No, that is not a show stopper for Bitcoin. It is what is going to drive Bitcoin to full currency status faster, where people trade money for the more usable Bitcoin.
Here is the issue, anything that makes something less utilitarian and causes restrictions will fall into disfavor eventually. Laws and Restrictions and fees and taxes all have the unintended consequence of driving economy deeper under the table. There is a whole class of people who now work off the books, bartering and trading and whatnot, and they don't pay taxes on anything they earn, simply because the government cannot track their activities. They work very hard at staying under the radar, dealing in CASH and trades, and as a result, have a better income than someone that is legitimate.
If I earn 2000 under the table, it is worth 3000-4000 in legitimate earnings that people pay taxes on. And as more people realize how much the government seizes in taxes, even on the "poor", this will start happening more and more. Bitcoin(and similar), has the ability to really change this equation faster than it is happening now.
The more they squeeze their fists, the more people will slip through their fingers (paraphrase of Princes Leia)
The problem is, it is going to be really hard for the Government to trace money laundering with Bitcoin, if the people take a few simple steps.
1) Use unique wallet for each transaction 2) Use a washing service every time one acquires new coins in a normal transaction. 3) ??? 4) Profit
The government is going to try to regulate "coin washing", but since it is a decentralized currency, with no government boarders, it is going to be really hard to pull off well.
You're right. But the problem is, loyalty is a two way street. If an employer doesn't value existing employees to pay them what the market rate is, or even reasonably close, deserve to lose them to people willing to pay for it all. If my boss hired someone to do what I do, with less skill and experience than me, for more than I make, while being unwilling to even negotiate with me on a raise.... see ya boos!
I blame (D) and (R) who are so stuck on bringing home bacon, that they screw the people they clam they serve while getting all sorts of re-election donations for the very people they should be de-funding.
You get a better job, by becoming better at your job, and either you move up, or on. This is especially true in IT, where if you stay in your job, you don't get any raises or improvements in benefits. The proven method is to change your job, work somewhere else where they will pay you more, a lot more. I just read where people who change jobs do get raises, because they leave places that do not offer wages, but offer new employees more money than the people who have been there a while.
Which is something I never considered before, and now, I'm actively seeking new employment, and will continue to do so for the rest of my career. If people don't value what they have, they will lose it. Pay me what I am worth, or the marketplace will take me away from you.
Credible doubt... the Antarctic Ice Sheet being larger than average, during the "hottest years in the last century", and violating the entire climate change model being used to predict catastrophic sea-level changes!
Thesis is made Antithesis is rendered Experiments are conducted (Climate Change SuperComputer Models) Results are measured. (Ice Sheets should be shrinking, but are growing)
Conclusion, AWG isn't producing the results actually seen compared to the various climate models. The Thesis is flawed, and therefore MUST be reconsidered, but that isn't happening. Why?
The new answer is "global warming is changing currents in the oceans, causing ice sheet growth". So, by example, the global cooling should make the ice sheets smaller? But that doesn't work either, does it?
Hurricanes, Tornadoes, drought, flooding, etc are all about the same or LESS than years before, counter to all the AGW predictions about "massive" change to the climate.
I can cast credible doubt, but it will be ignored by the likes of you, simply because you WANT to believe AGW.
How is this a strawman? This is exactly the point. Here is a guy, who views exceptionalism, as "injustice" and "exclusion". Being really good at something is not an "injustice" period. It is exclusive, but that is kind of the point, as being really good at something does make your talent and skill exclusive. But that is the problem with LeftWingers, who want equal outcome, regardless of ability.
Follow the money. How many grants are given to the study of..... non catastrophic AGW? If you are a climatologist and want funding, you are pro-AGW, and you don't hide it, even if you are skeptical, as it is the only way to keep your funding.
Of course, if this were funded by KOCH, you'd bet the funding would be an issue.
And when I see words like "injustice" and "excluded" I see a typical liberal who views skill, talent, dedication and mastery as bad things. Misapplying words like this, in ways exactly like this, cheapens real injustice, and real exclusion. Normal Humans are excluded from exceptionalism, not because of some "injustice" but rather that is what makes the exceptional so great (mostly hard work and dedication).
How about, instead of deriding the exceptional among us, we inspire others to exceptionalism?
Tools are simpler and easier to use, and yet a Master can make those tools do things your average user cannot. And that makes the world of difference. A spreadsheet "can" be used as a simple Database, but actual real databases are more complex and can do things a Spreadsheet simply cannot handle. Is the difference "database" or something else? Is it the tool or something else?
The problem isn't where the author thinks it is, masters always make their work look easy, but it takes skill and talent both. Skill is practice, talent is skill with artistry.
Okay, Libertarians complain, about government interference in the lives of people. Why does every busy body think it is their right and responsibility to get involved in the daily affairs of the serfs? And I'm talking about both the (D) and (R) type micromanaging of people and telling us all how to live.
When "cutting the growth" of a program equates to "throwing grandma over the cliff, Draconian Measures and evil", the result is the same. You are paying attention, aren't you?
Actually, it is. If you have a better way of offering goods at a Supermarket, that doesn't collect information, and offer it up, I'm sure you'll make a small fortune.
Libertarians don't complain, they create a market where others only see problems.
I would postulate that protectionist "regulations" designed to hide protectionism in the form or "safety" or other regulations, creating barriers to entry in such a way that it prevents new, innovative ideas from coming to the market quickly and efficiently. The whole Technology surge of the last 20 years will be undone when "regulations" trying to prevent "bubbles" or other momentary inefficiencies will result in the abrupt end to the technology economy.
Yes, inefficiencies are part of a "free" economy, and often result in the busts that inevitably follow, as they are driven from the market. However, in no other kind of economy, can a person reach their full potential either, as restrictions in the form of regulations create the barriers to entry that effectively block them from doing so.
The end result is that in trying to prevent "harm" we actually do greater harm, that is masked in terms of stability. Stability is not necessarily a good thing, even while we desire it.
for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes.
What?
You may have morals, but they aren't derived from your lack of belief in a god, anymore than mine are defined by my failure to believe in the FSM or pink unicorns. Lack of belief in something doesn't define anything "moral", hence the term "amoral" (no morals)
Well, these words are always defined by humans, and all of them are subject to change (or, more accurately, new definitions will be added in addition to the old ones) over time, regardless of what religious beliefs people have.
Or... even shorter periods of time, like minutes or even seconds.
So, you're dismissive of anything that reflects badly upon Atheism and atheist in general, by ignoring actual concerns. If you're going to be grammatically pedantic, fine, I get it, and will rephrase my statements so that you can understand my intentions better.
That's pretty idiotic.
Atheists who say those things, or me for reporting it as it happened?
But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism".
You say "atheists" as if referring to all atheists.
THESE (mentioned previously) Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". (citing example followed, which was ignored)
I have no idea what these people you're talking about actually think, but I would imagine, at least, that they take into account intent and how deeply religious beliefs played into those horrors. That probably would make a different to them.
I see, tossing "all" atheists into the same basket is not okay, but doing the same with "all" religions is! Do you dismiss the idea of State Sponsored Atheism caused the state to persecute religions in the name of atheism? Or is it simply the case that that wasn't "true atheism"?
I can assure you that my faith doesn't require me killing anyone. There is not a commandment to kill, and specifically has a prohibition against murder. Of course there is no such commandment to not kill in Atheism for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes. Meaning there is nothing prohibited or commanded in the name of no-diety, therefore any time atheists say anything about atheism, it is subject to change based upon the whims of those that adhere to it.
I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".
I haven't declared anything off limits. My limits are whatever we agree upon. If having a conversation with me, someone points out all the "evils" committed by Christians, based upon their view, then by all means, any act committed by an Atheist is equally subject to how "atheism" should be viewed. But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and.. in the name of clearing the blight of religion from their societies... are not.
My only rule is that logic must be applied equally, or it isn't logical. Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make. I wonder why.
""I look and see Piltdown Man all over again. " This you are clueless. Their was NEVER scientific consensus on piltdown man, and when Scientist looked at it they declared it a fraud."
That is mighty revisionist history. There were University classes featuring Piltdown Man, and quite a number of "Scientists" got their PhD with their final Thesis supporting Piltdown man. It WAS scientific consensus for about 30 years (1911-1953) , with growing doubts for the last ten. There is also Peking Man, discovered about the same time (also fraud) which was also used as "proof", much like the UEA manipulation of Global Warming data, don't you think?
Why is that, Mr Piltdown Man? Because I don't jump on the Piltdown Man psuedoscience "conclusive proof" that is manufactured? Because I actually respect the scientific method? If all the predictions made fail, what does that mean, scientifically? FYI, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing and is largest it has been in a long time. How does that fit the "Global Warming" predictions of it shrinking to non-existence by 2020 made a dozen or more years ago?
Or do you believe the "Ice sheet shrinks=global warming proof" while also believing "ice sheet grows=global warming" at the same time?
"PS - For that last part, I'm speaking of true Christians--if there is such a thing--who want to live by the Old Testament and New Testament simultaneous--which is inherently so contradictory to be literally impossible"
I'm one of those (loosely called "Messianic"). It is only impossible to people who don't have understanding, and never read the complete text in Hebrew and Greek. There is no contradiction in the two, once you realize that translators made grave errors in translation, and often missed the nuanced inflections in the Hebrew. I will give a simple innocuous example that really won't change how anyone views the rest, but it makes my case fairly clearly in a way that even people who don't know anything else about the Bible can understand.
The word "Sheol" is translated as "grave" or "underworld" or "dead in the grave" or any other number of ways, misses the real point, which is hidden in the root. The word "sheol" has a inflection of a interrogatory (question), rather than an absolute. It is like how a parent answers a young child's question, "Where's Grandma?" after grandma dies. The Hebrew word "Sheol" defines the answer as a question.
There is an unknown, after death, including the possibility of nihilism. This is what the Hebrew text implies, for it is an unknowable answer this side of eternity. It is a question, one we ALL must ask, and answer. Those that are 100% sure are the ones I'm fearful of, from Muslims and their 72 virgins to atheists who are 100% certain they are correct. These are the people who are dangerous, because they will do anything to defend that belief.
Sheol is the answer, that is itself a question. But how does one translate the untranslatable? "Death", "Dead in the grave", "grave" those work, but don't convey the totality of the word. Translations never can quite get the full flavor of the original language.
And before you go off on my choice in faith, please be aware that most of what you think of me is probably wrong, because I am also a political libertarian, because that is what my scriptures indicate (Law of Liberty). My G-D gives me the choice to choose. HE is not a tyrant, but HE does expect us to be accountable for our actions and choices, and intentions.
" I am not all that amenable to people who have a long list of abominations thet their God commands them to kill people for."
More people have been killed by states in the name of Atheism than those that have been killed in the name of all other religions combined. The totality of the USSR, and China murders of people not bowing to the Atheist state is staggering. In addition, I've know quite a number of Atheists that have said things like "religion scares me, we should kill all Christians just to end their tyranny"
While there are "commands" about "abominations" in the Bible, you can count on one hand how many times those commands were actually carried out in the Bible. And that should be telling about how often it is actually practiced as you seem to think it is taught (it doesn't mean what you think it means). Here's a hint, nobody kept those wanting to practice the Abominations in the land of Israel, they were free to leave and join the Sodom and Gomorrah's of the world .
But, I hear your already forming the argument "Atheists didn't kill.....", which is pure sophistry and ignoring of facts. If Christians and Jews (as a group) are guilty for the acts of a few in the name of Christianity and Judaism, then so too are Atheists guilty of acts committed by Atheists in the name of Atheism. Either we are all guilty for those that act on our behalf, or we are not. I'll let you choose, but whatever you choose is the standard by which I get to judge atheism (and other religions)
And if you want to protest the Religious Restoration Act (the core of Hobby Lobby's case) you might want to check in with Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, who wrote and signed the bill in order to protect the drug addicts who wanted to smoke Peyote under the guise of "religion". It wasn't the Republicans, it was the Democrats (with republican help).
So, typical liberalism, wants to have it both ways, Legalization of psychotropic drugs under the guise of "religion", or religious choice is not protected by the government.
IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious. I don't talk about not believing in the FSM or Pink Unicorns or.... because I don't believe in them. If I ran into someone that believed in those things, I would simply be amused and go on my way. But this isn't the case for vocal atheists, who run around recruiting like Jehovah's Witnesses people to their cause. They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.
You cannot prove falsehood. You can only establish likelyhood of truthfulness. While these seem to be the same thing, they are not. For as much as nobody has proof (and therefore unlikely) evidence of Sasquatch, it only takes one to prove it true, and that is still possible (though unlikely). While I doubt there is a Bigfoot living in various wildernesses, that doesn't mean they do not exist. It only proves I have doubts.
But then again, this is what makes for a wonderful conspiracy, the fact that you cannot prove it false (only unlikely). You cannot prove the government didn't setup 911, you can only prove that it isn't likely the government didn't set up 911, so the conspiracies remain and will remain. Just like Kennedy assassination, Oklahoma Federal Building, Waco, Sandy Hook, Aurora CO....
The question isn't the conspiracy, it is how unlikely is it? You cannot prove a negative. While people say "it is proven false" are sincere in their statement, they are also wrong, what they should be saying is "It is highly unlikely that bigfoot/UFO/Ghosts exists". But we should also cut them a little slack, as they are probably as accurate as they can be.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that is not a show stopper for Bitcoin. It is what is going to drive Bitcoin to full currency status faster, where people trade money for the more usable Bitcoin.
Here is the issue, anything that makes something less utilitarian and causes restrictions will fall into disfavor eventually. Laws and Restrictions and fees and taxes all have the unintended consequence of driving economy deeper under the table. There is a whole class of people who now work off the books, bartering and trading and whatnot, and they don't pay taxes on anything they earn, simply because the government cannot track their activities. They work very hard at staying under the radar, dealing in CASH and trades, and as a result, have a better income than someone that is legitimate.
If I earn 2000 under the table, it is worth 3000-4000 in legitimate earnings that people pay taxes on. And as more people realize how much the government seizes in taxes, even on the "poor", this will start happening more and more. Bitcoin(and similar), has the ability to really change this equation faster than it is happening now.
The more they squeeze their fists, the more people will slip through their fingers (paraphrase of Princes Leia)
The problem is, it is going to be really hard for the Government to trace money laundering with Bitcoin, if the people take a few simple steps.
1) Use unique wallet for each transaction
2) Use a washing service every time one acquires new coins in a normal transaction.
3) ???
4) Profit
The government is going to try to regulate "coin washing", but since it is a decentralized currency, with no government boarders, it is going to be really hard to pull off well.
You're right. But the problem is, loyalty is a two way street. If an employer doesn't value existing employees to pay them what the market rate is, or even reasonably close, deserve to lose them to people willing to pay for it all. If my boss hired someone to do what I do, with less skill and experience than me, for more than I make, while being unwilling to even negotiate with me on a raise .... see ya boos!
I blame (D) and (R) who are so stuck on bringing home bacon, that they screw the people they clam they serve while getting all sorts of re-election donations for the very people they should be de-funding.
How is that for what to blame?
You get a better job, by becoming better at your job, and either you move up, or on. This is especially true in IT, where if you stay in your job, you don't get any raises or improvements in benefits. The proven method is to change your job, work somewhere else where they will pay you more, a lot more. I just read where people who change jobs do get raises, because they leave places that do not offer wages, but offer new employees more money than the people who have been there a while.
Which is something I never considered before, and now, I'm actively seeking new employment, and will continue to do so for the rest of my career. If people don't value what they have, they will lose it. Pay me what I am worth, or the marketplace will take me away from you.
Credible doubt ... the Antarctic Ice Sheet being larger than average, during the "hottest years in the last century", and violating the entire climate change model being used to predict catastrophic sea-level changes!
Thesis is made
Antithesis is rendered
Experiments are conducted (Climate Change SuperComputer Models)
Results are measured. (Ice Sheets should be shrinking, but are growing)
Conclusion, AWG isn't producing the results actually seen compared to the various climate models. The Thesis is flawed, and therefore MUST be reconsidered, but that isn't happening. Why?
The new answer is "global warming is changing currents in the oceans, causing ice sheet growth". So, by example, the global cooling should make the ice sheets smaller? But that doesn't work either, does it?
Hurricanes, Tornadoes, drought, flooding, etc are all about the same or LESS than years before, counter to all the AGW predictions about "massive" change to the climate.
I can cast credible doubt, but it will be ignored by the likes of you, simply because you WANT to believe AGW.
How is this a strawman? This is exactly the point. Here is a guy, who views exceptionalism, as "injustice" and "exclusion". Being really good at something is not an "injustice" period. It is exclusive, but that is kind of the point, as being really good at something does make your talent and skill exclusive. But that is the problem with LeftWingers, who want equal outcome, regardless of ability.
Follow the money. How many grants are given to the study of ..... non catastrophic AGW? If you are a climatologist and want funding, you are pro-AGW, and you don't hide it, even if you are skeptical, as it is the only way to keep your funding.
Of course, if this were funded by KOCH, you'd bet the funding would be an issue.
And when I see words like "injustice" and "excluded" I see a typical liberal who views skill, talent, dedication and mastery as bad things. Misapplying words like this, in ways exactly like this, cheapens real injustice, and real exclusion. Normal Humans are excluded from exceptionalism, not because of some "injustice" but rather that is what makes the exceptional so great (mostly hard work and dedication).
How about, instead of deriding the exceptional among us, we inspire others to exceptionalism?
Tools are simpler and easier to use, and yet a Master can make those tools do things your average user cannot. And that makes the world of difference. A spreadsheet "can" be used as a simple Database, but actual real databases are more complex and can do things a Spreadsheet simply cannot handle. Is the difference "database" or something else? Is it the tool or something else?
The problem isn't where the author thinks it is, masters always make their work look easy, but it takes skill and talent both. Skill is practice, talent is skill with artistry.
Okay, Libertarians complain, about government interference in the lives of people. Why does every busy body think it is their right and responsibility to get involved in the daily affairs of the serfs? And I'm talking about both the (D) and (R) type micromanaging of people and telling us all how to live.
Sophistry.
When "cutting the growth" of a program equates to "throwing grandma over the cliff, Draconian Measures and evil", the result is the same. You are paying attention, aren't you?
Actually, it is. If you have a better way of offering goods at a Supermarket, that doesn't collect information, and offer it up, I'm sure you'll make a small fortune.
Libertarians don't complain, they create a market where others only see problems.
The government scares me less because they don't want to maximize the money they get from me
You're kidding, right?
I would postulate that protectionist "regulations" designed to hide protectionism in the form or "safety" or other regulations, creating barriers to entry in such a way that it prevents new, innovative ideas from coming to the market quickly and efficiently. The whole Technology surge of the last 20 years will be undone when "regulations" trying to prevent "bubbles" or other momentary inefficiencies will result in the abrupt end to the technology economy.
Yes, inefficiencies are part of a "free" economy, and often result in the busts that inevitably follow, as they are driven from the market. However, in no other kind of economy, can a person reach their full potential either, as restrictions in the form of regulations create the barriers to entry that effectively block them from doing so.
The end result is that in trying to prevent "harm" we actually do greater harm, that is masked in terms of stability. Stability is not necessarily a good thing, even while we desire it.
harmless belief.
;)
for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes.
What?
You may have morals, but they aren't derived from your lack of belief in a god, anymore than mine are defined by my failure to believe in the FSM or pink unicorns. Lack of belief in something doesn't define anything "moral", hence the term "amoral" (no morals)
Well, these words are always defined by humans, and all of them are subject to change (or, more accurately, new definitions will be added in addition to the old ones) over time, regardless of what religious beliefs people have.
Or ... even shorter periods of time, like minutes or even seconds.
So, you're dismissive of anything that reflects badly upon Atheism and atheist in general, by ignoring actual concerns. If you're going to be grammatically pedantic, fine, I get it, and will rephrase my statements so that you can understand my intentions better.
That's pretty idiotic.
Atheists who say those things, or me for reporting it as it happened?
But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism".
You say "atheists" as if referring to all atheists.
THESE (mentioned previously) Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". (citing example followed, which was ignored)
I have no idea what these people you're talking about actually think, but I would imagine, at least, that they take into account intent and how deeply religious beliefs played into those horrors. That probably would make a different to them.
I see, tossing "all" atheists into the same basket is not okay, but doing the same with "all" religions is! Do you dismiss the idea of State Sponsored Atheism caused the state to persecute religions in the name of atheism? Or is it simply the case that that wasn't "true atheism"?
I can assure you that my faith doesn't require me killing anyone. There is not a commandment to kill, and specifically has a prohibition against murder. Of course there is no such commandment to not kill in Atheism for atheism is completely amoral and without any absolutes. Meaning there is nothing prohibited or commanded in the name of no-diety, therefore any time atheists say anything about atheism, it is subject to change based upon the whims of those that adhere to it.
I dunno, several Athiests I have had conversations with, have insisted that that they are "true atheists" and don't care about what others believe, and insist that the vocal anti-theists are not "true atheists".
I haven't declared anything off limits. My limits are whatever we agree upon. If having a conversation with me, someone points out all the "evils" committed by Christians, based upon their view, then by all means, any act committed by an Atheist is equally subject to how "atheism" should be viewed. But more likely a scenario is that Atheists do not want to apply their logic against religion to atheism, as it doesn't reflect "true atheism". So the horrors of Crusades are fair game, but the atrocities of the USSR and China, and Vietnam and .. in the name of clearing the blight of religion from their societies ... are not.
My only rule is that logic must be applied equally, or it isn't logical. Something that many arguing against theism are simply not willing to make. I wonder why.
Personally, I don't see "Facebook" as a "social network" because there is no "network". It is a Social Hub. But whatever.
""I look and see Piltdown Man all over again. "
This you are clueless. Their was NEVER scientific consensus on piltdown man, and when Scientist looked at it they declared it a fraud."
That is mighty revisionist history. There were University classes featuring Piltdown Man, and quite a number of "Scientists" got their PhD with their final Thesis supporting Piltdown man. It WAS scientific consensus for about 30 years (1911-1953) , with growing doubts for the last ten. There is also Peking Man, discovered about the same time (also fraud) which was also used as "proof", much like the UEA manipulation of Global Warming data, don't you think?
Why is that, Mr Piltdown Man? Because I don't jump on the Piltdown Man psuedoscience "conclusive proof" that is manufactured? Because I actually respect the scientific method? If all the predictions made fail, what does that mean, scientifically? FYI, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing and is largest it has been in a long time. How does that fit the "Global Warming" predictions of it shrinking to non-existence by 2020 made a dozen or more years ago?
Or do you believe the "Ice sheet shrinks=global warming proof" while also believing "ice sheet grows=global warming" at the same time?
"PS - For that last part, I'm speaking of true Christians--if there is such a thing--who want to live by the Old Testament and New Testament simultaneous--which is inherently so contradictory to be literally impossible"
I'm one of those (loosely called "Messianic"). It is only impossible to people who don't have understanding, and never read the complete text in Hebrew and Greek. There is no contradiction in the two, once you realize that translators made grave errors in translation, and often missed the nuanced inflections in the Hebrew. I will give a simple innocuous example that really won't change how anyone views the rest, but it makes my case fairly clearly in a way that even people who don't know anything else about the Bible can understand.
The word "Sheol" is translated as "grave" or "underworld" or "dead in the grave" or any other number of ways, misses the real point, which is hidden in the root. The word "sheol" has a inflection of a interrogatory (question), rather than an absolute. It is like how a parent answers a young child's question, "Where's Grandma?" after grandma dies. The Hebrew word "Sheol" defines the answer as a question.
There is an unknown, after death, including the possibility of nihilism. This is what the Hebrew text implies, for it is an unknowable answer this side of eternity. It is a question, one we ALL must ask, and answer. Those that are 100% sure are the ones I'm fearful of, from Muslims and their 72 virgins to atheists who are 100% certain they are correct. These are the people who are dangerous, because they will do anything to defend that belief.
Sheol is the answer, that is itself a question. But how does one translate the untranslatable? "Death", "Dead in the grave", "grave" those work, but don't convey the totality of the word. Translations never can quite get the full flavor of the original language.
And before you go off on my choice in faith, please be aware that most of what you think of me is probably wrong, because I am also a political libertarian, because that is what my scriptures indicate (Law of Liberty). My G-D gives me the choice to choose. HE is not a tyrant, but HE does expect us to be accountable for our actions and choices, and intentions.
" I am not all that amenable to people who have a long list of abominations thet their God commands them to kill people for."
More people have been killed by states in the name of Atheism than those that have been killed in the name of all other religions combined. The totality of the USSR, and China murders of people not bowing to the Atheist state is staggering. In addition, I've know quite a number of Atheists that have said things like "religion scares me, we should kill all Christians just to end their tyranny"
While there are "commands" about "abominations" in the Bible, you can count on one hand how many times those commands were actually carried out in the Bible. And that should be telling about how often it is actually practiced as you seem to think it is taught (it doesn't mean what you think it means). Here's a hint, nobody kept those wanting to practice the Abominations in the land of Israel, they were free to leave and join the Sodom and Gomorrah's of the world .
But, I hear your already forming the argument "Atheists didn't kill .....", which is pure sophistry and ignoring of facts. If Christians and Jews (as a group) are guilty for the acts of a few in the name of Christianity and Judaism, then so too are Atheists guilty of acts committed by Atheists in the name of Atheism. Either we are all guilty for those that act on our behalf, or we are not. I'll let you choose, but whatever you choose is the standard by which I get to judge atheism (and other religions)
And if you want to protest the Religious Restoration Act (the core of Hobby Lobby's case) you might want to check in with Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, who wrote and signed the bill in order to protect the drug addicts who wanted to smoke Peyote under the guise of "religion". It wasn't the Republicans, it was the Democrats (with republican help).
So, typical liberalism, wants to have it both ways, Legalization of psychotropic drugs under the guise of "religion", or religious choice is not protected by the government.
IMHO, true Atheists don't talk about atheism. Those that do, border on religious. I don't talk about not believing in the FSM or Pink Unicorns or .... because I don't believe in them. If I ran into someone that believed in those things, I would simply be amused and go on my way. But this isn't the case for vocal atheists, who run around recruiting like Jehovah's Witnesses people to their cause. They even sponsor, like churches, the "Atheists of Butte County " Roadside clean ups and get a hwy sign, just like a church.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck like creature.
You cannot prove falsehood. You can only establish likelyhood of truthfulness. While these seem to be the same thing, they are not. For as much as nobody has proof (and therefore unlikely) evidence of Sasquatch, it only takes one to prove it true, and that is still possible (though unlikely). While I doubt there is a Bigfoot living in various wildernesses, that doesn't mean they do not exist. It only proves I have doubts.
But then again, this is what makes for a wonderful conspiracy, the fact that you cannot prove it false (only unlikely). You cannot prove the government didn't setup 911, you can only prove that it isn't likely the government didn't set up 911, so the conspiracies remain and will remain. Just like Kennedy assassination, Oklahoma Federal Building, Waco, Sandy Hook, Aurora CO ....
The question isn't the conspiracy, it is how unlikely is it? You cannot prove a negative. While people say "it is proven false" are sincere in their statement, they are also wrong, what they should be saying is "It is highly unlikely that bigfoot/UFO/Ghosts exists". But we should also cut them a little slack, as they are probably as accurate as they can be.