Athias

Yes it is. That's what money is and that's what all the rest is. It all grew out of the idea of IOU's. The first piece of currency was a slip of paper with IOU written on it and here we are today, a monstrous capitalist machine. 

I believe the free market is a con and always was. 

Yes, more or less. Free market anarchism. Strip away government, leave the rest. 

Economy is endless convolution grown around the idea of IOU's.

Stocks and shares and patents and everything else is just more.s

Nobody planned it, it all just grew out of an idea. 

So what's your point? 

I'm not here to explain things to five year olds, I'm here to discuss issues with people who can challenge my arguments. I'm fine with answering questions, but we've gotten to the point where you've asked me to explain the difference between describing one's bmindset vs describing reality, how the scientific method tells us what's true, and what makes A and not A the only two options.

If you want to continue this conversation you need to participate in it.

I've had the presuppositional apologetics debate

but not when I'm talking to someone who just keeps asking "why" over and over again without offering anything.

You have my answers. Address them if you'd like to continue.

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

Ok, I'm really starting to wonder what the point of this conversation is. The questions you are asking me are basic stuff, and when I answer them you just keep asking more basic questions like a five year old asking why over and over again.

If there is a point to all this please make it. I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real. You either understand that already or we have much bigger issues here.

Yes, but you made it a point to argue a functional distinction manifest in one's actions. So I'm trying to understand what actions are theist, atheist, agnostic, etc. Case in point: could I not just argue that a functional distinction between one who "lacks belief" and one who "disbelieves" is that the former would sit in the pews of a church "bored" while the latter would attend a Richard Dawkins "lecture"? Could I not just as well argue that one who lacks belief would be just as bored at a Richard Dawkins lecture? Your argument that there's no functional distinction between one who "lack belief" and one who "disbelieves" is a quantitative one, correct? Especially since we're discussing actions?

To understand your position, I'm engaging you in reduction--that is, to reduce your argument to its barest and fundamental premise. I assume that you understand the argument that the scientific method helps us determine what's real, so why not explain it? If it helps, pretend you're writing a paper on it. Who knows? Maybe explaining it can help you have a better understanding of it as well.

You have my answers. Address them if you'd like to continue.

Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REAL

Proposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REAL

which do you accept and which do you reject ?

I'll let you in on a little secret. There are no black or white people.

You have been lied to your whole life to believe various shades of pink and beige is white and various shades of Brown and yellow are Black.

In fact, every single person on the planet is a unique color and the same as no other in the world. There exists no Albinos that are actually 100% white and there are no people that are 100% Black on the color spectrum.

Think about that the next time you ponder the meaning of the universe.

This is meaningless. The problem in wealth equality is that our system of reward is more or less arbitrary. Whether I'm better than you, or you me, has nothing to do with it. Elon Musk is not worth 50 million dollars an hour where another is worth 3 cent.

If you like, taxation is a band-aid fix where we have allowed our system of reward to develop organically.

the contention here is that "atheism" is not the ONLY alternative to "theism"

it's a false dichotomy

rejecting a false dichotomy does not imply one accepts "the opposite" of the false dichotomy

non-theism could be DEISM or PANTHEISM or MONISM or GNOSTICISM or even APATHEIST ("i don't care if a theistic god exists or not")

many of these people do not self-identify as "atheist"

but probably could still qualify for technical "atheism" if one understands "atheism" to be "not-a-theist"

These two sentences directly contradict each other.

Proposition A is "a god exists". The opposite of that is "no gods exist", which is proposition B. So if one's rejection of proposition A = acceptance of proposition B, then ones rejection of proposition A = acceptance of its opposite.

I don't know why you would ask me this. Let's try this another way.

A) The earth is flat

B) John believes the earth is flat

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

Logic is how we determine what we believe, and logic has rules.

Do you believe in the laws of logic? Yes or No?

There are certain things theists do which result from their beliefs (i.e. go to church, pray, make decisions based on what they think their god wants, etc.). Yes of course atheists can do these things. We're not talking in terms of absolutes, were talking in practical terms. Practically speaking, anyone can tell whether someone is a theist or an atheist with enough exposure to that person. This isn't complicated.

That's where the term "on balance" comes in. That doesn't mean I accept that there are no gods or consider that conclusion reasonable, it means that I consider the claim to be more reasonable by comparison to the alternative.

These are different things.

Ok, I'm really starting to wonder what the point of this conversation is. The questions you are asking me are basic stuff, and when I answer them you just keep asking more basic questions like a five year old asking why over and over again.

If there is a point to all this please make it. I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real.

You either understand that already or we have much bigger issues here.

To reject is to not accept.

I propose a new idea to my boss and he rejects it. All that means is he does not accept my proposal.

I ask a girl on a date, she rejects me. All that means is she does not accept my offer.

I try to give someone advice and they reject it. All that means is they do not accept what I've said to them.

There is nothing about any of these examples which necessitates that the person rejecting what was offered accepted the opposite. My boss did not necessarily go about by doing the opposite of what I proposed. The girl I asked out did not necessarily date someone else. The person rejecting my advice did not go out and do the exact opposite.

To reject simply means to not accept. Not accepting something does not = accepting the opposite.

Because that's not relavant to our conversation.

One is a description of reality, the other is a description of one's mindset.

The law of excluded middle

Yes.

If you have another method by which we can determine what is real vs. not real please share.

It has nothing to do with value systems. It's about what we observe within our daily lives. If we can't tell the difference between two things, there is functionally no difference.

Explain where I did what you're describing.

Nothing, that's always been my position. I would and have argued that God does not exist either with regards to specific god claims or that it is on balance more reasonable to believe no gods exist than to believe one does.

Point: an individual detail; a distinguishing detail; the most important essential in a discussion or matter. 

I am not lying. Clearly you do not understand the meaning of distinction vs qualification. 

My statement that criminological data clearly showing a small % of black males are far more of a problem for America than the left claims is statistically accurate.

FactCheck: do black Americans commit more crime? – Channel 4 News

African-American Men Represent 6% of the Population, but Commit 52% of the Murders in the United States. | by Publius Americanus | Les Deplorables | Medium

100 Black Crime Statistics: Data, Trends & Predictions | CompareCamp.com

Blacks Overrepresented in Violent Crime Arrests: BJS - The Crime Report

I know its meaning, you obviously do not.

And it is very condescending for you to even ask this, repeatedly for different terms throughout your retort. 

Wrong. Putting an APB out on merely height, weight, hair color and clothing are meaningless without a racial distinction. Otherwise, police would be looking for any male or female fitting the vague description, which is tantamount to looking for a needle in a haystack. 

Yeah, you did in the previous response. You did not link to the specific comment for I or anyone else to refer to.

No one wants to go back and search through hundreds of comments just to find mine in which you are replying to.

Next time link to it

otherwise you ARE quoting out of context. 

Race does not qualify criminality, as all human beings from all backgrounds are capable of criminality. Criminality is not exclusive to one race. Therefore, race does not qualify criminality. 

Quoting out of context leaving vague retorts without linking to the specific comment you are replying to. 

You do not know what the term qualification means, nor non sequitur either, obviously. 

Another example of your sanctimonious condescension. I know perfectly well what they mean. Do you?? 

I've already proven my arguments.

So yes, if you claim I am wrong on any level or by any measure, then it is incumbent upon you to prove me wrong.

That's because you know the data proves my argument.

You just do not like the wording of my argument. 

Asked and answered, ad nauseum. 

Intraracial, NOT interracial. 

And I have said repeatedly it is attributable to a segment of the black community, not all black Americans. 

Generational Poverty

Victimhood Mentality

Regurgitating false narratives pedaled by "black" & "white" liberal leaders (e.g. lies, divisive racist rhetoric toward cops, "whites" and other "races." )

72% out-of-wedlock birth rates

Fatherless boys who are poorly parented by prisoners, who presumably have their child's mother serve as proxy

Street/Gang life

Intraracial Violence.

Proposing = claiming

My argument(s) have been explained and are crystal clear. 

A small % of black males are committing more violent person crimes than any other racial category. Yet the left denies this fact and claims white males are the greatest danger, asserting that they, white males, are the domestic terrorists everyone need fear. This is a lie. The facts do not support their narrative. Thus they deny any fact-based truth that contradicts their unsubstantiated narrative. 

What they say, as I clearly stated is EXACTLY what I have stated herein, and more that augments the same argument that I have given and the reasonings, therefore. 

Does Social Welfare Reduce Crime?

Using cross sectional data, DeFranzo (1996, 1997) and Hannon and DeFranzo (1998a, 1998) demonstrate that welfare payments reduce major crimes. It appears that frequent payments of a sufficient size would reduce crime levels and smooth the process. [**]

False. To reject something is to not accept it.

To not accept proposition A does not necessitate an acceptance of proposition B

already gave you the example of this being done, i.e. I consider the question of whether a god exists to be unresolvable.

That position rejects both propositions as unsupported by the evidence.

I've argued nothing regarding some "metaphysical objectivity", you made that up.

I'm talking about the difference between what is vs. what we believe

Once again, proposition A is either true or it is not true. That's it, those are the only two options. When it comes to what we believe however, there are three possibilities;

I believe A is true

I believe A is not true

I have not determined whether I believe A is true or not true

Theism/atheism are labels we put on people to tell us what their beliefs are, so the actual truth of the proposition is a seperate topic from how we determine what labels are appropriate.

That depends on how it's being defined. Pretty much every serious attempt to define god I've ever heard includes at minimum that he exists "outside of time and space". So as a physical being existing within time, the concept of verifying whether something even could let alone does exist outside of time is completely incoherent. And existing outside of space requires us to be able to verify that which exists outside the observable universe. The term "observable" is there for a reason, that's as far as we can see our know in any way is there.

So for starters, find me a way to explore what lies beyond the observable universe and coherently explain not only how something can possibly exist outside of time but also how we can demonstrate that it actually does.

It matters to the question of how we should define the term "atheist" because if what theists tend to recognize as atheists vs agnostics has no functional difference in our society then it is practically useless for us to bother distinguishing them.

How so?

explicit definitions of "god" and "exist"

One has nothing to do with the other.

Proposition A: "a god exists"

Proposition B: "no gods exist"

Per the law of excluded middle, one of these propositions must be true and the other must be false. But that is about what's actually true. We're talking about beliefs.

When it comes to one's beliefs the same cannot be said. Believing one is true does logically require the other to be false, but not accepting one of these propositions as true does not mean the other is accepted as true.

I reject proposition A on the basis that it lacks sufficient evidence. I also reject proposition B on the basis that it lacks sufficient evidence.

So back to your question, "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties" is a statement describing one's mindset towards proposition A. It has nothing to do with proposition B.

3RU7AL's statement at the end is talking about proposition B.

They're different propositions.

I consider it irresolvable because the central claim is that there exists a being occupying a realm of reality that we have no access to. If we have no access to it then we could not possibly demonstrate whether anything is there.

No, you asked me about functionality, which is about actions, so of course my answer would be as well.

The functionality argument is that there is no distinguishable difference between disbelieving and lacking belief with regards to how one lives their life, therefore there is no need to categorize them differently.

Nothing, that's always been my position. I would and have argued that God does not exist either with regards to specific god claims or that it is on balance more reasonable to believe no gods exist than to believe one does. Neither of those conflict with the position I stated here.

BOTH "DISbelief in [X]" AND "lacking a belief in [X] very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of [X] worship, a lack of [X,] a lack of membership in clubs that believe in [X])"

the key feature of "belief in a specific god and or gods and or goddess and or goddesses" is that an individual who proclaims such a belief is presumed to modify their behavior in accordance with the teachings associated with the specific god and or gods and or goddess and or goddesses

BOTH "DISbelief" AND "lack of belief" does NOT imply that either those individuals act in accordance with such teachings AND does NOT imply that those individuals act CONTRARY to those teachings

in other words, a belief in gggg presumably informs your behavior

and a non-belief in gggg does NOT inform your behavior

MONISM

traditionally, a "crime of desperation" is thought of differently than a "crime of greed" or a "crime of hate"

No, it doesn't.

When I say lacks belief in the existence of any dieties, I am saying the person does not believe a diety exists. That is very different from saying one lacks any belief with regards to the question of whether a god exists (explained in detail in post 93).

No. One can very easily conclude (as I have) that the question of whether a God exists is irresolvable.

I don't understand your question. Functionality has to do with actions or that which can be observed. If no difference can be observed, then they are indistinguishable. If they are indistinguishable, then they are functionally the same.

In my view, the assertion that there are no gods is misguided because I don't believe there is any way to support that statement.

I wager one or both of you have not seen either Uncle Tom or Uncle Tom II. 

The following two videos show/disclose exactly what I have been conveying herein and then some. 

https://youtu.be/5rnjnod_zFo

https://youtu.be/BAq0PJZ67_w

Doubt either of you will watch them, denialists rarely do. 

The historical consensus.

No, rather you educate ME. Because every single historian in existence disagrees with you

The obvious point is that I am focusing in on criminological data that specifically involved the black demographic of the population and no other specific demographics as the primary subject matter of the discussion.

Again, the distinction is based on the demographics and NOT qualifications. 

Again, no qualifications but rather demography. Big difference. 

Yes, it is very analogous.

A physical search is meaningless unless it is narrowed down more by demography of racial background. 

Quoting out of context leaves such retorts like this 100% vague and meaningless. 

There is no qualification, it is fact based on the data that the demographic committing the crimes cited are distinctly categorized by black (vs white or Hispanic). 

Yes, it is. Denialist. 

Distinction does not equal qualification. 

Stop making semantics arguments. It's not only disingenuous, but also ignorant. 

If you are so full of contention, then prove me wrong

prove the "factually accurate" data wrong

Stop whining about it, and just prove it.

As I have said repeatedly, they deny the statistics as being attributable the small segment of black males committing the violent person crimes and not my conclusions.

My stance is far better.

Claiming otherwise without proving it speaks volumes. 

My argument functions on my understanding of their definitions and explanations.

It's tantamount to looking up the term in the damn dictionary. 

I am not going to rephrase what they say/said about the part of black culture that is harming that specific segment of the black community that finds itself in generational poverty, suffering from the victimhood mentality, parroting what black & white guilt liberal so-called leaders spoon feed them (e.g. lies, divisive racist rhetoric towards cops, whites and other races & nationalities), 72% out of wedlock birth rates, fatherless boys going from a poorly parented single parent home through the pipeline into prison, and of course...the street/gang life with endless trouble and conflicts with law enforcement, not to mention intraracial violence. 

You cannot claim I am regurgitating anything & not understanding it without proving it. Whining about it isn't proof. 

JFC, you and that other clown do nothing but bitch wine and moan about my position and have yet to even address the underlining argument.

Until either of you do, I will not respond any further.

This Dunning Kruger display of a bitch fest is over with. 

These are facts from logic and historical reasoning. I have no particular source I am just inferring.

It's utter bullshit. Blacks were nowhere in Ancient Sumeria

historically, the poor are more likely to both commit and be victims of "violent crime"

https://www.reddit.com/r/nonduality/comments/qr4uxt/the_universe_experiencing_itself/

in lak'esh ala k'in

Black is the adjective/descriptor for the noun, criminality. It identifies the nature of the topic I want to cover, but it in no way infers directly or indirectly that I am stating as any measure of fact-based evidence that blacks, as a race, in and of themselves, are racially prone to criminality. I am merely identifying what part of the population I want to address regarding criminality that America has to do deal with.

I could have just as easily said white criminality, Asian criminality...makes no difference, as it merely addresses a specific part of the population (the adjective) that I want to discuss regarding a measure of criminality (the noun).

Still the same. Black males are not [the] black race. They are a demographic segment with a high level of violent criminality that surpasses other demographic segments. I cannot just say some males are more violent than other males.

Makes no more sense than putting out an APB for a male in their mid-age at about 5-6' tall with a shaved head. Well, okay. What specific age. What clothing. But more importantly, what is the adjective describing their racial demographic.  

No, I am not.

Since the very specific crimes I have/am addressing are specific to a subset of the population

that subset needs to be described just like a suspect in an APB needs to be described.

The data is broken down by racial demographic descriptors in order to separate the criminological data into their respective subsets to show who is doing what and to whom. 

Nothing I have said in regard to what the criminological data shows as to who is doing what and to whom in greater numbers than others is all factually accurate.

It has a lot to do with everything whereas the point I am making is concerned. It matters not where the factual information comes from, white or black, the left simply refuses to accept the reality that the crime statistics provided are not attributable to black males in the population for which those numbers are clearly representative thereof.

It's denialism. It's intellectual cowardice. 

Well, if I am citing Sowell that means I agree with his definition and elaboration on that definition of black culture harming some within the black community.

I do not see the need to mince words or paraphrase something he already said when you can hear it for yourself. And according to you, you are already well aware of his definition. So why do I need to repeat him or Ben Shapiro or John McWhorter or Larry Elder or numerous others who have clearly identified and described the black culture harming blacks in the past to present day. 

I have not tried to qualify any criminality "by one's so-called 'race'". 

Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.

And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,

Perhaps, "many," have gleaned from your attempt to qualify criminality by one's so-called "race" as a platitude, which attempts to ascribe a pathological property to the demographics who bear your concern.

falsely claiming it whites and then calling me a racist for even putting for that fact-based truth.

When conservative blacks bring forth the same positions I have, they get called names and accused of being in black face for white supremacy. It's a joke. 

Clearly you didn't click the link and educate yourself. *sigh*

@Novice_II

factors or variables outside of racism

like what ?

"black culture" ?

why not just say "black culture" in the resolution ?

Yup. 

It's Not Race, It's Culture (Thomas Sowell) (thehayride.com)

have you considered running those same statistics specifically for "economic status" ?

A zygote is NOT [a] human being. 

A blastocyst is NOT [a] human being.

An embryo is NOT [a] human being.

An unviable fetus is NOT [a] human being. 

  Human is the descriptor defining the second term in that phrase, being. To be [a] (human) being is to be [a] person.

NO one calls the zygote "her body," it is widely accepted that it is within her body. Same as a cancer tumor would be, or even a tapeworm. It is still within her body, but it is NOT "her body." 

Does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right?

Devil's advocate would render this a less parsimonious ontology relative to a rendition of Solipsism wherein the body is reducible to the mental. In such a case, only the mind exists and therefore does not interact with any unique substance. The Dualist or any subclass must first demonstrate the existence of an external substance via a priori or a posteriori proof for the discussion of interaction to be discussed.

I would say it is not easy, or currently possible, to demonstrate,

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.

To date I have been permanently suspended from Instagram, Facebook and Twitter directly (and very specifically) due to posting fact-based truth backed by criminological (and other scientific) data that clearly demonstrates that black Americans, namely half of the roughly 6% of black male population in the US do in fact commit over 50% of the entire nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters; and that they are also disproportionately represented among other violent crimes like robberies and rapes. And yet those on the left, brainwashed black Americans, white guilt liberals and democrats deny these truths. They twist and manipulate the news to fit their agenda in order to divide people by race, class and more poignantly by gender/sex.

Nearly every single day there is a video posted online across various social media platforms of some black person acting a fool, and intelligent blacks rip them apart for being just that, acting a fool. Former Officer Brandon Tatum is one of them. Larry Elder. You name it. In fact, I am impressed by the number of black American's who are posting their reactions on YouTube to what they see/hear from Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest scholars of this time, regarding black history across the world; but namely America since he too is an American and wanted to understand the plight of blacks on this side of the planet (North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean).

Blacks, like Hispanics, are moving to the right and for good reason. Yet so many try to keep them under the Democratic bootheel. 

Thoughts for discussion?

Then what do you make of 3RU7AL's contention that:

3RU7AL Post #81:

lacking a belief in bigfoot

very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)

and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist

I see nothing here I disagree with.

The affirmation in this sentence is the thing we're talking about. When we say "lacks belief" that's just short for "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties".

If I’m understanding this question correctly, no.

Accepting a proposition as true and accepting a proposition as falsifiable are two different things and one has nothing to do with the other.

Yes I did. Functionality is about one’s actions, the theism/atheism address one’s beliefs. Functionality has nothing to do with this particular point.

Yes I am, if you would oblige. 

Age of consent laws as immoral seems a very radical sort of individualism.

I'm asking about your interpretation. 

I think your whole worldview and philosophy is absolute nonsense

but a funny sort of nonsense that coheres very prettily lol.

Do you take individualism

from God or something?

Is that what it is?

Thoughtful doesn't mean right though. People who get super high and start rambling about idiotic nonsense are thoughtful. Conspiracy theorists are thoughtful. Communists are thoughtful. 

I thought JP was awesome before he became lionized by losers online as some sort of intellectual monolith who could do no wrong. There are hundreds of videos, podcasts, articles, etc. that pick apart  his arguments and explain pretty straightforwardly why he's incorrect about a lot of things he takes a position on

his latest nonsense about standards of objective beauty

(he started whining about not being attracted to a plus size Sports Illustrated model, and he cited two positively useless articles as "proof" that don't back up a thing he said in any way whatsoever as another recent gaffe). 

I mean Jordan Peterson  basically bought into his own celebrity, became a drug addict and is now a meme who can't pry himself off twitter like some sort of desperate for attention wackadoo. I really enjoy his books, but the people who act like he's the second coming of Shakespeare are such tools. He's like the Dan Brown of philosophy for fucks sake, not the revelational  guru people portray him as. 

Essentially JP is  like "son, don't lie" and "women really shouldn't be given the autonomy to work outside the home or else all us beta boys won't be chosen and can't be happy" so all the ugly, pseudo intellectual white boys with no girlfriends  online are like yasss kinggg!!  It's sad what he's become. 

Hear they’re planning to do more of it after aging up the characters? 

As someone who grew up during the MTV era and watched some of the show... it's really just stupid fun, and for me at least, it got old fast. I watched both movies and, yeah, they're really just bigger versions of the same thing. There's something fun about seeing how the "normal" people around these two react to them, but that's really all there is to it. 

Jordan Peterson's whole utility is to be one big "there, there" for bitch men. 

Straight men should be more concerned with and disappointed in their statistical inability to sexually satisfy women.

theists tend to project the claims made by SOME atheists onto ALL atheists

All of the same things everyone else does, they just don't do the things that those who believe do.

Functionally, one who merely lacks belief is indistinguishable from one who disbelives

lacking a belief in bigfoot

very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)

and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist

The affirmation in this sentence is the thing we're talking about. When we say "lacks belief" that's just short for "lacks belief in the existence of any dieties".

The former can be the case without the latter, the latter cannot be the case without the former.

lacking a belief in bigfoot

very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)

and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist

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.