and give you just a 6 % interest rate, common that is so little. Invest your money in something else  I don't know who you bank with, but my bank definitely doesn't offer anything close to a 6% interest rate (I'm assuming you're talking about deposits). 6% is a very good rate if there's no risk involved, seeing that we can borrow at 2.1% here in Canada. |
|
|
|
I gambled a bit when I was using faucets just to see what bitcoin was about, but that went on for a few weeks maybe and then I stopped. It was fun for awhile, but as you said, long term the odds are against you. It's not even really fun for me anymore either. I'd rather go outside |
|
|
|
|
I'm interested to see what the Model 3 is going to be like. It's supposed to be 20% smaller than the Model S, starting at 35k USD. I'd be interested in a dual motor version of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Wealth should allow you to do the things you'd like to do without having to sacrifice your time in an unfulfilling job in order to pay for the lifestyle. For those that enjoy their careers, I don't think a whole lot should change.
I currently work for money rather than fulfillment and would be glad to quit and do something I enjoyed if I were to stumble upon some wealth.
The first thing I'd do is travel/backpack.
|
|
|
|
i dont think so.
for me and with my experience, atheis not hate religion.
any religion... cause what?
religion have organize and law with God or with human.
and atheis dont want to have connection and to obidient with the oe=rganize or law from the religion it.
Atheists are organized in a religious way to maintain the idea that there is no God. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion where mankind is god, because it is mankind who, against all good evidence, suggests that there is no god. That is an interesting point of view. Do you think Atheists get together in a building once a week to discuss their ideas about religion? Perhaps there are some that are active participants in voicing what they think, but I'd say the majority doesn't spend much time even thinking about religion and do not participate. What is the "good evidence" that you're referring to? |
|
|
|
People should simply don't own guns at all , it's too dangerous and will just make chaos everywhere .
A lot of countries don't have gun control and it's the total peace comparing with the other countries
I agree, gun control results in more violent crime. I'm not a fan of any 'hard' gun control, but I do think there should be a few restrictions to reduce the amounts of them that get into the wrong hands, and make sure the people that do own them know how to use them: - Background check for violent crime
- Mental health evaluation
- Training course complete with range practice
- 7-10 day waiting period
The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states. By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues. Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds. Mental health is the real issue, and addressing it in an effective way should be the primary concern. I don't find anything wrong with a gun in the hand of a morally sound, mentally stable person that is able to manage anger. As for limiting less affluent folks from being able to take a course and own a firearm, that can be said about any expense in general. A gun is not a basic need so it doesn't need to be subsidized. |
|
|
|
hmm....in this growing world bitcoin would be uses to pay taxes..  ? most likely it will be taxed to death if governments start to accept it(in the sense to regulate it) more like IRS is doing in the USA we are lucky that there is not one governments only in this world, at elast we are not 100% centralized, so one can go abroad to trade his bitcoin, where there is no restrictions It will be very difficult to tax transactions. If bitcoin is to be treated as a currency, then it would be up to the individual to report income or for a business to report a sale and file it in their taxes. Pretty much the same way it's recorded and filed with fiat. For bitcoin to be legitimized, it would need to have the same tax implications as fiat. A problem would be if it's not treated as a currency and capital gains need to be paid on price appreciation of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
