Since you asked! ;) My opinion is that wouldn't change much. Business would be greatful I'm sure but I don't see how that would be drastically different from the world economy now?
Depends how much transparency is there - whats the global currency based off of? Is it going to be fiat again, because we've seen what happens with a group of people able to control deflation and inflation that are unaccountable. Would it be gold backed? Or maybe a basket of precious metals?
Global Economy is just too ambiguous and I am not an expert in Econ.
Someone once said "The poor you will always have with you."
It looked like it was true. There's always someone incorrigible: they have a delusion that money is poison, or a conviction that money is evil, they're too forgetful to carry money. In short, they want nothing to do with you. Curing their "poverty" will be the gateway to fascism. Their poverty is a choice.
There is nothing that is positive-for-all. Some of us hate some of you and anything good for you is bad for us.
I don't care what you build. I hope to watch it burn.
Ok, I see your definitions. Objective poverty is quantitatively measured. Fine. You can't end it. Go ahead and try. There will always be someone who owns nothing.
"Human-made construct" is nothing. I had generously assumed you meant "social construct". Name one construct that is not human made. God did it? Aliums?
Here's part of the problem: poverty is the natural state of man. You're born poor. You'll be buried poor. That has nothing to do with "human-made constructs". You've inverted the causation.
Why are you trollin' /v/conspiracy? This isn't your bag, man. Go bait some libertarian over at /v/politics.
I always held that the Star Trek version of events is completely and utterly possible. Thing is, Roddenberry wrote how humanity went through exactly the sort of thing that apparently is trying to be engineered to happen: WW3 and a huge depopulation.
But, as history shows, a depopulation is extremely effective for those left. Look at the state and economy after black plague swept across EU. Suddenly, there weren't as many people and so the remaining people took lands no longer having anyone to defend them. They needed workers so there were more "jobs" (if you call working a field in a feudal society a job).
Thing is, I want to remain positive because it is pointless to get mad. Who would I get mad at? My neighbor that I want to be on my team? The local government official doing what his masters tell him/her to do? I can't interface directly with anyone who really can change except for my equals - my neighbors, friends, family, etc... OK, being angry has it's moments, but telling someone to 'wake up' every other sentence is offensive.
We need to coalesce into something to be reckoned with otherwise just enjoy the ride.
I wouldn't say it's erroneous. I think agnostics are the only group who could say they are truely not religious. There is as much evidence for a God as against, so to say I don't know and don't care is probably the rational approach.
People say Athiests are religious for two reasons; firstly because they believe there is nothing based on as much evidence for God, I don't see much difference in the belief of something vs belief of nothing.
And secondly because of the ferocity of the Atheists belief system, many may spout lines so similar there could be a Atheist bible and they try to convert everyone they meet to their so called "non-religion".
I can be considered an athiest depending on who you talk to or the subject we talk about. But I don't have a belief in nothing or that I believe there is no god. I am not Anti-theist, so I am not against religion - I HAVE NO RELIGION. I think you are also part of the crowd that places atheist ideas into a "non-religious belief" column.
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
There is enough empirical evidence so far to support the conclusion that there are no deities. There is not sufficient empirical evidence to support the conclusion there are deities. Therefore, you must enter the realm of 'belief' in a deity as there is not enough evidence to support that claim.
I agree that agnostics take the rational approach, but we are talking about belief which is irrational by definition.
Anyways, your stance is clearly wrong and you're taking the traditional religious approach when confronted with an atheist. Its quite simple - atheism is not nihilism - it isn't a belief in ANYTHING. There is no belief. Belief in nothing is not atheism.
I'm sorry I must have missed a lot of science news.
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method
I would love to review some of those papers/studies that concluded there is no God. Are there any that stand out as the "best" or most peer reviewed with similar conclusions?
I never said there was empirical evidence proving or disproving anything, just that enough exists to make an educated conclusion (re: assumption). But that is not a belief in something. Look - I am not interested in debating theology with an anon theist on Voat. Believe what you want - I don't believe in sky fairies, sky pies, or any other nonsense.
I guess we dissagree on the definition of the word belief and the scientific method.
I wasn't after Proof because I know none exists (there is Proof of little in science) one way or the other. I was after some of the science/ empirical evidence that supported your position.
Since you do not want to share any evidence, I assume you have none.
Allism is a debilitating neurological condition which adversely affects
emotional stability, sensory perception, self-awareness, attention, and
many other areas of mental function. It is a developmental abnormality,
arising from congenital neurological defects that affect infantile
mental development. The effects are lifelong, and there is no cure.
However, despite the wide-ranging effects, sufferers superficially
appear normal, and can partially compensate for their deficiencies to
lead nearly normal lives.
un1ty ago
Sharia, Oil, Islam.
Did I win anything?
iamrage ago
What is everyone's opinion on having just the one-world economy portion from all of that?
2899528? ago
Since you asked! ;) My opinion is that wouldn't change much. Business would be greatful I'm sure but I don't see how that would be drastically different from the world economy now?
un1ty ago
Depends how much transparency is there - whats the global currency based off of? Is it going to be fiat again, because we've seen what happens with a group of people able to control deflation and inflation that are unaccountable. Would it be gold backed? Or maybe a basket of precious metals?
Global Economy is just too ambiguous and I am not an expert in Econ.
2899577? ago
"I am not an expert in Econ."
Good because did you know those guys assume stupid things like people will always make rational choices?
madmalloy ago
I'm sure the banksters would love it.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
well then we gotta give'em that vision :)
SaneGoatiSwear ago
SaneGoatiSwear ago
pitenius ago
Someone once said "The poor you will always have with you."
It looked like it was true. There's always someone incorrigible: they have a delusion that money is poison, or a conviction that money is evil, they're too forgetful to carry money. In short, they want nothing to do with you. Curing their "poverty" will be the gateway to fascism. Their poverty is a choice.
There is nothing that is positive-for-all. Some of us hate some of you and anything good for you is bad for us.
I don't care what you build. I hope to watch it burn.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
pitenius ago
really.... previously you invoked "objective poverty"... now, it's a "social construct"
SaneGoatiSwear ago
pitenius ago
Ok, I see your definitions. Objective poverty is quantitatively measured. Fine. You can't end it. Go ahead and try. There will always be someone who owns nothing.
"Human-made construct" is nothing. I had generously assumed you meant "social construct". Name one construct that is not human made. God did it? Aliums?
Here's part of the problem: poverty is the natural state of man. You're born poor. You'll be buried poor. That has nothing to do with "human-made constructs". You've inverted the causation.
Why are you trollin' /v/conspiracy? This isn't your bag, man. Go bait some libertarian over at /v/politics.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
pitenius ago
Was there anyone in this thread who gave you a response you liked?
It's a real stand-off of two parties with little more than opinions, I guess. Why did you reply twice?
SaneGoatiSwear ago
this is all wrong.
allll wrong.
madmalloy ago
The New World Order is the Old World Order; just trying to upgrade it's image.
Royalty that sees us as worthless serfs to feed off.
Wake up.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
un1ty ago
I always held that the Star Trek version of events is completely and utterly possible. Thing is, Roddenberry wrote how humanity went through exactly the sort of thing that apparently is trying to be engineered to happen: WW3 and a huge depopulation.
But, as history shows, a depopulation is extremely effective for those left. Look at the state and economy after black plague swept across EU. Suddenly, there weren't as many people and so the remaining people took lands no longer having anyone to defend them. They needed workers so there were more "jobs" (if you call working a field in a feudal society a job).
Thing is, I want to remain positive because it is pointless to get mad. Who would I get mad at? My neighbor that I want to be on my team? The local government official doing what his masters tell him/her to do? I can't interface directly with anyone who really can change except for my equals - my neighbors, friends, family, etc... OK, being angry has it's moments, but telling someone to 'wake up' every other sentence is offensive.
We need to coalesce into something to be reckoned with otherwise just enjoy the ride.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
2 things happen in times like these: war and death, or peace and growth.
we all know which one happens more often.
madmalloy ago
The current regimes will never allow the people any say in what is going on.
Wake up.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
this is not true.
if it were easier for them to retain their control, they would.
madmalloy ago
Wake up.
They are doing so.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
doing what?
madmalloy ago
SaneGoatiSwear ago
Tb0n3 ago
Atheism isn't a religion.
un1ty ago
Don't know why the downvoats - Atheism literally means 'without theism' which means "no religion."
I think people like to erroneously conflate 'belief' with 'I believe in nothing" as being equals.
2899456? ago
I wouldn't say it's erroneous. I think agnostics are the only group who could say they are truely not religious. There is as much evidence for a God as against, so to say I don't know and don't care is probably the rational approach.
People say Athiests are religious for two reasons; firstly because they believe there is nothing based on as much evidence for God, I don't see much difference in the belief of something vs belief of nothing. And secondly because of the ferocity of the Atheists belief system, many may spout lines so similar there could be a Atheist bible and they try to convert everyone they meet to their so called "non-religion".
:)
un1ty ago
Ummm, no.
I can be considered an athiest depending on who you talk to or the subject we talk about. But I don't have a belief in nothing or that I believe there is no god. I am not Anti-theist, so I am not against religion - I HAVE NO RELIGION. I think you are also part of the crowd that places atheist ideas into a "non-religious belief" column.
There is enough empirical evidence so far to support the conclusion that there are no deities. There is not sufficient empirical evidence to support the conclusion there are deities. Therefore, you must enter the realm of 'belief' in a deity as there is not enough evidence to support that claim.
I agree that agnostics take the rational approach, but we are talking about belief which is irrational by definition.
Anyways, your stance is clearly wrong and you're taking the traditional religious approach when confronted with an atheist. Its quite simple - atheism is not nihilism - it isn't a belief in ANYTHING. There is no belief. Belief in nothing is not atheism.
Not sure how to put it more simple.
2899786? ago
I'm sorry I must have missed a lot of science news.
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method
I would love to review some of those papers/studies that concluded there is no God. Are there any that stand out as the "best" or most peer reviewed with similar conclusions?
un1ty ago
I never said there was empirical evidence proving or disproving anything, just that enough exists to make an educated conclusion (re: assumption). But that is not a belief in something. Look - I am not interested in debating theology with an anon theist on Voat. Believe what you want - I don't believe in sky fairies, sky pies, or any other nonsense.
2904609? ago
I guess we dissagree on the definition of the word belief and the scientific method. I wasn't after Proof because I know none exists (there is Proof of little in science) one way or the other. I was after some of the science/ empirical evidence that supported your position.
Since you do not want to share any evidence, I assume you have none.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
un1ty ago
Allism:
Is this where the SJW movement came from?
SaneGoatiSwear ago
lol.
no, i've never gotten that one before /s