3RU7AL

but as you said that doesn't make it anymore real.

The only real basis we have of talking about things is through relationships in what we observe.

Once more, how do you know you even have shoes, how do you know its not a simulation?

Phaedo. Its in my first post. Descartes? Hume? pretty much every philosopher critiques the validity of empiricism. Its even in the republic, the allegory of the cave.

but they refuse to believe God can save lives.

philosophy has proven empiricism unreliable since Socrates.

philosophy has proven empiricism unreliable since Socrates. We're back to square one. In the end you could not even prove you can tie your own shoelaces.

I don't know. Just like you dont know when you tie your shoelaces you're actually tying them within noumenon and not just phenomena. Can you show me how you can know you actually tie your shoelaces beyond simple imagination?

"functionally indistinguishable from imaginary"

You dont know that.

3. God created it (either from nothing or himself).

No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.

that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support? 

You're clearly not an agnostic atheist to have the hubris to say God is "imaginary" (which you cant prove).

You don't mention Zeus because you don't give a s*** about Zeus or any other tradition that isn't Christian. That's all atheists care about are Christians. Their goal is to go after the biggest group of theists first and then eventually they'll work their way down till there's none left. Fact is none of you care about any of this s*** your spouting off about all you care about is that theists figure out gods don't exist and they f****** forget about them so you don't have to be around theists anymore.

Atheism: "simply a lack of belief"

There's very strong scientific and philosophical arguments to the existence (or necessity) of god.

You know God damn good and well that gods are a certain genders, not sex, through all traditions both male and female and some are considered gender fluid or even binary don't act like Christians are the only ones that fucking do it.

Yeah though that doesn't make god any less essential for many humans, just like a parent is essential for a child.

For instance, black people make up more than 50% of all exonerated persons. 54.21% to be more exact.

Most animist religions believed in a spirit world, demons, ghosts etc.

and it still seems like god infiltrates into these degrees of necessity.

The idea of God still appeals to our survival instincts in the same sense a piece of bread does,

Is social interaction required for human survival? in certain scenarios it is, others i don't think so.

What happens when we fulfill those needs? it turns out humans now have more needs which need to be fulfilled and if they're not you wont be happy (such as the need for entertainment and social interaction). God can easily fall under this category and in a sense falls under the category for survival itself (if this god implies an afterlife).

Its also true they did say god is not a man, so i would assume its not a contradiction but simply a metaphor for relateability.

Which empirical beliefs are necessary for day to day functioning?

I'm not too sure, im not a Christian. There could be many reasons why, it could simply be relateability to common people, etc. 

https://youtu.be/76oq6xS6Btc

I don’t necessarily agree with the solipsism hypothesis but as far as I know there isn’t an argument to refute it.

I agree, but if you take the solipsistic view the only thing you can prove is your own existence.

If there is no evidence for something I would take that it evidence for absence but not proof of absence, but then if you take the solipsistic argument nothing is certain, you can’t even prove the sun exists. As I said it is an argument killer.

That's not really true at all. Christian religions say God is completely unconceptualizable, he cant be put into boxes not does he have characteristic or sin like humans. Just because God is "person" doesn't mean he's one like a man or human.

I feel like God is far more likely to exist than not.

Why is a pantheist conception of god non-theist? 

Why is a pantheist conception of god non-theist? 

It seems to me that atheists are hypocrites (atheists in the form of those who say there is no god). I want to write this post to see where (and if) my logic has gone astray. If we go into meditation and assume nothing (as Descartes did), I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist. As it would appear, there's not very much we can be certain of! It is evident our senses are untrustworthy (as shown by Socrates in Phaedo). To be sure of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, etc, you must first assume your senses to a pretty high degree to be correct. Yet there's really not a very philosophical reason to believe this outside of pragmatism. If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity? It appears to me almost everything in this world (currently) requires some element of faith, this element of reality is exemplified by the problem of induction. Prove me wrong.

Bull shit. You only say it like that so you can harass theists. Atheists do not believe any gods exist. You can change the wording all you want that is a true statement.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 that's literally what agnostic means too.

If someone is an atheist, they evidently must believe all gods cant be real.

I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist

registered voters could show up in person at some point, any point really, to present their credentials and be randomly assigned one of the official e20 tokens from their local election authority

and at that point they could vote from anywhere on the planet with their unique code and also verify their vote online

• OK, but you'd have to agree that kill the number one advantage of mail-in voting, right?
  
• How would overseas and US Military work.  Would you run servers on foreign networks?
  

all of these "frightening scenarios" apply equally to the current "mail-n-ballot" system

well that's false.  In our present, less auditable, system Milo could offer his $20 but college voters could still vote for Bernie and claim they voted for Trump.  The  wife could still vote for  Elizabeth Warren but lie about voting for Trump to her abusive husband 

Electronic or any system of voting requires diligent oversight to protect integrity of vote.

• How would overseas and US Military work.  Would you run servers on foreign networks?
  

invited by the consensus of existing members

Monero was launched in 2014

but a properly designed system would allow them to check.

One of the main reasons for the upgrade is scalability. The current Ethereum network can only support around 30 transactions per second; this causes delays and congestion. Ethereum 2.0 promises up to 100,000 transactions per second. This increase will be achieved through the implementation of shard chains.

Sounds good.  The cost would fall heaviest on rural voters but such infrastructural improvement usually end up paying for themselves.

how are they going to fake the receipt that the voter takes home ?

I'm thinking less about fake receipts then anonymity.  If you have a list of voters who showed ids in the order they voted and then you have the anonymous votes in order, you can crack anonymity.

I do not care if Alex Jones or Albert Einstein said the 2 + 2 = 5. It doesn't, and I can prove it so I don't need to rely on authority.