The probability of the existence of the Christian God

[Cavebear]

Wage theft is the single most profitable type of organized crime in the us.  I suppose, if you added up all the proceeds from any crime, ever, they would be more..but then most of that would be in tax evasion, too.....so.....

I understand wage-theft. One of my first jobs was pumping gas (yeah, that long ago). The boss paid minimum wage, deducted cash register losses from our salaries, AND carried unacounted cash register money around in his pocket. One week, I barely broke even. And he expected us to work 7 days a week. I left after 2 weeks.

I'll just say it was "educational".

[Cavebear]

War can be stopped by a law of war???

What kind of weed are you smoking?

There may be mushrooms involved, too.

[Cavebear]

If the Bible can help us to end wars, why not use it.

Highlighting this part in particular: The bible, its religion and all other religions have CAUSED most of the historic/modern wars.......so thats not going to help at all is it?

Getting back to the point of the topic:

"The probability of the existence of the Christian God" - its 0.

How many gods were named/created BEFORE the christian god? MANY. How many of those were real? 0. How much actual evidence do we have of this particular god or infact, ANY, god? 0.


Just because something is popular doesn't make it true. and all the numbers x 0...is still 0.

0 plus 0 = 0. 0 * 0 = 0. 0 is always 0.

[Free]

Da Fuq was that?

How do they keep finding us?

MAGA is shipping them in, all hopped up on their Kool-Aid.

[neutral]

Thats the maximum amount of badwidth i grant you. You are beyond stupid.

And is it bad to be stupid?

We still haven't found a way to stop wars, so global war will come.
Then who will be more guilty at the end of our civilization? Real smart people or stupid ones?
I prefer to be the most stupid man in the world. I will feel less guilty.

Furthermore, I like being called stupid. I prefer an idiot, but thank you for the compliment.

[neutral]

War can be stopped by a law of war???

So what is the alternative? To do nothing and wait for a global conflict to begin?

Most of the human activities are regulated by laws. If we want to stop wars, we have to start with a law. What alternatives are there?

If we make wars uneconomical, they will probably be greatly reduced. Most wars of the present time happen because they are paid for by the state (by all the citizens), and the beneficiaries are few (rich people, ruling class, industrial military complex). Why not let every citizen decide if they want to support wars? If you think that wars are necessary, then pay with your money, make sure you understand that you will support all the negative consequences of war (through a contract), and go fight. I do not think that wars are necessary, and I don't want the state to finance wars with my taxes. Make sure that the ones that pay for the war, have no benefits, and most of the wars will be stopped.

[neutral]

Do you really think China and Russia would ever agree to some international law of war?  Why not start with them?

"The U.S. launched 201 out of the 248 armed conflicts since the end of WWII."
Why not start with the troublemaker? After the US can no longer easily initiate wars, America will use its influence in the world to get the other major powers to adopt a similar law.

[neutral]

"The UNODC report estimates that the total amount of criminal proceeds generated in 2009, excluding those derived from tax evasion, may have been approximately $2.1 trillion, or 3.6 per cent of GDP in that year

$2.1 trillion is a huge number. Let's say that the market capitalization of all the world’s publicly traded companies is $100 trillion. Let's say that $2 trillion are profits and not revenues. In the first year, you buy 2% of all the world’s publicly traded companies. Next year, you will have another $2 trillion plus the profits from all the world’s publicly traded companies, which are yours (2% - we will ignore these profits - in time, they are huge too), and you will have 4%. If we continue for 30 years, you will have 60% of all the world’s publicly traded companies.

In 2022, the United States spent more on defense than the next 10 countries combined ($877 billion). That is a huge number. It is no use to compare it with global GDP in 2022 ($101,003 billion) and then say it is just 0.868%, a small number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...penditures
https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/publ...ad/GDP.pdf

[neutral]

Men already tried outlawing war

I have not said to outlaw war. If a war is legal under international law, then let it be funded by states; if not, let the war be funded only by private citizens who will consider it necessary. Just make war uneconomically. (see reply 106)

[neutral]

Well, seeing as you have zero credible evidence in support of your thesis "the probability of the existence of the Christian god," and instead decided to fixate on the probability of worldwide criminal activity and its relationship to governments

I am not fixed, you are stuck here. If you accept that states control most of the organized crime, we will go further.
I am not even trying to prove the second part (prophecies and coincidences). You are "rational" atheists; you will not believe anything I have to say. And I accept that.
The second part is not for you. It is important what theists will accept, not you, the atheists. I will wait for an open-minded theist to discuss the theory, in private, of course.

could we convince you to amend "post less often" to "stop posting altogether"?

I will repeat myself.
The question "Does God exist?" separates people into two categories: believers and rational people.

The fact is that organized crime has made huge profits. Common sense: its leaders should be very rich, surely there are many illegal billionaires hidden around the globe.
The fact is that Western states were the ones who organized drug trafficking in the past.
The fact is that there are no (hundreds/thousands) known billionaires from illegal activities.(Forbes)
Logical conclusion: States are still organizing drug trafficking as they did in the past.

Question: "Do states (the US in particular) are involved in illegal economic activities?" separates atheists into two categories: just a different kind of believer (a person that, when it is a conflict between common sense and facts and reason chooses common sense) and rational atheist (a person that, when it is a conflict between common sense and facts and reason chooses the version supported by facts and reason no matter how wrong it sounds).

Since we do not seem to get along, there are 4 options:

Option 1: You admit that the name of the site is deceiving and I will leave. I couldn't find a single rational atheist, just a different kind of believers. There is no real discussion because I repeatedly ask questions that you never answered. Few people tried to answer by finding a way to avoid the real answer.

Option 2: I will get banned for basically repeatedly asking the same questions and asking for facts. Look at how I treat you and how you treat me. Who deserves to be banned? What happened to decency and kindness?

Option 3: I cannot be banned, and that will lead to a funny situation. I will choose to stay.
You could:
- Continue to insult me. I will not answer insults, with insults, you are just embarrassing yourself.
- Ignore me. That will prove the question will not be answered by just a different kind of believers.
This thread, it is not for just a different kind of believers. I will wait for a rational atheist or a theist to answer my questions. I will rarely post (or maybe I even stop) new arguments and start by saying, "Not for just a different kind of believers", so you know it is not for you and I will not waste your time.

"But you are fun, keep playing!" Let's see what will break first: the chew toy or your teeth.

Option 4: The administrator will ask me to leave, and I will leave.

So, on a scale from 0 to 100, Is it true that states (the US in particular) are involved in illegal economic activities? (0=false, 50=I don't know, 100=true)
On what facts did you base your answer? (If your answer is 0, then you have to provide evidence that the huge private wealth of organized crime exists, otherwise, you are just a different kind of believer)
If your reply does not include a number and some facts, this thread is not for you.

You could avoid answering, but you cannot escape reality. What will happen when theists find out that atheists cannot respond to a simple question?

[Deesse23]

Thats the maximum amount of badwidth i grant you. You are beyond stupid.

And is it bad to be stupid?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Astreja]

I am not fixed, you are stuck here. If you accept that states control most of the organized crime, we will go further.

There's nowhere to go.  You're just pulling unsupported statistics out of your ass, and there's nothing to debate.

I will wait for an open-minded theist to discuss the theory, in private, of course.

Perhaps you should go to a site that caters to "open-minded theists," then.

could we convince you to amend "post less often" to "stop posting altogether"?

I will repeat myself.

I'll take that as a "No, I won't stop posting; in fact, here's some more unsubstantiated BS to clutter up the site."  

[Thumpalumpacus]

Men already tried outlawing war

I have not said to outlaw war.

Really?

Wars can be stopped by a law of war. It is not difficult to design a law that will stop most wars, but it is difficult to find a way to force states to adopt such a law.

[Astreja]

Poor Neutral - can't even keep his own story straight.

Cue the world's smallest violin...

[brewerb]

Poor Neutral - can't even keep his own story straight.

Cue the world's smallest violin...

That's the thing with conspiracy nuts, they constantly morph. X-tian conspiracy nuts are the worst.

[Paleophyte]

"The UNODC report estimates that the total amount of criminal proceeds generated in 2009, excluding those derived from tax evasion, may have been approximately $2.1 trillion, or 3.6 per cent of GDP in that year

$2.1 trillion is a huge number.

$105 trillion (2023 Global GDP) is a huger number. Did I mention that it's unwise to try and scare us with big numbers? 3.6% is a small proportion.

Let's say that the market capitalization of all the world’s publicly traded companies is $100 trillion. Let's say that $2 trillion are profits and not revenues. In the first year, you buy 2% of all the world’s publicly traded companies. Next year, you will have another $2 trillion plus the profits from all the world’s publicly traded companies, which are yours (2% - we will ignore these profits - in time, they are huge too), and you will have 4%. If we continue for 30 years, you will have 60% of all the world’s publicly traded companies.

And those are made up big numbers and a very poor understanding of how economics or crime works. If that were in any way true then it would be as meaningful to counter with the fact that the tech sector is larger than organized crime and will be able to buy the world even more rapidly.

In 2022, the United States spent more on defense than the next 10 countries combined ($877 billion). That is a huge number. It is no use to compare it with global GDP in 2022 ($101,003 billion) and then say it is just 0.868%, a small number.

Compared to the global GDP it is a small number. You just want to make some very questionable comparisons between your big number and some other numbers. You don't like that your number doesn't look so big when you compare it to the whole. Tough for you.

[Rhythmcs]

So, on a scale from 0 to 100, Is it true that states (the US in particular) are involved in illegal economic activities? (0=false, 50=I don't know, 100=true)


On what facts did you base your answer? 

100.  Take the supernote issue from the 80s to the 00s.  The us says that korea did it.  Korea says that the us did it.  Either story being true would be an instance of a state involved in illegal economic activities.  I embrace the power of and, and call it two instances of states involved in illegal economic activities.

Doesn't hold a candle to wage theft, tax evasion, tax abuse, and tax havens, which is why the data you cited made a carveout for those things.  To be honest, I don't think that the us in particular has to resort to illegal economic activities.  It's convenient when the rules are built around you.  Yet no one asks where those billionaires are hiding because, to the extent that they're hiding at all, they're hiding in plain sight.  Often on forbes list, for example.  

I think it's a huge number, just crime overall, and the proceeds of crime.   Whatever estimate we come up with for it is wrong, the reality is bigger.  I think it would be true to say that states have produced a legal situation, and an economic situation, where it is easier to launder money.  Whether that was intentional or not is a question of competence - in the end, imo.  I think it's more likely that they got outplayed by the smartest people in the room over the course of years.  With at least some of that criminal money flowing through completely legal dark money channels - to the end of securing and expanding upon the ways to profit off of crimes great and small.

[OakTree500]

Thats the maximum amount of badwidth i grant you. You are beyond stupid.

And is it bad to be stupid?

Yes. Yes it is. It shows you are willfully ignorant to actual/factual information - Its not "free thinking" if you just refuse to learn anything. It's called being stupid.

We still haven't found a way to stop wars, so global war will come.

Then who will be more guilty at the end of our civilization? Real smart people or stupid ones?

The short answer is - you can't stop war. We already have "rules"/"laws" on war yet people are actively ignoring certain laws as we speak [see 'War Crime' and how Russia is willfully ignoring all of that]. Buddhism teaches that all conflict comes from "material possession" and somebody basically wanting somethin you have - in current wars there are obviously other factors but land seems to be the main thing here, but either way its still "you have X and I want it".

Despite morally sane people knowing full well you can't just do that, unfortunately those in power disagree - and ther is an argument to be made that with an armed attack and "armed defense" is needed in return.

Sadly, being "stupid" actively assists this thought process as to not be factually informed on the world/science and various other things that help our mental capacity, it leaves those to only focus on the "material" and otherwise wallow in will-full ignorance, which [to me at least] leads to fighting - be that on a small or large scale.

[Scoop]

I agree with that. It is really irrational versus rational to me. Most rational people have limits to what they will do to another person. Irrational is just that. "intellect" and "belief" have little to do with it. Otherwise this is simple ... The belief in something more matches observation better than the reverse belief.

Its all about the traits for me. All objects are defined by how they interact with their surroundings. Think of a 50 foot chair on earth today. Imagine, if you will, not being able to see anything around a chair in a classroom and the 50 ft chair. Record what the chair does over time. There is some overlap but the 50 ft chair is not a chair. The word "chair" is just a model for communication.

But "something more" with all of the traits of the Christian god is near enough to zero to say zero. I think it was DeGrasse that said, its like watching a cave for a bear for a year. You can't watch the cave every day. But you never see any bear tracks, bear droppings, or detritus consistent with a bear lying about. You do see tracks, droppings, and detritus tho. Fundy theist say things like ""See tracks". Fundy atheist say things like "I don't believe they are tracks" At some point, even though its not literally "scientistic", we can they is no bear in there. We can also say "but there is something in there."

I think of how a fundy think type Christian expresses their belief then I predict how a person with that set of personality traits would express atheism. Then look around, do we see it? Stupid is independent of belief. But they do not scare me. Its the smart person with an agenda that scare me. The worst are the soft spoken, well dressed, and charismatic orators that are the real danger. they say things like "That's not what we are talking about" or "we shouldn't be saying things like that for team unity" or tag people with a label like "In name only".

[neutral]

I'll take that as a "No, I won't stop posting; in fact, here's some more unsubstantiated BS to clutter up the site."  

Yes, I will keep posting. I am not the one who will quit this discussion. I will wait for people who can answer my questions. See reply #117, these people exist. This thread is not for everybody, but for the very few that can follow facts and reason and question the nature of our society and the nature of our state. Since I am here to stay, I suggest we tolerate each other. I will tolerate you, and you will tolerate me, or just ignore me.

[neutral]

I have not said to outlaw war.

Really?

Wars can be stopped by a law of war. It is not difficult to design a law that will stop most wars, but it is difficult to find a way to force states to adopt such a law.

A law of war that regulates who finances the war.
If a war is legal under international law, then let it be funded by states; if not, let the war be funded only by private citizens who will consider it necessary. Just make war uneconomically. Make sure that the ones that pay for the war have no benefits, and most of the wars will be stopped. (see reply 106)

To outlaw wars means to make them illegal or to ban them. I have not said to outlaw war. I affirm that wars can be stopped by regulating their sources of finances. Accepting wars under some restrictions is not equivalent with outlawing wars.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Really?

A law of war that regulates who finances the war.
If a war is legal under international law, then let it be funded by states; if not, let the war be funded only by private citizens who will consider it necessary. Just make war uneconomically. Make sure that the ones that pay for the war have no benefits, and most of the wars will be stopped. (see reply 106)

To outlaw wars means to make them illegal or to ban them. I have not said to outlaw war. I affirm that wars can be stopped by regulating their sources of finances. Accepting wars under some restrictions is not equivalent with outlawing wars.

So you think states would observe these laws of financing even when those laws cut against said state's own interests?

I got a big orange bridge up for sale. You interested?

[pattylt]

I’m trying to envision a war law that would be acceptable to all parties. Next, agreeing when a war is legal or illegal is usually in the eye of those wishing to make war. Major wars are already financed by the nations conducting them. Skirmishes aren’t usually considered a war and are often within a nation or a border dispute. Finally, getting all nations to agree with each other on what the legal law of war is, is probably impossible. It all just seems to be silly thought experiment.

[brewerb]

I'll take that as a "No, I won't stop posting; in fact, here's some more unsubstantiated BS to clutter up the site."  

Yes, I will keep posting. I am not the one who will quit this discussion. I will wait for people who can answer my questions. See reply #117, these people exist. This thread is not for everybody, but for the very few that can follow facts and reason and question the nature of our society and the nature of our state. Since I am here to stay, I suggest we tolerate each other. I will tolerate you, and you will tolerate me, or just ignore me.

How can we ignore something that is so bizarrely hilarious?

[neutral]

3.6% is a small proportion.

"Small" numbers accumulate over long periods of time into huge numbers. Take "3.6%" over 100 years.

If that were in any way true then it would be as meaningful to counter with the fact that the tech sector is larger than organized crime and will be able to buy the world even more rapidly.

No. The tech sector will not be able to buy the world even more rapidly, because it is not controlled by a single entity. Legal business pays taxes, dividends, invests large sums of money to remain competitive on the market. Because they evolve in highly competitive environments, the profits are limited. The legal profits are usually invested in the expansion of their own activity and not in another sector. A single company will never dominate a sector of activity. The moment that a company becomes a global monopoly, it will be split. The capitalist system is based on competition, and monopolies are not accepted.

Nothing compares with organized crime. Only drug trafficking generates hundreds of billions of dollars annually for 100+ years, in today's money. Name a single big company that can do that.

We have to look back in time to understand why the tech sector will not be able to buy the world even more rapidly.

"1997 World Drug Report estimated a likely turnover of the illicit drug industry at around $400 billion."
https://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_chap2.pdf p. 124

List of public corporations by market capitalization - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pu...talization

We started in 1997, because in this year there are dates about large companies on Wikipedia. We start investing the illegal profits obtained by organized crime. We start with $5,000 billion, the profits made by organized crime before 1997. 50 (years before 1997) x $100 billion. If you think that 100 billion is too much, we take 100 (years before 1997) x $50 billion. Every year, we add $300–400 billion. We ignore the fact that organized crime makes huge profits from other illegal activities and that legal businesses bought by organized crime generate huge profits. In time, the legal profits from corporations bought by organized crime will exceed the illegal profits.

In the first year, 1997, organized crime bought the first 10 biggest corporations ($1,521 billion) and still had $3,879 (5,000 - 1,521 + 400) billion to invest in the next year. The 10 biggest corporations in 1997 include Microsoft and Intel. If we are to continue, we must realize that the big tech corporations were long ago bought by organized crime. And this is the main reason why the tech sector will not be able to buy the world even more rapidly. The tech sector belongs to organized crime, with all its profits.

If we accept that huge illegal profits are made by private individuals, we have to accept that most of the big corporations today are owned by organized crime. The reality is that no big corporation is controlled by organized crime. There is one rational explanation: the huge illegal profits are spent each year by states and not invested in the real economy by organized crime.