Athias

the question is HOW

HOW do you "know this" ?

Belief is a state of mind. Specifically, it’s the acceptance of something as true.

That is categorically different from the question of whether there is evidence to support a claim or whether something is considered a fact.

Well, we created words that attempted to define stuff and we also developed semantics.

1. Is there an actually existent GOD......Externally perceivable.......No.

1. Is there an actually existent GOD......Externally perceivable.......No.

2. Is there an existent GOD......Relative to internal  process....Imagination......Yes.

Definitive evidence without belief is definitive evidence.

...So defines a fact rather than a hypothesis.

Show me an actually existent GOD.

Well "public" is a very general word....Whereas religion is somewhat more sectarian....Hence there are different groupings teaching different things.

Hence not every one believes in imaginary deities, or the same imaginary deity.

So what does the phrase really mean? It’s usually a shorthand way of saying, “That’s trivial or unimportant,” or “Now we’re just arguing about the meaning of words.” It can also be a way of saying that both sides mean the same thing but use different language to express it. In short, you can agree to disagree because the dispute is negligible.

“That’s just semantics” or “You’re just arguing semantics” might pop up when debating controversial topics, but it doesn’t have to be a stopping point. If semantics is all about meaning, then perhaps the speaker should be saying, “We just disagree on meaning.” But questioning what the other person means is what most good debates are about.

If the disagreement is really about word choice, that wouldn’t be covered by semantics. That would be covered by lexicography or diction. But, “You’re just arguing lexicography” doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Belief.

Is simply a lack of definitive evidence.

If something is factual then belief is irrelevant.

Actually existent GODS are not facts

therefore theists like to substitute factual certainty with imagination

Atheists do not benefit from interpreting data in quite the same way.

Data in, data assessment, data storage and maybe data output.

The consolidation of theistic style data or atheistic style data, is usually relative to the formative conditioning of children.

Refer to it as education or refer to it as brainwashing. You choose.

More than atheism having a lack of belief, I would say that religion is an overdose of belief, basing themselves on things that are not proven by science to exist and justifing it all with the "faith".

Nope.

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

I don't know, dude. Looks close to me. 

Derailing? Is that a French term? I can recommend some books on the constitution if you don’t know where to look.

I’ll give you a hint - there are three prominent Virginians who were anti-Federalist who insisted on a Bill of Rights in order to ratify.

Well that's foundational, right? I got problems with individuals owning machine guns. We're not so different after all. 

I don't know, dude. They're both big numbers.

You don’t know who the leading anti-Federalist are do you? Can you name some books you’ve read about the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention?

Was “moral principal”

as a source of constitutional rights just pulled out of your ass or did you read that somewhere?

You asked this new fun fighty member

to substantiate or justify any measure which would attempt to ban firearms. I figured if I build justification inside of your philosophy, that's a winner. 

So how about those nuclear bombs in individuals' hands? 

I googled it for you. There's 400,000 homicides a year. That's adding up fast. 

Well, who are the most prominent anti-Federalists from the time of the Constitutional Convention? Do you not know? Do you know who proposed the BOR in the first Congress?

Well not surprisingly the anti-Federalists. You know who they are of course.

I'm sure you understand the point I'm getting at.

Your individualism is fine and dandy if we're all living on our own little islands, but we're not.

Nuclear bombs in the hands of members of government comes with vetting

and elections

and protocols and whatever else.

Threat management.

That's what it means to live alongside other people.

Can't I get a yes or no answer? Let's see the consistency in your philosophy. 

And average Joe probably definitely still has the bigger body count, right? 

That’s nonsense.  The definition of posses is to own. SEE LINK BELOW

www.google.com/search?q=possess&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS1013US1013&oq=possess&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i433i512j0i433i512j46i433i512j0i433i512.2261j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

possession

(pəˈzɛʃən)

n

1. the act of possessing or state of being possessed: in possession of the crown.

2. anything that is owned or possessed

3. (plural) wealth or property

4. the state of being controlled or dominated by or as if by evil spirits

5. the physical control or occupancy of land, property, etc, whether or not accompanied by ownership: to take possession of a house.

6. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a territory subject to a foreign state or to a sovereign prince: colonial possessions.

7. (General Sporting Terms) sport control of the ball, puck, etc, as exercised by a player or team: he lost possession in his own half.

The reason some Founders and members of the state ratification committees insisted on a BOR was Moral Principle couldn’t be relied upon to confer rights on the people. 

No LCpl, if that where true, where did the rights come from that the BOR guarantees?

So you possess AND own.

Thanks for clearing that up Frenchie.

The 9th amendment expressly repels the notions of semantic warriors?  - LOL THE 9th AMENDMENT REPELS NOTIONS SAYS THE DB

YOU OBVIOUSLY DO CARE BUT YOU DON’T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE OBJECTING TO

AMERICANS CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS BUT NO FORCE SHOULD PREVENT THEM? That’s brilliant 

So you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about. 

Appealing to common practice?  lol. I know you’re French but do you understand English?

Such as?

Are you an artist?

Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people wrongly believe the Constitution grants rights when it actually has one purpose only. To strip rights from the government.

Do you think people should be allowed to own nuclear bombs?

Do tell.

What makes you think I haven’t read the 9th amendment?

Do you think I’m advocating banning all firearms?

Are Americans allowed to buy automatic weapons?

Thompson machine guns like the Al Capone days or a .30 caliber belt fed machine guns?

If we can ban those, and we have, why not Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines?

Do you have any experience with firearms?

I was a Captain in the Marines

and I own several guns.

The Second Amendment reads as follows: A well regulated Militia...

I'm not sure that 'all Libertarians believe in 'No taxes 'anywhere?

"Taxation[edit]
Some deontological libertarians believe that consistent adherence to libertarian doctrines such as the non-aggression principle demands unqualified moral opposition to any form of taxation, a sentiment encapsulated in the phrase "Taxation is theft!".[59] They would fund all services through gratuitous contributions, private law and defense user fees as well as lotteries. Other libertarians support low taxes of various kinds, arguing that a society with no taxation would have difficulty providing public goods such as crime prevention and a consistent, unified legal system to punish rights violators. Geolibertarians in particular argue that only a single tax on the rental value of land, typically in conjunction with Pigovian pollution and severance fees to internalize negative externalities and curb natural resource depletion, are non-aggressive, non-distortionary and politically sustainable."

Debates within libertarianism - Wikipedia

sure, but you can't be surprised when you say "zeus is real"

and people think you believe in zeus

Then this conversation is over. Because I never made an original claim or assumed the BOP. In fact, the post that YOU quote of me was in response to another user making a claim. So I never had the BOP in this entire thread until you showed up and asked ME to make a claim, disregarding the context of your post.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

You are exactly correct. The simple reason is that liberals do not believe in collective differences between people. Some groups are more violent, some are faster, some are smarter, etc. For example, whites will dominate in strongmen competitions, but will never see the light of day in long-distance running. East Asians dominate in math, Germans are good at Physics, Northern + Eastern Europeans are good with computers and video games, Ireland produces poets, and Britain produces great novelists and inventors. (America produces nothing, sadly) Everybody naturally knows this, and can recognize these differences between people. But, liberals only look at people through an individualist lens(blank slate). They think everyone is truly unique and awesome. Nope, you are not special, and your life is largely determined by your genes. It's why poverty doesn't have an effect on black violence. The richest blacks commit more crime than the poorest whites.

If geography determines genes than it makes sense why Europeans are the way they are. They are generally more individualistic because they had to survive the brutal ice age, and they dominated geopolitics because they lived through harsh conditions. Blacks never had to invent or develop a great civilization because if they wanted to survive, they just hunted, and really couldn't grow much food. Jews didn't have a homeland until '48 because their ancestry is of Cain and Esau, which the Bible described them as nomads. Plus, most jews are descended from khazaria, a nomad kingdom.

So yeah, Ireland has a knack for poetry because they were isolated and became spiritual in peace(I theorize that), and also they love alcohol

--> @Dr.Franklin

It's why poverty doesn't have an effect on black violence. The richest blacks commit more crime than the poorest whites.

The countries with the ten highest crime rates, expressed in per 100,000 people, globally are:

1. Venezuela (83.76)
   
2. Papua New Guinea (80.79)
   
3. South Africa (76.86)
   
4. Afghanistan (76.31)
   
5. Honduras (74.54)
   
6. Trinidad and Tobago (71.63)
   
7. Guyana (68.74)
   
8. El Salvador (67.79)
   
9. Brazil (67.49)
   
10. Jamaica (67.42)
    

--> @Dr.Franklin

Blacks never had to invent or develop a great civilization

In fact, there was a time when Egypt's rulers were black, hailing from the kingdom of Kush, located in modern-day Sudan and Upper Egypt, according to KPBS. Around 750 BC they conquered Egypt, enthroned their own pharaohs and ruled Egypt for nearly a century, in what would be known as the Nubian Dynasty, or Egypt's 25th Dynasty. [**]

The richest man in history,

• No 1: Mansa Musa ($400bn)
  

Mansa Musa (Musa I of Mali) was the king of the ancient empire of Mali in West Africa. [**]

not to mention,

Many scholars have concluded that the founders of the first Mesopotamian civilization were Black Sumerians. Mesopotamia was the Biblical land of Shinar (Sumer), which sprung up around 3000 B.C. After deciphering the cuneiform script and researching ancient Mesopotamia for many years Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) discovered that the founders of the civilization were of Kushite (Cushite) origin. [**]

1.The nubians came much after the original Egyptians, so they piggy-backed off of non-black innovation. They pulled a South Africa where blacks piggy-backed off of white innovation.

2.The Mali Empire was in direct contact with the outside world and so that is how they developed. Again sub-Saharan advanced societies never develop on their own, instead it took a massive volume of trade for the Mali Empire to grow. That and Ethiopia are the two only exceptions in ALL of sub-Saharan history.

3.That is preposterous. Your source is a literal "we wuz kangs" blog that tries to claim that minoan greece and ancient china was a black civilization. LMAO

--> @Dr.Franklin

1.The nubians came much after the original Egyptians, so they piggy-backed off of non-black innovation. They pulled a South Africa where blacks piggy-backed off of white innovation.

2.The Mali Empire was in direct contact with the outside world and so that is how they developed. Again sub-Saharan advanced societies never develop on their own, instead it took a massive volume of trade for the Mali Empire to grow. That and Ethiopia are the two only exceptions in ALL of sub-Saharan history.

Receipts?

3.That is preposterous. Your source is a literal "we wuz kangs" blog that tries to claim that minoan greece and ancient china was a black civilization. LMAO

Criticizing the source, but not the point.

i accept that THE CONCEPT OF zeus "exists" (in an abstract and NOT in a concrete sense)

personally, i would never say "zeus exists" without some very explicit (non-standard) definitions

for example,

in another thread

someone demanded a "YES" or "NO" answer to the question,

"are all mexicans xenophobic ?"

and i tried to explain

that a simple "YES" is "not true"

and likewise, a simple "NO" is also "not true"

that's the entire point of this thread

here's another example,

i once read that a "scientist" does NOT believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life

and the interviewer asked, "so, does that mean you DON'T believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life ?"

"no." the "scientist" responded

"I do NOT deny that intelligent extra-terrestrial life MAY exist" they explained

Zeus is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?

Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?

[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.

I do not "believe in" Zeus. I acknowledge Zeus's existence:

non-belief is the obvious default state of mind

failure to be convinced

does not constitute a "rejection" of  proposition A

and does not constitute an "acceptance" of proposition B

nope

i do not deny the POSSIBILITY that something that matches the description of "bigfoot" may possibly "exist"

i'm illustrating that one can "not accept" BOTH proposition A and proposition B

and continue their life

as they were already

which is "without belief" in proposition A

which is also "de facto" "as-if" proposition B "is considered true"

without "accepting" proposition B

Wouldn't that inversely suggest a negative belief of some sort, which doesn't necessarily implicate a "lack" of it? I understand oromagi's contention because the term "lack" suggests "absence." And in my opinion, the only thing that approximates a "lack of belief" is ignorance. Is it that an atheist "lacks belief" or is it that an atheist sustains a "negative" belief based on a "positive" belief in something else? And I'm not suggesting that for example, because you do not adopt a positive belief in Bigfoot, that necessarily suggests that you've adopted a positive belief in Bigfoot's existence being falsfiable. It would necessarily suggest however that whatever measures you use in maintaining and gauging your "positive beliefs" would produce an active belief against all which fall short of said measures

Read that sentence again. Out loud.

It wasn't a simple request.

Let's recap;

You have been asking me questions since post 79. Since then you have asked me to explain my position via multiple questions in posts 89, 97, 99, 104, 109, 111, and 117. I have responded by answering every single one of your questions in detail in posts 84, 96, 98, 102, 107, 110 and 112. At the end of post 112 I warned you that you needed to contribute to the conversation if you wanted this to continue. You completely ignored that warning in post 117 so I drew the line and let you know that you need to contribute if you wanted this to continue.

How does the scientific method help you determine what's real as opposed to what's not real?

even though i don't "consent to receive" proposition B

even though i don't "give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to" proposition B

even though i don't "receive as adequate, valid, or suitable" proposition B

even though i don't "regard favourably or with approval; welcome" proposition B

even though i don't "accept" proposition B

any and all of the above

Prove to me that blacks were in ancient sumeria. 

Hence my point, if you don't have a point you're getting at then this conversation is a waste of time. And you are free to pretend that's a reflection on me all you want if it makes you feel better.

consent to receive or undertake (something offered). 

give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to. 

receive as adequate, valid, or suitable. 

regard favourably or with approval; welcome. 

i don't know what exactly proposition A is

and i've lived my life perfectly fine up to this point without knowing exactly what proposition A is

therefore

even though i don't "accept" proposition B

i will continue to act as-if proposition B "is true"

accept

əkˈsɛpt

verb

consent to receive or undertake (something offered). 

give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to. 

say yes to a proposal of marriage from (a man).  dated

receive as adequate, valid, or suitable. 

regard favourably or with approval; welcome. 

one can still be considered "poor" without being "desperate"

It has nothing to do with capability. You wouldn't be asking me these silly questions

if you didn't see something wrong,

all I'm asking is to start contributing to the conversation by pointing out what you see so that I know I'm not wasting my time with elaborate answers that are irrelevant.

We started off talking about the definition of Atheism and worked our way to flat earth examples to show the difference between a statement of one's mindset vs reality.

You can convince yourself that I'm afraid to answer your questions all you want, I've entertained this far longer than most would have.

less poor is less wrong

more poor is more wronger

i don't know what exactly proposition A is

and i've lived my life perfectly fine up to this point without knowing exactly what proposition A is

therefore

even though i don't "accept" proposition B

i will continue to act as-if proposition B "is true"

which is exactly what i was already doing anyway

up to and until the hypothetical point in time when someone or something CONVINCES me that proposition A "is true"

It's also the end all and be all of IOU's...try getting a bank loan with no collateral.

I want you to make your point. I've written exactly what I think in my posts here tonight. You're wasting my time with this nonsense. 

I'm just not very interested in your pedantic way of argument.

If you have something to say, say it. Why should I submit to this pulling of nails?

Money makes the world go round, Athias.

It is [part of the] economy.

It's the beginning and end of all complexity in trade.

So the basic unit of economy is IOU and economy is not convolutions built atop the idea of IOU? All right, buddy. 

I think you can have whatever good feelings you like about those three words, but they'll come to slavery.