19594 pts ยท May 8, 2018
Certainly true. The products were garbage.Using NFTs on a blockchain style distributed ledger may have practical usage for asset ownership and transfer purposes or credential verification, but only for a very tiny fraction of ledger use cases. The digital "art" fiasco was more grift and fleecing than anything else.
Very sensible to protect lower-wealth retirement assets as well as a reasonable exemption for primary residence value. I would probably champion a somewhat lower threshold with a progressive tax increasing at higher net worth values, but i would certainly support a logical exemption for a reasonable retirement nest-egg.
Lake America. No, Gulf of America. No, New America.
Taxed at market value as of close of trading on day x each year. Definitely do-able.
Most CEOs do take (considerable) salary as well, but yes, taxing wealth versus earnings helps push the burden more towards those that can afford it.
Exactly - ONLY property is a wealth tax currently. The tax system should be shifted further from income and more towards ALL forms of wealth. Far less tax on what is earned through labour, and shift that tax to what is earned through capital just compounding. I fully support this shift as someone semi-retired who would most certainly be fully impacted by this shift. It's how it should be.
... with a different set of genocides killing even more people?Bold strategy, Cotton....
A new Hermes silk tie / scarf pattern.
It says it's in 2022 dollars, so yes.
You again construct fantastical strawmen rather than engaging with the topic. NOBODY ASSERTED THAT SUCH BELIEFS SHOULD BE BANNED. Are you capable of engaging honestly with what I write?"Believing stuff LITERALLY and then demanding that others do the same, is the danger." - uhhh yeah, that's my exact point about religions, so thank you for acknowledging that.
These can further be divided, for example in terms of global versus local atheism, and deism versus for example versatile theism (the opposite of global atheism).But these again are all statements of BELIEF, not knowledge, so one is not either agnostic OR one of these.
You can be any one of these four: Agnostic AtheistGnostic AtheistAgnostic TheistGnostic Theist
No. One can be theist or atheist, AS WELL AS gnostic or agnostic, as they answer different questions.Theism / atheism is about belief / lack of belief in the existence of god. BELIEF.Gnosticism / agnosticism is about knowledge / lack of knowledge in the existence of god. KNOWLEDGE. Gnostic comes from the ancient Greek word for "knowing". Not belief. Knowing. Get it?An agnostic atheist is one who lacks belief in god but does not know for certain whether a god exists.
Wow - an 11-post thread that did not even attempt to address my actual assertions or questions.Would you like to actually respond to what I'm saying, or are you happier to just go off on solo quests unrelated to our conversation?
Nobody made that assertion.People should believe things for which there is sufficient evidence to warrant that belief, regardless of the social ramifications. This is more strawmanning and avoiding what I've actually said.
In dealing with knowledge or lack of knowledge, that's gnosticism/agnosticism, not theism/atheism, as I've already explained.Theism is holding a belief that a god exists.Atheism is NOT holding a belief that a god exists.
No True Scotsman.weak.
If you can evidence your claim that most people's "faith" involves a basic abstract belief rather than the belief system taught by their religion, I'd love to see that. Can you back that assertion?
Yes, because it's important to the discussion of the impacts of believing in things which are not true or do not comport with reality. That is the only reason such discussions are important at all.
Your definition is your own, and is not congruent with that used in wider society. You should meet people where they're at, and not ascribe your own definition of their beliefs upon them.Most atheists are agnostic atheists - they acknowledge that it is impossible to know there is no god, but do not hold a belief that such a god exists.
No, it's demonstrating that the elements of the story ascribed as "factual" by believers are not factual, which is critical.Not recognising that critical element is a great example of not seeing the forest for the trees. You continue to ignore all of the harm caused by believing in fiction.
It's trivially simple to name many negatives that religion provided and continues to provide to society.Can you name a single thing that religion provides for the betterment of society that could not be provided in the absence of religion?
How is this book of any use to you if you just decide yourself what is moral and what is immoral, and what is a lesson to take and what is not a lesson to take, and what is true and what is false?You could quite literally do that from pretty much any mythology ever, as they are all based upon human psychosocial processing. This supports the assertion that the book has no real sociological value, and should be shelved alongside any other primitive mythological story books.
The events described in the bible related to Noah's flood are wholly incompatable with the regional flooding of the Black Sea basin, and that is the point. Again you gloss over every detail in the book to just fit this very loose, distant view of an event having occurred, while ignoring that the details described in the tale are incorrect and incompatible.
False.You equivocate not believing in something with the belief in the non-existence of something. Those are not equivalent.No "faith" is required to not believe.Non-belief is without faith. That is just logically true.Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Your definition is just plain wrong.Agnosticism speaks of knowledge, not belief, so is an answer to a completely different question.
Religions are structured, and provide and instruct followers on how to interpret the book, and, more importantly, ASSERTING those interpretations onto society as the "will of god".So no, it is absolutely not simply an "Alice-In-Wonderland" interpretation.That you gloss over this reality demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to face the sociological impact of both this book and religions in general.
You don't know where those VERY SPECIFIC phrases would be coming from?And you attempt to chastise others for not being the multiple-time bible reader you claim to be?If you dont know your bible, then maybe just google the phrase, as even google knows how to find the verse.I await what I can only imagine will be your genius explanations for these.
Nope.This assertion is exactly the all-or-nothing approach you've been trying to cast on me.It contains SOME poetry (about 30%), and A BIT of that poetry is allegorical (a smaller portion - maybe 5%, like the song of songs). Most of the poetry found is metaphor, parallelism, and lyric emotion (like David's laments).It does not appear you have been using hermeneutics consistent with biblical scholars, and it has left you with "feelings" about the bible wholly inconsistent with the text.
That was a gosh-gallup of several different assertions all without evidence.Absence of evidence CAN BE evidence of absence when one would expect that the event described would have left evidence. Like Noah's flood.And no faith is required for someone to not believe something, so that's another false assertion.And if a god exists that is not congruent with the bible stories that is certainly not support for any of the bible stories, so do you believe in the biblical god or a different god?
No, for the third time, I expressly did NOT say that.I asked where in the bible does it back your assertion made in your previous text.Read my post again. Where in the bible can I find the evidence or support for the claims you made in your previous post.
Certainly true. The products were garbage.
Using NFTs on a blockchain style distributed ledger may have practical usage for asset ownership and transfer purposes or credential verification, but only for a very tiny fraction of ledger use cases. The digital "art" fiasco was more grift and fleecing than anything else.
Very sensible to protect lower-wealth retirement assets as well as a reasonable exemption for primary residence value. I would probably champion a somewhat lower threshold with a progressive tax increasing at higher net worth values, but i would certainly support a logical exemption for a reasonable retirement nest-egg.
Lake America. No, Gulf of America. No, New America.
Taxed at market value as of close of trading on day x each year. Definitely do-able.
Most CEOs do take (considerable) salary as well, but yes, taxing wealth versus earnings helps push the burden more towards those that can afford it.
Exactly - ONLY property is a wealth tax currently. The tax system should be shifted further from income and more towards ALL forms of wealth. Far less tax on what is earned through labour, and shift that tax to what is earned through capital just compounding.
I fully support this shift as someone semi-retired who would most certainly be fully impacted by this shift. It's how it should be.
... with a different set of genocides killing even more people?
Bold strategy, Cotton....
A new Hermes silk tie / scarf pattern.
It says it's in 2022 dollars, so yes.
You again construct fantastical strawmen rather than engaging with the topic. NOBODY ASSERTED THAT SUCH BELIEFS SHOULD BE BANNED. Are you capable of engaging honestly with what I write?
"Believing stuff LITERALLY and then demanding that others do the same, is the danger." - uhhh yeah, that's my exact point about religions, so thank you for acknowledging that.
These can further be divided, for example in terms of global versus local atheism, and deism versus for example versatile theism (the opposite of global atheism).
But these again are all statements of BELIEF, not knowledge, so one is not either agnostic OR one of these.
You can be any one of these four:
Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Theist
No. One can be theist or atheist, AS WELL AS gnostic or agnostic, as they answer different questions.
Theism / atheism is about belief / lack of belief in the existence of god. BELIEF.
Gnosticism / agnosticism is about knowledge / lack of knowledge in the existence of god. KNOWLEDGE. Gnostic comes from the ancient Greek word for "knowing". Not belief. Knowing. Get it?
An agnostic atheist is one who lacks belief in god but does not know for certain whether a god exists.
Wow - an 11-post thread that did not even attempt to address my actual assertions or questions.
Would you like to actually respond to what I'm saying, or are you happier to just go off on solo quests unrelated to our conversation?
Nobody made that assertion.
People should believe things for which there is sufficient evidence to warrant that belief, regardless of the social ramifications.
This is more strawmanning and avoiding what I've actually said.
In dealing with knowledge or lack of knowledge, that's gnosticism/agnosticism, not theism/atheism, as I've already explained.
Theism is holding a belief that a god exists.
Atheism is NOT holding a belief that a god exists.
No True Scotsman.
weak.
If you can evidence your claim that most people's "faith" involves a basic abstract belief rather than the belief system taught by their religion, I'd love to see that. Can you back that assertion?
Yes, because it's important to the discussion of the impacts of believing in things which are not true or do not comport with reality. That is the only reason such discussions are important at all.
Your definition is your own, and is not congruent with that used in wider society.
You should meet people where they're at, and not ascribe your own definition of their beliefs upon them.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists - they acknowledge that it is impossible to know there is no god, but do not hold a belief that such a god exists.
No, it's demonstrating that the elements of the story ascribed as "factual" by believers are not factual, which is critical.
Not recognising that critical element is a great example of not seeing the forest for the trees. You continue to ignore all of the harm caused by believing in fiction.
It's trivially simple to name many negatives that religion provided and continues to provide to society.
Can you name a single thing that religion provides for the betterment of society that could not be provided in the absence of religion?
How is this book of any use to you if you just decide yourself what is moral and what is immoral, and what is a lesson to take and what is not a lesson to take, and what is true and what is false?
You could quite literally do that from pretty much any mythology ever, as they are all based upon human psychosocial processing. This supports the assertion that the book has no real sociological value, and should be shelved alongside any other primitive mythological story books.
The events described in the bible related to Noah's flood are wholly incompatable with the regional flooding of the Black Sea basin, and that is the point. Again you gloss over every detail in the book to just fit this very loose, distant view of an event having occurred, while ignoring that the details described in the tale are incorrect and incompatible.
False.
You equivocate not believing in something with the belief in the non-existence of something. Those are not equivalent.
No "faith" is required to not believe.
Non-belief is without faith. That is just logically true.
Atheism is the lack of belief in god. Your definition is just plain wrong.
Agnosticism speaks of knowledge, not belief, so is an answer to a completely different question.
Religions are structured, and provide and instruct followers on how to interpret the book, and, more importantly, ASSERTING those interpretations onto society as the "will of god".
So no, it is absolutely not simply an "Alice-In-Wonderland" interpretation.
That you gloss over this reality demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to face the sociological impact of both this book and religions in general.
You don't know where those VERY SPECIFIC phrases would be coming from?
And you attempt to chastise others for not being the multiple-time bible reader you claim to be?
If you dont know your bible, then maybe just google the phrase, as even google knows how to find the verse.
I await what I can only imagine will be your genius explanations for these.
Nope.
This assertion is exactly the all-or-nothing approach you've been trying to cast on me.
It contains SOME poetry (about 30%), and A BIT of that poetry is allegorical (a smaller portion - maybe 5%, like the song of songs). Most of the poetry found is metaphor, parallelism, and lyric emotion (like David's laments).
It does not appear you have been using hermeneutics consistent with biblical scholars, and it has left you with "feelings" about the bible wholly inconsistent with the text.
That was a gosh-gallup of several different assertions all without evidence.
Absence of evidence CAN BE evidence of absence when one would expect that the event described would have left evidence. Like Noah's flood.
And no faith is required for someone to not believe something, so that's another false assertion.
And if a god exists that is not congruent with the bible stories that is certainly not support for any of the bible stories, so do you believe in the biblical god or a different god?
No, for the third time, I expressly did NOT say that.
I asked where in the bible does it back your assertion made in your previous text.
Read my post again. Where in the bible can I find the evidence or support for the claims you made in your previous post.