Not right now. Not any time soon, I don't think a nation will replace it's currency with bitcoin until bitcoin is very widely adopted and people know how well it actually works. My prediction is that the first country to replace their currency with bitcoin will be doing so sometime after 2040. Maybe in Africa or Latin America.

Gambling is a great way to make money. Drinks, shows, cardgames, spinning things. They are a money vacuum, and so long as the government gets its cut, I'm pretty sure that it would have an open mind. I'm sure Israel will have a nice casino resort soon.

I prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton. And with the in-fighting that's going on in the right, I feel that the republicans are going to be divided and conquered this upcoming election. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

I'd like to come in and comment about that. You point out a very interesting issue with an empirical philosophy. We must assume that our senses are reasonably reliable and that what our senses "show" to us is the reality around us. The brain in a jar problem comes up (the matrix, etc). I take this issue to be irrelevant to the validity of empirical research (science), because of a pragmatic stance. Does it work? It seems to. It got us fast transportation, it got us off the ground in planes and spaceships ^{To the moon! ┗(°0°)┛} . We have computers and TVs that work on principles found by doing empirical research.
Now, that doesn't solve the problem. I might still be a brain in a jar being fed electric stimuli to emulate the feeling of typing up a response to a comment, or we might be in a matrix-like network (for whatever reason), or our senses are fooling us all in some odd way that makes certain real things seem like something else under our perception of them. I don't think that problem has a solution. I don't think it necessitates God to come solve it, I don't think God solves that particular problem.
Maybe God can bypass our senses and reveal things to us directly into our consciousness... but how do we know them to be true? How do we know them to be accurate? We take God's word for it? You might say God is the source of all good, the moral law giver... but I'm sure fucking with our perception of reality could be done to spare people pain and suffering, perhaps even death. Who are you to say that God doesn't make us all think we're mortal, when in fact God grants immortality to all, removing people from earth at time of "death" and sending them off to a heaven/hell/purgatory/etc that exists within this universe?

I don't think god solves the problem because we could never know for certain whether God was fucking with our perception of reality (if this is reality, and not some God-created simulation to temporarily place us in) to serve a good our minds can't even begin to comprehend. That's just what I think. And at the end of the day, our senses seem to be the only things to guide us in this universe, be it a simulation, hallucination or something completely different.

@MakingMoneyHoney, well, you did compare him to people that go about, knocking on people's door. That is an unfair comparison.
I don't really follow this forum all that much, so I cant really pass judgment on how obsessed he is on being right. Me, I can't debate God for more than the equivalent of one or two pages of this forum, then, we just end up repeating ourselves and (the other guy) changing definitions halfway through to make his argument more feasible, correcting for flaws without admitting them.
But I digress, the point is that I think we atheists tend to be a bit sensitive to comparisons with religions because we hear over and over again "you've just replaced one religion with another", dismissively , from people who used to share a religion with them. Though that's a bit dismissive to all religions... which is a bit odd, now that I think about it.

I would like to think that I will make bitcoin my fulltime job, so that I would have no need to quit my daytime job in order to pursue a bitcoin-related job. As of now, I don't work, but when I do, it will be meanwhile I get into bitcoin for reals.

Also, this is a pretty useful tool if you want to sell an account later on. So this is not useless, at all.
...
1DfsLWaAPh264Dhx36WLk1yXFihEa5MVP6

Why would you wanna know?

For one's personal experience? I prefer being a man. From what I hear from women, one has to deal with much less stuff when being a man (societal-wise and biology-wise). So I would argue that us men live life better off.
Capability-wise? I think women are more capable than men (generally speaking).
So... yeah.

Samsung galaxy Y pro young.
A weird qwerty/touch hybrid.

I wouldnt want to turn to nature for guidance for what should be legal. Murder, rape, theft, they're all found in abundance in the animal kingdom. What I want to have as a measuring stick is "how much damage/benefit does something do?". I the best way to legislate is to find an issue, answer that question, and propose a solution, measuring it with that same question.

What's illegal, immoral, unethical, and what's taboo are different groups that all overlap at different points. And it's every generation's challenge to figure out what should be in each of those categories.

The problem with incest (apart from the genetics issues) is power imbalance and abuse. Fathers have authority and power over their daughters until they're 18 years of age (by law), would it be considered child abuse if a father primed his daughter to have an active sexual relationship with him by her late teens (age of consent)? Seducing their child all the way into adulthood... it's unethical and immoral, should it be illegal? Should governmental resources be spent preventing/prosecuting these cases? I dont know. Apart from that, I think it's easy for an authority figure to coerce a young adult into sexual acts, given the right circumstances. And then, at the end of the spectrum, there's downright sexual abuse (the duggar family comes to mind).
But ultimately, I think it's wrong for the government to walk up to two consenting adults and imprison them because of sexual acts in private. If cousins, siblings, etc. want to engage in sexual acts, whatever. When it comes to parents, uncles/aunts... I dont know, that's a gray area.

Yeah, but most (if not all) religions go one step farther than assert a "creator" god, they have at least one god that wants to be worshiped and (sometimes) loved by the people. Most arguments for a creator are OK, there might be something with a mind of its own that created the universe. But if anyone wants to convince me to join their church or ideology, compelling arguments for a "creator" god are not enough.
I choose not to participate in any religious reunion (church, mosque, etc) because I can get all the benefits of it and do communal good elsewhere, without the need for any prayer.
Now, whether or not god is a logical necessity, or the [insert name here]-tological argument for god is proof of its existence... I'll leave that debate to people who know what they're talking about.
For now, I'm just saying that most religions' claim of their loving (among other things) god starts falling apart the moment I make the observation that their god needs human proxies to make contact, and (apparently) waits for complete belief before presenting himself in some fashion that seems to never be consistent. And comparing their scriptures with what they claim their god to be like gives us more and more inconsistencies that make me believe that most (if not all) religions are a human structure, devoid of an existing deity.

I'm an atheist. And I'm also a pragmatist. If a all-powerful, all-knowing god wants me to love it, it knows exactly how I came to love other human beings, it can do exactly the same things they did. At no cost to itself, seeing as how it is all-powerful. If it's too proud to make an attempt to personally try make contact, and rely upon all kinds of proxies... then, maybe it just wouldnt have ever worked out between us.