12345...102030...


atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to …

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

The dialectic of the argument between forms of belief and unbelief raises questions concerning the most perspicuous delineation, or characterization, of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It is necessary not only to probe the warrant for atheism but also carefully to consider what is the most adequate definition of atheism. This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism. In the course of this delineation the section also will consider key arguments for and against atheism.

A central, common core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the affirmation of the reality of one, and only one, God. Adherents of these faiths believe that there is a God who created the universe out of nothing and who has absolute sovereignty over all his creation; this includes, of course, human beingswho are not only utterly dependent on this creative power but also sinful and who, or so the faithful must believe, can only make adequate sense of their lives by accepting, without question, Gods ordinances for them. The varieties of atheism are numerous, but all atheists reject such a set of beliefs.

Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in spiritual beings, and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.

It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to rejection of religious belief and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate.

To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways. First, not all theologians who regard themselves as defenders of the Christian faith or of Judaism or Islam regard themselves as defenders of theism. The influential 20th-century Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, regards the God of theism as an idol and refuses to construe God as a being, even a supreme being, among beings or as an infinite being above finite beings. God, for him, is being-itself, the ground of being and meaning. The particulars of Tillichs view are in certain ways idiosyncratic, as well as being obscure and problematic, but they have been influential; and his rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God, is not eccentric in contemporary theology, though it may very well affront the plain believer.

Second, and more important, it is not the case that all theists seek to demonstrate or even in any way rationally to establish the existence of God. Many theists regard such a demonstration as impossible, and fideistic believers (e.g., Johann Hamann and Sren Kierkegaard) regard such a demonstration, even if it were possible, as undesirable, for in their view it would undermine faith. If it could be proved, or known for certain, that God exists, people would not be in a position to accept him as their sovereign Lord humbly on faith with all the risks that entails. There are theologians who have argued that for genuine faith to be possible God must necessarily be a hidden God, the mysterious ultimate reality, whose existence and authority must be accepted simply on faith. This fideistic view has not, of course, gone without challenge from inside the major faiths, but it is of sufficient importance to make the above characterization of atheism inadequate.

Finally, and most important, not all denials of God are denials of his existence. Believers sometimes deny God while not being at all in a state of doubt that God exists. They either willfully reject what they take to be his authority by not acting in accordance with what they take to be his will, or else they simply live their lives as if God did not exist. In this important way they deny him. Such deniers are not atheists (unless we wish, misleadingly, to call them practical atheists). They are not even agnostics. They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that Gods existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

Yet it remains the case that such a characterization of atheism is inadequate in other ways. For one it is too narrow. There are atheists who believe that the very concept of God, at least in developed and less anthropomorphic forms of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, is so incoherent that certain central religious claims, such as God is my creator to whom everything is owed, are not genuine truth-claims; i.e., the claims could not be either true or false. Believers hold that such religious propositions are true, some atheists believe that they are false, and there are agnostics who cannot make up their minds whether to believe that they are true or false. (Agnostics think that the propositions are one or the other but believe that it is not possible to determine which.) But all three are mistaken, some atheists argue, for such putative truth-claims are not sufficiently intelligible to be genuine truth-claims that are either true or false. In reality there is nothing in them to be believed or disbelieved, though there is for the believer the powerful and humanly comforting illusion that there is. Such an atheism, it should be added, rooted for some conceptions of God in considerations about intelligibility and what it makes sense to say, has been strongly resisted by some pragmatists and logical empiricists.

While the above considerations about atheism and intelligibility show the second characterization of atheism to be too narrow, it is also the case that this characterization is in a way too broad. For there are fideistic believers, who quite unequivocally believe that when looked at objectively the proposition that God exists has a very low probability weight. They believe in God not because it is probable that he existsthey think it more probable that he does notbut because belief is thought by them to be necessary to make sense of human life. The second characterization of atheism does not distinguish a fideistic believer (a Blaise Pascal or a Soren Kierkegaard) or an agnostic (a T.H. Huxley or a Sir Leslie Stephen) from an atheist such as Baron dHolbach. All believe that there is a God and God protects humankind, however emotionally important they may be, are speculative hypotheses of an extremely low order of probability. But this, since it does not distinguish believers from nonbelievers and does not distinguish agnostics from atheists, cannot be an adequate characterization of atheism.

It may be retorted that to avoid apriorism and dogmatic atheism the existence of God should be regarded as a hypothesis. There are no ontological (purely a priori) proofs or disproofs of Gods existence. It is not reasonable to rule in advance that it makes no sense to say that God exists. What the atheist can reasonably claim is that there is no evidence that there is a God, and against that background he may very well be justified in asserting that there is no God. It has been argued, however, that it is simply dogmatic for an atheist to assert that no possible evidence could ever give one grounds for believing in God. Instead, atheists should justify their unbelief by showing (if they can) how the assertion is well-taken that there is no evidence that would warrant a belief in God. If atheism is justified, the atheist will have shown that in fact there is no adequate evidence for the belief that God exists, but it should not be part of his task to try to show that there could not be any evidence for the existence of God. If the atheist could somehow survive the death of his present body (assuming that such talk makes sense) and come, much to his surprise, to stand in the presence of God, his answer should be, Oh! Lord, you didnt give me enough evidence! He would have been mistaken, and realize that he had been mistaken, in his judgment that God did not exist. Still, he would not have been unjustified, in the light of the evidence available to him during his earthly life, in believing as he did. Not having any such postmortem experiences of the presence of God (assuming that he could have them), what he should say, as things stand and in the face of the evidence he actually has and is likely to be able to get, is that it is false that God exists. (Every time one legitimately asserts that a proposition is false one need not be certain that it is false. Knowing with certainty is not a pleonasm.) The claim is that this tentative posture is the reasonable position for the atheist to take.

An atheist who argues in this manner may also make a distinctive burden-of-proof argument. Given that God (if there is one) is by definition a very recherch realitya reality that must be (for there to be such a reality) transcendent to the worldthe burden of proof is not on the atheist to give grounds for believing that there is no reality of that order. Rather, the burden of proof is on the believer to give some evidence for Gods existencei.e., that there is such a reality. Given what God must be, if there is a God, the theist needs to present the evidence, for such a very strange reality. He needs to show that there is more in the world than is disclosed by common experience. The empirical method, and the empirical method alone, such an atheist asserts, affords a reliable method for establishing what is in fact the case. To the claim of the theist that there are in addition to varieties of empirical facts spiritual facts or transcendent facts, such as it being the case that there is a supernatural, self-existent, eternal power, the atheist can assert that such facts have not been shown.

It will, however, be argued by such atheists, against what they take to be dogmatic aprioristic atheists, that the atheist should be a fallibilist and remain open-minded about what the future may bring. There may, after all, be such transcendent facts, such metaphysical realities. It is not that such a fallibilistic atheist is really an agnostic who believes that he is not justified in either asserting that God exists or denying that he exists and that what he must reasonably do is suspend belief. On the contrary, such an atheist believes that he has very good grounds indeed, as things stand, for denying the existence of God. But he will, on the second conceptualization of what it is to be an atheist, not deny that things could be otherwise and that, if they were, he would be justified in believing in God or at least would no longer be justified in asserting that it is false that there is a God. Using reliable empirical techniques, proven methods for establishing matters of fact, the fallibilistic atheist has found nothing in the universe to make a belief that God exists justifiable or even, everything considered, the most rational option of the various options. He therefore draws the atheistical conclusion (also keeping in mind his burden-of-proof argument) that God does not exist. But he does not dogmatically in a priori fashion deny the existence of God. He remains a thorough and consistent fallibilist.

Such a form of atheism (the atheism of those pragmatists who are also naturalistic humanists), though less inadequate than the first formation of atheism, is still inadequate. God in developed forms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not, like Zeus or Odin, construed in a relatively plain anthropomorphic way. Nothing that could count as God in such religions could possibly be observed, literally encountered, or detected in the universe. God, in such a conception, is utterly transcendent to the world; he is conceived of as pure spirit, an infinite individual who created the universe out of nothing and who is distinct from the universe. Such a realitya reality that is taken to be an ultimate mysterycould not be identified as objects or processes in the universe can be identified. There can be no pointing at or to God, no ostensive teaching of God, to show what is meant. The word God can only be taught intralinguistically. God is taught to someone who does not understand what the word means by the use of descriptions such as the maker of the universe, the eternal, utterly independent being upon whom all other beings depend, the first cause, the sole ultimate reality, or a self-caused being. For someone who does not understand such descriptions, there can be no understanding of the concept of God. But the key terms of such descriptions are themselves no more capable of ostensive definition (of having their referents pointed out) than is God, where that term is not, like Zeus, construed anthropomorphically. (That does not mean that anyone has actually pointed to Zeus or observed Zeus but that one knows what it would be like to do so.)

In coming to understand what is meant by God in such discourses, it must be understood that God, whatever else he is, is a being that could not possibly be seen or be in any way else observed. He could not be anything material or empirical, and he is said by believers to be an intractable mystery. A nonmysterious God would not be the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

This, in effect, makes it a mistake to claim that the existence of God can rightly be treated as a hypothesis and makes it a mistake to claim that, by the use of the experimental method or some other determinate empirical method, the existence of God can be confirmed or disconfirmed as can the existence of an empirical reality. The retort made by some atheists, who also like pragmatists remain thoroughgoing fallibilists, is that such a proposed way of coming to know, or failing to come to know, God makes no sense for anyone who understands what kind of reality God is supposed to be. Anything whose existence could be so verified would not be the God of Judeo-Christianity. God could not be a reality whose presence is even faintly adumbrated in experience, for anything that could even count as the God of Judeo-Christianity must be transcendent to the world. Anything that could actually be encountered or experienced could not be God.

At the very heart of a religion such as Christianity there stands a metaphysical belief in a reality that is alleged to transcend the empirical world. It is the metaphysical belief that there is an eternal, ever-present creative source and sustainer of the universe. The problem is how it is possible to know or reasonably believe that such a reality exists or even to understand what such talk is about.

It is not that God is like a theoretical entity in physics such as a proton or a neutrino. They are, where they are construed as realities rather than as heuristically useful conceptual fictions, thought to be part of the actual furniture of the universe. They are not said to be transcendent to the universe, but rather are invisible entities in the universe logically on a par with specks of dust and grains of sand, only much, much smaller. They are on the same continuum; they are not a different kind of reality. It is only the case that they, as a matter of fact, cannot be seen. Indeed no one has an understanding of what it would be like to see a proton or a neutrinoin that way they are like Godand no provision is made in physical theory for seeing them. Still, there is no logical ban on seeing them as there is on seeing God. They are among the things in the universe, and thus, though they are invisible, they can be postulated as causes of things that are seen. Since this is so it becomes at least logically possible indirectly to verify by empirical methods the existence of such realities. It is also the case that there is no logical ban on establishing what is necessary to establish a causal connection, namely a constant conjunction of two discrete empirical realities. But no such constant conjunction can be established or even intelligibly asserted between God and the universe, and thus the existence of God is not even indirectly verifiable. God is not a discrete empirical thing or being, and the universe is not a gigantic thing or process over and above the things and processes in the universe of which it makes sense to say that the universe has or had a cause. But then there is no way, directly or indirectly, that even the probability that there is a God could be empirically established.

See the article here:

atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to …

Atheism | CARM.org

Atheism is a lack of belief in any God and deities as well as a total denial of the existence of any god. It is a growing movement that is becoming more aggressive, more demanding, and less tolerant of anything other than itself – as is exemplified by its adherents. Is atheism a sound philosophical system as a worldview or is it ultimately self-defeating? Is the requirement of empirical evidence for God a mistake in logic or is it a fair demand? Can we prove that God exists or is that impossible? Find out more about atheism, its arguments, and its problems here at CARM. Learn how to deal with the arguments raised against the existence of God that seek to replace Him with naturalism, materialism, and moral relativism.

Read more:

Atheism | CARM.org

Atheism – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is rejecting the belief in a god or gods. It is the opposite of theism, which is the belief that at least one god exists.A person who rejects belief in gods is called an atheist.Theism is the belief in one or more gods. Adding an a, meaning “without”, before the word theism results in atheism, or literally, “without theism”.. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism: agnostics say that …

Read more from the original source:

Atheism – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

atheism r/atheism – reddit: the front page of the internet

This happened around last year when they just found out that i was an atheist. My parents sat down with me (and for some reason they roped my brother in too) to kinda talk it out with them, the why and how and all that.

So my father was talking about how god had blessed him and his family with a luxurious and comfortable life. I, thinking that my parents would hear me out since they got out of their own way just to talk about religion with us, told them that i believed that they worked hard and earned the money themselves.

Surprisingly enough, my father immediately blew his top off and yelled at me, insisting that it was by god’s grace that we are now able to live such a good life. He then, for some reason told me that my ability to draw was a god-given talent. Naturally, i was pissed. After all, i went to years and years of art class just to be able to draw like i do now, though it only looks nice in my family’s standards since i’m the only one in my family that can draw. But i didn’t say anything back since i don’t want to start another war with m parents.

Seriously, if it really was just god’s grace that allowed my family to live comfortably, why have i never seen god just bestow upon my father a paycheck? Why is it that he’s so happy about having all his hard work credited to an invisible sky daddy? Call me greedy or selfish, but if someone took all the credit to my hard work i’d be bloody pissed. But hey, thanks for reading this.

More:

atheism r/atheism – reddit: the front page of the internet

Ripple Price Forecast: XRP vs SWIFT, SEC Updates, and More

Ripple vs SWIFT: The War Begins
While most criticisms of XRP do nothing to curb my bullish Ripple price forecast, there is one obstacle that nags at my conscience. Its name is SWIFT.

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) is the king of international payments.

It coordinates wire transfers across 11,000 banks in more than 200 countries and territories, meaning that in order for XRP prices to ascend to $10.00, Ripple needs to launch a successful coup. That is, and always has been, an unwritten part of Ripple’s story.

We’ve seen a lot of progress on that score. In the last three years, Ripple wooed more than 100 financial firms onto its.

The post Ripple Price Forecast: XRP vs SWIFT, SEC Updates, and More appeared first on Profit Confidential.

See original here:

Ripple Price Forecast: XRP vs SWIFT, SEC Updates, and More

Cryptocurrency News: This Week on Bitfinex, Tether, Coinbase, & More

Cryptocurrency News
On the whole, cryptocurrency prices are down from our previous report on cryptos, with the market slipping on news of an exchange being hacked and a report about Bitcoin manipulation.

However, there have been two bright spots: 1) an official from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said that Ethereum is not a security, and 2) Coinbase is expanding its selection of tokens.

Let’s start with the good news.
SEC Says ETH Is Not a Security
Investors have some reason to cheer this week. A high-ranking SEC official told attendees of the Yahoo! All Markets Summit: Crypto that Ethereum and Bitcoin are not.

The post Cryptocurrency News: This Week on Bitfinex, Tether, Coinbase, & More appeared first on Profit Confidential.

More:

Cryptocurrency News: This Week on Bitfinex, Tether, Coinbase, & More

Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETFs, Andreessen Horowitz, and Contradictions in Crypto

Cryptocurrency News
This was a bloody week for cryptocurrencies. Everything was covered in red, from Ethereum (ETH) on down to the Basic Attention Token (BAT).

Some investors claim it was inevitable. Others say that price manipulation is to blame.

We think the answers are more complicated than either side has to offer, because our research reveals deep contradictions between the price of cryptos and the underlying development of blockchain projects.

For instance, a leading venture capital (VC) firm launched a $300.0-million crypto investment fund, yet liquidity continues to dry up in crypto markets.

Another example is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s.

The post Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETFs, Andreessen Horowitz, and Contradictions in Crypto appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Visit link:

Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETFs, Andreessen Horowitz, and Contradictions in Crypto

Cryptocurrency News: Looking Past the Bithumb Crypto Hack

Another Crypto Hack Derails Recovery
Since our last report, hackers broke into yet another cryptocurrency exchange. This time the target was Bithumb, a Korean exchange known for high-flying prices and ultra-active traders.

While the hackers made off with approximately $31.5 million in funds, the exchange is working with relevant authorities to return the stolen tokens to their respective owners. In the event that some is still missing, the exchange will cover the losses. (Source: “Bithumb Working With Other Crypto Exchanges to Recover Hacked Funds,”.

The post Cryptocurrency News: Looking Past the Bithumb Crypto Hack appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Continue reading here:

Cryptocurrency News: Looking Past the Bithumb Crypto Hack

Cryptocurrency News: What You Need to Know This Week

Cryptocurrency News
Cryptocurrencies traded sideways since our last report on cryptos. However, I noticed something interesting when playing around with Yahoo! Finance’s cryptocurrency screener: There are profitable pockets in this market.

Incidentally, Yahoo’s screener is far superior to the one on CoinMarketCap, so if you’re looking to compare digital assets, I highly recommend it.

But let’s get back to my epiphany.

In the last month, at one point or another, most crypto assets on our favorites list saw double-digit increases. It’s true that each upswing was followed by a hard crash, but investors who rode the trend would have made a.

The post Cryptocurrency News: What You Need to Know This Week appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Link:

Cryptocurrency News: What You Need to Know This Week

Cryptocurrency News: XRP Validators, Malta, and Practical Tokens

Cryptocurrency News & Market Summary
Investors finally saw some light at the end of the tunnel last week, with cryptos soaring across the board. No one quite knows what kicked off the rally—as it could have been any of the stories we discuss below—but the net result was positive.

Of course, prices won’t stay on this rocket ride forever. I expect to see a resurgence of volatility in short order, because the market is moving as a single unit. Everything is rising in tandem.

This tells me that investors are simply “buying the dip” rather than identifying which cryptos have enough real-world value to outlive the crash.

So if you want to know when.

The post Cryptocurrency News: XRP Validators, Malta, and Practical Tokens appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Continue reading here:

Cryptocurrency News: XRP Validators, Malta, and Practical Tokens

Cryptocurrency News: New Exchanges Could Boost Crypto Liquidity

Cryptocurrency News
Even though the cryptocurrency news was upbeat in recent days, the market tumbled after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rejected calls for a Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded fund (ETF).

That news came as a blow to investors, many of whom believe the ETF would open the cryptocurrency industry up to pension funds and other institutional investors. This would create a massive tailwind for cryptos, they say.

So it only follows that a rejection of the Bitcoin ETF should send cryptos tumbling, correct? Well, maybe you can follow that logic. To me, it seems like a dramatic overreaction.

I understand that legitimizing cryptos is important. But.

The post Cryptocurrency News: New Exchanges Could Boost Crypto Liquidity appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Read the original:

Cryptocurrency News: New Exchanges Could Boost Crypto Liquidity

Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETF Rejection, AMD Microchip Sales, and Hedge Funds

Cryptocurrency News
Although cryptocurrency prices were heating up last week (Bitcoin, especially), regulators poured cold water on the rally by rejecting calls for a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF). This is the second time that the proposal fell on deaf ears. (More on that below.)

Crypto mining ran into similar trouble, as you can see from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.‘s (NASDAQ:AMD) most recent quarterly earnings. However, it wasn’t all bad news. Investors should, for instance, be cheering the fact that hedge funds are ramping up their involvement in cryptocurrency markets.

Without further ado, here are those stories in greater detail.
ETF Rejection.

The post Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETF Rejection, AMD Microchip Sales, and Hedge Funds appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Here is the original post:

Cryptocurrency News: Bitcoin ETF Rejection, AMD Microchip Sales, and Hedge Funds

Cryptocurrency News: Vitalik Buterin Doesn’t Care About Bitcoin ETFs

Cryptocurrency News
While headline numbers look devastating this week, investors might take some solace in knowing that cryptocurrencies found their bottom at roughly $189.8 billion in market cap—that was the low point. Since then, investors put more than $20.0 billion back into the market.

During the rout, Ethereum broke below $300.00 and XRP fell below $0.30, marking yearly lows for both tokens. The same was true down the list of the top 100 biggest cryptos.

Altcoins took the brunt of the hit. BTC Dominance, which reveals how tightly investment is concentrated in Bitcoin, rose from 42.62% to 53.27% in just one month, showing that investors either fled altcoins at higher.

The post Cryptocurrency News: Vitalik Buterin Doesn’t Care About Bitcoin ETFs appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Excerpt from:

Cryptocurrency News: Vitalik Buterin Doesn’t Care About Bitcoin ETFs

Bitcoin Rise: Is the Recent Bitcoin Price Surge a Sign of Things to Come or Another Misdirection?

What You Need to Know About the Bitcoin Price Rise
It wasn’t that long ago that Bitcoin (BTC) dominated headlines for its massive growth, with many cryptocurrency millionaires being made. The Bitcoin price surged ever upward and many people thought the gravy train would never stop running—until it did.

Prices crashed, investors abandoned the space, and lots of people lost money. Cut to today and we’re seeing another big Bitcoin price surge; is this time any different?

I’m of a mind that investors ought to think twice before jumping back in on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin made waves when it once again crested above $5,000. Considering that it started 2019 around $3,700,.

The post Bitcoin Rise: Is the Recent Bitcoin Price Surge a Sign of Things to Come or Another Misdirection? appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Continue reading here:

Bitcoin Rise: Is the Recent Bitcoin Price Surge a Sign of Things to Come or Another Misdirection?

Eugenics, Anti-Immigration Laws Of The Past Still Resonate …

The Statue of Liberty, which stands on Ellis Island in New York Harbor, was the America’s busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954. Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images hide caption

The Statue of Liberty, which stands on Ellis Island in New York Harbor, was the America’s busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954.

Nearly 100 years ago, Congress passed a restrictive law that cut the overall number of immigrants coming to the United States and put severe limits on those who were let in.

Journalist Daniel Okrent says that the eugenics movement a junk science that stemmed from the belief that certain races and ethnicities were morally and genetically superior to others informed the Immigration Act of 1924, which restricted entrance to the U.S.

“Eugenics was used as a primary weapon in the effort to keep Southern and Eastern Europeans out of the country,” Okrent says. “[The eugenics movement] made it a palatable act, because it was based on science or presumed science.”

Okrent notes the 1924 law drastically cut the number of Jews, Italians, Greeks and Eastern Europeans that could enter the country. Even during World War II, when hundreds of thousands of people were displaced and dying, access remained limited. The limits remained in place until 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act ended immigration restrictions based on nationality, ethnicity and race.

Okrent sees echos of the 1924 act in President Trump’s hard-line stance regarding immigration: “The [current] rhetoric of criminality, the attribution of criminality not to individual criminals but to hundreds of thousands of people of various nationalities that’s very similar to the notion of moral deficiency that was hurled by the eugenicists at the Southern and Eastern Europeans of the 1910s and ’20s.”

Okrent’s new book is The Guarded Gate.

Bigotry, Eugenics, and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians, and Other European Immigrants Out of America

by Daniel Okrent

On what immigration was like at the turn of the 20th century, before the Immigration Act of 1924

Ellis Island opens in 1892 and within a few years it becomes one of the busiest port spots anywhere in the U.S. Ellis Island was a teeming hive of activity as hundreds of thousands in some years more than a million immigrants came pouring through. [It] was a very, very busy place and a very alienating place for a lot of people, because of the examination that people had to go through, particularly for tuberculosis, trachoma and other diseases. But once through the line, and then onto the ferry boat that took people to Manhattan, it was really a wonderful place to have been.

On the Immigration Act of 1924, and the quotas set up to restrict immigration

First, there is an overall quota. At various times it was 300,000 people, then it got chopped down to … 162,000 people. … The second part is where did these people come from? And it was decided that, well, let’s continue to reflect the population of America as it has become, so we will decide where people can come from based on how many people of their same nationality were already here. …

If 10 percent of the current American population came from country A, then 10 percent of that year’s immigrants could come from country A. Except and this is probably the most malign and dishonest thing that came out of this entire movement they didn’t do this on the basis of the 1920 census, which had been conducted just four years before, or the 1910, or even the 1900. But those numbers were based on the population in 1890, before the large immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe had begun. So to any question about whether there was any racist or anti-Semitic or anti-Italian intent, this established there clearly was. …

… in the year before the first of the quota laws went to effect, more than 220,000 Italians came into the U.S. And the year after, under the quota, it was fewer than 4,000 …

Daniel Okrent

So if you take the Italians, in the year before the first of the quota laws went to effect, more than 220,000 Italians came into the U.S. And the year after, under the quota, it was fewer than 4,000 and similar numbers stretched across Eastern and Southern Europe. Suddenly the door has slammed in the faces of those people who had been coming in the largest numbers, based not only on bogus science, but based on a manipulation of American history itself.

On how eugenics began

The origin of eugenics was in England in the latter half of the 19th century. It really comes out of Darwin in a way, out of some very good science. Darwin upsets the entire balance of the scientific world with his discovery and the propagation of the ideas of evolution. And then, once you establish that we are not all derived from the same people from Adam and Eve which was the prevailing view at the time, then we learned that we are not all the same. We are not all brothers, if you wish to take that particular position. And the early eugenicists believed that and thought that we could control the nature of the population of a nation the U.K. at first, or the U.S. by selective breeding. Let’s have only the “good” breed with the “good,” and let’s not let the less-than-good breed.

On how eugenicists believed morality was an inherited trait

You find some very well-established scientists, [Henry] Fairfield Osborn, the head of the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years, he outright declared that it is not just intelligence, it is also morality that is inherited, and criminality is inherited. It’s really stunning to think that people who are very, very well-credentialed in the natural sciences could believe these things. But if you begin your belief by thinking that certain peoples are inferior to other peoples, it’s very easy to adapt your science to suit your own prejudice.

On the evaluations to determine which ethnic groups were the smartest

There were any number of tests in various places, almost all of them of equal unreliability to determine whether people were of sufficient intelligence. One of the most famous ones was the so-called “Alpha Test” that was given to nearly 2 million soldiers in World War I by Robert M. Yerkes, who is now memorialized in the Yerkes Primate Research Center in Atlanta, a federal facility.

Yerkes gave tests that included questions that were almost [like] Jeopardy questions, although in reverse. A question like: “Is Bud Fisher a (choose one): outfielder; cartoonist or novelist?” If you’ve just been in the country for five years and you don’t speak English terribly well, how are you possibly going to answer a question like that? But it was taken seriously as a measure of intelligence.

On how Trump’s hard-line position on immigration echoes the anti-immigration and eugenicist sentiments of the early 1900s

When you choose your immigrants, when you choose your next door neighbors on the basis of their ethnicity or their race rather than the nature of the individual him- or herself, you’re engaged in, in this case, official legal discrimination.

Daniel Okrent

I think that one could say that today’s Central Americans and today’s Muslims … are the equivalent of 1924’s Jews and Italians, or … the Jews and Italians then were treated and regarded as these Latin American and Muslim nationalities are today. When you choose your immigrants, when you choose your next door neighbors on the basis of their ethnicity or their race rather than the nature of the individual him- or herself, you’re engaged in, in this case, official legal discrimination.

Sam Briger and Mooj Zadie produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the Web.

Continued here:

Eugenics, Anti-Immigration Laws Of The Past Still Resonate …

What is Bitcoin Cash? – finance.yahoo.com

For many newcomers, cryptocurrencies can be confusing at the best of times. Not only are they extremely complex, but there are also so many of them to choose from.

Bitcoin itself is no stranger to this. There are multiple iterations of Bitcoin, from the original BTC to Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Private. The biggest competitor to Bitcoin though is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). BCH is a hard fork of Bitcoin that aims to solve the issue of scaling through the use of bigger blocks.

Bitcoin Cash arose due to a large scaling debate that happened within the Bitcoin community. Debates began to arise when the Bitcoin mempool began to fill up due to the amount of transactions taking place on the network. This caused Bitcoin to become slower and more expensive to send than it had been in the past.

There were two options depending on your viewpoint. The first was to scale by increasing the block size of Bitcoin, and the second was to scale via a second-layer solution such as the Lightning Network. When neither side could come to a compromise, a fork took place and led to the creation of what became known as Bitcoin Cash.

Bitcoin Cash was backed by evangelist Roger Ver and mining giant Jihan Wu along with many other industry leaders and experts. They disagreed with the idea of implementing SegWit onto Bitcoin and wanted to see Bitcoin scale to 8MB blocks.

Bigger blocks allow for more transactions to take place. However, this comes with the downside of creating a larger blockchain. Those who believe in BTC argue that bigger blocks will eventually lead to mining centralisation.

BCH supporters argue that through Moores Law technology will eventually catch up, allowing for bigger blocks to be possible without these centralisation issues.

Bigger blocks are believed to be necessary due to the fees associated with Bitcoin. When the network became extremely popular in the bull run of 2017, fees and transaction times began to rise considerably. This made it clear that Bitcoin needed to scale.

Bitcoin Cash believes that it has solved these problems through bigger blocks, which it argues allows for much lower fees.

It is impossible to discuss Bitcoin Cash without mentioning evangelist Roger Ver. Ver was one of the first people to promote Bitcoin to the world. He was an early investor in the cryptocurrency and many major cryptocurrency companies today were helped by his funding. As the owner of the bitcoin.com domain, he holds a powerful position.

Ver argues that the direction that BTC has taken has limited the cryptocurrency and allowed other altcoins to rise in prominence. He argues that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin as it is a form of peer-to-peer electronic cash, as stated in the white paper.

This has not been without controversy, and resulted in much antagonism directed towards Ver. Some have argued that Ver has misled the public in his promotion of Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin an accusation he vehemently denies.

BCH went through its own drama in late 2018. After the split from BTC, BCH was led by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and development teams including Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC. They were also supported by Craig Wright of nChain and his partner Calvin Ayre.

However, their relationship soured, and another fork took place splitting Bitcoin Cash into BCH and Bitcoin Satoshis Vision (BSV).

Many members of the Bitcoin Cash community are on the r/btc subreddit. The r/btc subreddit is another split from the original r/bitcoin subreddit. The drama began when users argued that the r/bitcoin subreddit was too heavily moderated, therefore limiting free speech.

This led to the creation of r/btc, and this is where you can find the most up-to-date news on Bitcoin Cash and debates surrounding the cryptocurrency. If you want the latest news and to join the community, this is the place to start.

There are many fervent supporters of Bitcoin Cash who believe that on-chain scaling is the main solution to the current scaling issues. Although it has yet to make a dent in overtaking the original Bitcoin chain, their beliefs have not diminished. This is the main difference between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin the debate over scaling on-chain or via a second layer.

Arguments over the split still rage on to this day, with both sides not conceding any ground. Whilst many deride Bitcoin Cash, there is an argument to be made that the testing of an on-chain scaling solution is a good experiment for the whole of cryptocurrency.

The post What is Bitcoin Cash? appeared first on Coin Rivet.

Read the original here:

What is Bitcoin Cash? – finance.yahoo.com

Bitcoin Soars As Ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, Bitcoin Cash, And …

Bitcoin has continued its march higher after shooting up at the beginning of the month and now appears to be pulling away from the likes ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, bitcoin cash, EOS, and other major cryptocurrencies.

The bitcoin price has hit another year-to-date high in the past 24 hours, climbing to $5,622, according to prices from the Luxembourg-based Bitstamp exchange.

Now, a bullish technical indicator is giving investors heart that the recent rally will be held after bitcoin’s moving averages showed a pattern known as a golden cross.

The bitcoin price has been outperforming smaller cryptocurrencies after so-called altcoins made strong gains previously.

The golden crossoccurs when the average bitcoin price in the short term rises above its long term average price. Bitcoin’s 50-day moving average rose above its 200-day moving average for the first time since 2015yesterday.

Alternatively, when an assets short-term moving average crosses below the long-term moving average, it indicates the potential for a major selloff and is known as a death cross.

The bitcoin price has risen almost 2% over the last 24 hour trading period, according to data from CoinMarketCap, which tracks most major cryptocurrencies.

Elsewhere, ethereum and Ripple’s XRP lost 2%, while bitcoin cash, an offshoot of bitcoin itself, was down more than 5%. EOS was off by 3% over the last 24 hour trading period.

Binance coin, which increasingly seems to be deciding the direction of the bitcoin and cryptocurrency market, lost the most of the top ten cryptocurrencies over the last 24 hours, dropping almost 6%.

The bitcoin price has recorded another year-to-date high this week.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency industry insiders have said bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency, is still very important to the wider market.

“If I had to pick one [cryptocurrency], I would pick bitcoin. We need bitcoin to succeed in order for the market to do well and for innovations to keep happening,” Hany Rashwan, the founder and chief executive of cryptocurrency trading tools company Amun, this week told the Crypto for Earthlings podcast.

“Bitcoin is the largest and most well support asset today and we shouldn’t dismiss it. There are a number of technical innovations on their way to make bitcoin more transactional. We should focus on that and keep investing in bitcoin more than anything else.”

Meanwhile, analysts and traders were keen to find any sign of what was pushing bitcoin higher while other coins, like ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, bitcoin cash, and EOS, fell.

The cryptocurrency market has been divided by bitcoin’s recent gains.

“Another strong surge during the Asian session[yesterday]brought us to a new high of $5,622 a coin, the highest level since November’s capitulation,” eToro senior market analyst Mati Greenspan wrote in a note to clients.

“There are a load of bullish signs right now but if you’re asking what caused this morning’s movement, you might be slightly disappointed as there doesn’t seem to be any specific catalyst for this. It seems simply to be a shift in outlook.

“During the bear market, there were a lot of people who sold their crypto in fear of lower prices. Those people didn’t really go away though, they’re simply standing on the sidelines waiting for the return of a bull market.”

The rest is here:

Bitcoin Soars As Ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, Bitcoin Cash, And …

Bitcoin Cash – finance.yahoo.com

Bitcoin Cash ABC Slides Again

Bitcoin Cash ABC slid by 3.14% on Friday. Following on from a 6.72% tumble on Thursday, Bitcoin Cash ABC ended the day at $255.02.

A relatively bullish start to the day saw Bitcoin Cash ABC rise to an intraday high $269.27 before hitting reverse.

Falling short of the first major resistance level at $279.15, Bitcoin Cash ABC fell to a late afternoon intraday low $251.34.

In spite of the reversal, Bitcoin Cash ABC steered clear of the first major support level at $249.92 to recover to $255 levels.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin Cash ABC was up by 2.28% to $260.85. Bucking the trend from the broader market, Bitcoin Cash ABC rose from $255.02 to a morning high $261.

In spite of the early move, Bitcoin Cash ABC left the major support and resistance levels untested.

For the day ahead, a move through to $262 levels would support a run at the first major resistance level at $265.75.

Barring a broad-based crypto rally, Bitcoin Cash ABC would likely come up short of $270 levels and the second major resistance level at $276.47. Fridays high $269.27 would likely pin Bitcoin Cash ABC back on the day.

In the event of a breakout, Bitcoin Cash ABC would likely fall short of $280 levels on the day.

Failure to move through to $262 levels could see Bitcoin Cash ABC hit reverse later in the day. A fall a pullback through $258.54 would bring $251 levels into play before any recovery.

Barring a crypto sell-off, Bitcoin Cash ABC would likely steer clear of sub-$250 levels and the first major support level at $247.82.

Litecoin rose by 1.49% on Friday. Partially reversing a 3.39% slide from Thursday, Litecoin ended the day at $71.64.

A choppy start to the day saw Litecoin slide to an intraday low $68.88 before striking an intraday high $73.5.

The moves through the early hours saw Litecoin leave the major support and resistance levels untested.

Easing back from the early intraday high, Litecoin fell to an afternoon low $69.5 before finding support late in the day.

At the time of writing, Litecoin was down by 0.61% to $71.20. A bearish start to the day saw Litecoin fall from a morning high $71.83 to a low $71.13 before steadying.

Litecoin left the major support and resistance levels untested in the early hours.

For the day ahead, a move through to $71.40 levels would bring $72 levels back into play before any pullback. Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Litecoin to take a run at $73 levels and the first major resistance level at $73.80.

Failure to move through to $71.40 levels could see Litecoin slide further into the red before any recovery.

A fall through to $70 levels would bring the first major support level at $69.18 into play. Barring a crypto meltdown, Litecoin would likely avoid a return to sub-$69 levels on the day.

Story continues

Ripples XRP rallied by 6.34% on Friday. Reversing a 3.93% slide from Thursday, Ripples XRP ended the day at $0.3092.

Bullish through the day, Ripples XRP rallied from a start of a day intraday low $0.28799 to a late intraday high $0.31149.

Steering clear of the major support levels, Ripples XRP broke through the first major resistance level at $0.3060. In spite of the day-long rally, Ripples XRP came up short of $0.32 levels and the second major resistance level at $0.3209. More modest gains elsewhere likely capped the upside on the day.

At the time of writing, Ripples XRP was down by 0.38% to $0.30802. A relatively range-bound start to the day saw Ripples XRP fall from a morning high $0.31097 to a low $0.30757.

The early moves saw Ripples XRP leave the major support and resistance levels untested.

For the day ahead, a move through to $0.31 levels would support a run at the first major resistance level at $0.3178. Following Fridays breakout, support from the broader market would be needed for return to $0.32 levels.

Barring a broad-based crypto rally, Ripples XRP would likely come up short of the second major resistance level at $0.3264.

Failure to move through to $0.31 levels could see Ripples XRP take another hit on the day. A fall through $0.3030 levels would bring the first major support level at $0.2943 into play.

Barring a crypto meltdown, Ripples XRP would likely avoid a return to $0.28 levels on the day.

Please let us know what you think in the comments below

Thanks, Bob

This article was originally posted on FX Empire

See more here:

Bitcoin Cash – finance.yahoo.com


12345...102030...