John McAfee: Bitcoin Custody to Become the Standard – CryptoPotato

Since Bitcoin came into being, we have had a global decentralized digital cash system that can bypass the entire banking system. But like cash, it comes with its own set of risks.

If you lose the keys to your coins, you lose the coins. Seasoned Bitcoin investors know this, but it scares new users who would rather leave their money with third parties that act as custodians, keeping their assets safe for them.

Some people use hardware wallets, but their keys can get lost as well. Seed phrases can be forgotten. We are human and thus prone to error.

Most people, even at this stage, are not tech literate. A lot of people arent aware of the differences between hot and cold wallets, or the best ways to keep their Bitcoin safe.

People cannot handle all this technology. And isnt this the reason why banks came into being? People could lose their money to theft, so some people came up with a custodian to keep their money safe.

Bitcoin provides an open-source alternative to hard money that cant be controlled by big banks and governments. But it is not designed to be so simple that the average person can create wallets, do transactions, and keep their funds safe.

This has given rise to crypto custodians.

A crypto custodian holds your cryptocurrencies and keeps them safe. Given the naivety of the general public, crypto custodial services are on the rise.

According to BNY Mellon, crypto-centric custody solutions are very popular. Experts believe that such custodians bridge the gap between the digital currency industry and institutional investment.

A number of banks have rolled out custody platforms. For example, theres a Digital Asset Vault by Swiss bank Vontobel. Similar services are offered by Coinbase, Fidelity, State Street, and many others. This caught the attention of legendary entrepreneur and popular cryptocurrency commentator John McAfee.

In the comments, he added that crypto custody will help more users join the crypto world. McAfees tweet explains that custody is a major issue that stops fund managers from placing capital in cryptocurrencies.

Crypto custody will change the crypto space for institutional investors. Since custody has typically been managed by exchanges, it entails some security risks. These risks might not be very big for individual users but are considerable for large institutional investors.

Until a large and reliable custodian emerges, crypto custody will continue to be a big issue, and big institutional investors might find it difficult to invest in large amounts of crypto.

Crypto wallets and exchanges have conventionally relied on private keys to protect users holdings. Such keys can be difficult to remember and can be stolen.

Crypto custody reduces the chances of losing your assets forever as it is designed to prevent wallet thefts and lost keys.

Also, custodial services are designed to comply with regulations. According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, investors who have customer assets over $150,000 need to place them with a custodian.

Crypto custodial providers are sprouting up all over the digital sphere in 2019, with Coinbase being the leading provider. Such platforms serve as storage and security units and are mainly geared towards institutional investors. Some other names in this sector are BitGo and Xapo.

Many of us will be skeptical when we hear the word counterparty. Why involve third parties? Why should they know about our holdings? However, for large investors, custodians can be a blessing.

Custodians will no doubt be a target for hackers, and they will need to take strict security measures as they must protect many peoples assets. Solutions will be elusive with the lack of global regulation on the subject.The traditional financial world doesnt have much experience in the area of crypto custody.

Nevertheless, Northern Trust Corporation has announced that its working on it, and Bank of America has filed a patent.Even as large financial organizations foray into this field, a leader has yet to emerge.

See the article here:

John McAfee: Bitcoin Custody to Become the Standard - CryptoPotato

John McAfee Speaks On the Beatzcoin IEO Hosting On Probit Exchange – Coinpedia

Recently, VibraVid announced their Beatzcoin IEO is now hosted on the Probit Exchange which will commence on September 30. Owing to which the founder of the McAfee Associates, John McAfee, has urged the audience to strongly look at the Beatzcoin IEO on Probit Exchange.

John McAfee feels that the Blockchain has the power to provide the artists and musicians the ownership of their own creation. He also adds to it saying that

The upcoming @BeatzCoin IEO on Probit.com from September 30 will power the VibraVid platform to liberate countless artists & reward them for their work.

Basically, Probit is a global cryptocurrency exchange located in South Korea, which allows easy and fast on-boarding process for international and US-based users. This exchange has a quick and easy KYC process. Also, has the order speed of over 1.5 million orders per second and advanced security. This supports hardware security keys and 2FA. Also, the exchange has the simplest UI and it lists promising, qualified and deserving cryptocurrency projects.

The Beatzcoin (BTZC) is a TRC-10 cryptocurrency which is useful to transact on VibraVid platform. Also, VibraVid is a decentralized media sharing platform constructed on the TRON blockchain. Basically, this will be a decentralized answer to YouTube and SoundCloud. Recently, Beatzcoin has partnered with Changelly. They aim to allow easy on/off ramp for users holding major cryptocurrencies.

What is you opinion on this launch? Share your thoughts in our comments section.

View original post here:

John McAfee Speaks On the Beatzcoin IEO Hosting On Probit Exchange - Coinpedia

Charles Hoskinson Interview From Ethereum To Cardano And IOHK – Nasdaq

In our latest interview, we spoke with Charles Hoskinson: a man who has made a significant living investing in crypto, developing his own companies, and, as a hobby, ranching and creating his own anthill art. Charles, who originally graduated from Metro State University in Denver and then studied at the University of Colorado, has helped create three different crypto start-ups andas we will discuss in the interviewhas certainly learned a lot along the way.

While Charles most recognizable startup is todays second-largest coin, Ethereum, it seems his proudest work is what he has done with IOHK and Cardano. We caught up with Charles to learn more about his accomplishments and his views on the future of crypto.

As someone who is incredibly familiar with the crypto industry as a whole, Charles has become a staunch advocate for crypto as the currency of the future. He wisely recognizes that young people, especially in the developing world, statistically prefer storing their wealth in cryptocurrency rather than their national currency or even their national stock market.

Charles Hoskinson discusses in detail how new coins can provide holders with value and increase their value over time. He is a major advocate for decentralization and universal accessibility, two components he believes helps make these coins so appealing to new investors.

Suggested Videos:

In the interview, Charles Hoskinson and I discuss how Cardano may very well be the cryptocurrency of the future. The makers of the coin, which specifically focuses on extending crypto access to the developing world, recognizes that the coin is especially valuable for individuals living under corrupt regimes or without access to banks.

Suggested Videos:

Mongolia and Ethiopia are two countries that Charles believes the coin has the potential to take off in. The entire continent of Africa has significant potential for growth. If trading and storing wealth can be extended to the developing world, global wealth discrepancies may someday begin to decrease.

Cardano appears to have bottomed out at 0.04346 after failing to break the new support. On September 19th, it attempted to break inside theIchimoku cloud. However, the future cloud remains bearish. If the current bullish momentum persists, the ADA/USD pair may end up where it topped out. On Jun 26th, the pair started forming a double top chart pattern. It still isnt fully completed because the key support is actually at 0.026. But anything is possible in the world of cryptocurrency.

In the interview, we discuss how John McAfeea well-known crypto advocate and libertarian rebelpredicts that Bitcoin may be worth more than $1 million by the year 2021(increasing in value by roughly 10,000%).

Though Charles is a bit more hesitant than John to predict such a quick value increase, he certainly acknowledges that the crypto market has seemingly unlimited potential. Though Bitcoin has far weaker technology supporting it than many of todays new players, as the main industrys gold standard it will likely lead the way towards the future.

Suggested Videos:

Follow Charles on Twitter:https://twitter.com/iohk_charles

This brings me back to you. What do you think about the future of Cardano, Ethereum, and Bitcoin? After yousubscribed, head over to the comment section, give me a shoutout and let me know.

Remember that as the 4th point of theIDDAtechnique, you mustcalculate your risk tolerancebefore deciding on the investment strategy that is suitable for your portfolio. Dont forget to complete yourrisk management due-diligencebefore developing your investment strategy.

This article was originally published on InvestDiva.com.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Read the original here:

Charles Hoskinson Interview From Ethereum To Cardano And IOHK - Nasdaq

Bakkt to Launch Bitcoin Futures in Three Days, John McAfee: It ould Jump-Start Crypto Adoption – U.Today

Atomic wallet successfully launched the loyalty program for its users, and it is based on Binance Chain. A multi-level membership program provides cashback for AWC owners, which can reach $300 a month.

Regarding the innovations, Atomic Wallet CEO, Konstantin Gladych, said the following:

As Atomic Wallet is rapidly growing and getting popularity within the crypto community, our membership program will help to all crypto enthusiasts not only enjoy using Atomic but also to get benefits of AWC token.

To start receiving cashback from Atomic, the users account must have none the less 1000 AWC tokens; payments are made for using the built-in exchange service. The algorithm is quite simple; the more users hold tokens, the more they will receive at the end of the month.

Screenshot of Atomic Wallet application

Atomic has divided its loyalty program into four main levels: Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. Depending on how much AWC you hold, the cashback may rise from 0.25% to 1%, and the limit too. On the Bronze level, it will be $100, but moving forward to Platinum it gonna rise to $300 cashback limit per month, which is pretty nice.

For those who do not know, Atomic is a universal cryptocurrency wallet that supports more than 500 coins and tokens without deposits and is suitable for most OS.

Continued here:

Bakkt to Launch Bitcoin Futures in Three Days, John McAfee: It ould Jump-Start Crypto Adoption - U.Today

Overstock Shares Crash as Former CEO Cashes Out Goes All In on Crypto and Gold – CCN.com

Ousted former CEO of Overstock, Patrick Byrne, revealed via a regulatory filing on Wednesday that he offloaded his entire holdings in the internet retailer he's been at the helm for since 1999.

In a post directed to former colleagues of the company, Byrne stated that by Friday, Sept. 20 all proceeds, minus tens of millions in taxes, will have made their way into counter-cyclical investments including gold, silver and two flavors of crypto.

The kooky businessman didn't, however, reveal which cryptocurrencies would receive a bid thanks to the cash injection.

Byrne's resignation last month followed a series of public self-disclosures of his involvement in FBI-linked espionage.

Indeed Byrne's tagline on his DeepCapture blog states: I am a concerned citizen who has been hunting the oligarchy since 2004 and the Deep State since 2006.

Byrne is well-known for punting security tokens in his days at Overstock but may elect to go the privacy coin route when transferring his wealth.

The crypto is stored in the place where all crypto is stored. In mathematical mist, behind long keys held only in the memory of someone who is quite good at storing such things. (With paper backups in the hands of a priest I met 35 years ago who never sits foot in the West).

Byrne should probably resist the temptation to reveal details about his private keys, however.

The entire episode reminds one of that other crypto conspiracy celebrity, John McAfee, who regularly reveals Twitter location clues as the CIA chases him around the globe.

As for the gold and silver, moving precious commodities in any large number for Byrne may prove tricky. He has plans in place for that too.

The gold and silver are stored outside of the United States. In Switzerland, and within two weeks, will be scattered in other locations that are even more outside of the reach of the Deep State.

The fire sale, which took place over three days, is worth around $90 million.It highlights the effect that dumping 5 million shares has on the market.

Overstock is down nearly 35% since Monday. Byrne sold progressively lower until he was finally liquidated around $16 a share.

Overstock witnessed a parabolic run to $80 a share in 2017, which coincided with the altcoin boom-bust phenomena. It has since stumbled in the aftermath.

Apart from this particular period, shares have largely traded sideways in the 25 years since listing.

Gold, on the other hand, is up 300% in the same period. Ultimately, though, the mantle for the best-performing asset of this century must go to bitcoin.

Whether Byrne chooses the flagship cryptocurrency or not still remains to be seen.

September 19, 2019 5:55 PM

View original post here:

Overstock Shares Crash as Former CEO Cashes Out Goes All In on Crypto and Gold - CCN.com

Tezos Pumps On Binance Listing, But What About US Crypto Exchange? – newsBTC

The worlds most popular cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, has listed smart contract-focused altcoin Tezos (XTZ) to its flagship website, causing the price to spike as much as 5% in the first couple hours after a listing announcement was made.

However, Tezos is notably missing from the list of the 30 altcoins Binance US is currently considering for listing, suggesting there may be little hope or at least an extended wait before Binance customers in the US can load up on the altcoin aimed at unseating Ethereum.

This morning, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao shared the news that the Malta-based cryptocurrency exchange would be listing Tezos for trading under three crypto trading pairs. Tezos will be paired for trading with Bitcoin, the stablecoin Tether, and the firms native cryptocurrency token, Binance Coin which has been the top performing altcoin of 2019, beating out even Bitcoin itself.

Related Reading | Binance US Evaluating 30 Crypto Assets, Bitcoin and Ethereum Under Scrutiny?

Trading goes live on September 23 at 11:00AM UTC, and users may already begin depositing to their Binance accounts Tezos in anticipation of trading.

Tezos has already started to pump following the listing and is up as much as 5% within the first few hours after the announcement. Tezos was also listed on the San Francisco-based Coinbase at the start of August and trading opened to a 16% rise in value, suggesting that the Binance pump still has a ways to go before the listing rally fizzles out.

Tezos has only been listed on Binances flagship website a platform that recently blocked US-based customers from trading or making deposits and not the recently launched Binance US platform. Customers of the US-based exchange may be left waiting quite some time for Tezos to be listed on the stateside version of Binance.

Binances new exchange for US customers not only currently lacks a coinciding Tezos listing, but its also not even amongst the 30 cryptocurrency tokens the platform has revealed to be exploring for listing in the future.

While Binances move to separate US customers from its flagship website was necessary due to increased pressure from global finance market regulators, this latest Tezos listing demonstrates the glaring gap that could form in product offerings between the two platforms.

Related Reading | Can Coinbase Capitalize On Binance Becoming Less Attractive To US Crypto Investors?

US investors who make up the lions share of the crypto market would need to search elsewhere, such as Coinbase, to load up on Tezos. The more situations like this arise, the more likely crypto investors in the United States will turn to Coinbase instead of Binance putting the leaders stronghold over the market at risk.

See more here:

Tezos Pumps On Binance Listing, But What About US Crypto Exchange? - newsBTC

John McAfee – Wikipedia

John David McAfee (/ m k f i / MAK--fee; born September 18, 1945) is a British-American computer programmer and businessman. He founded the software company McAfee Associates in 1987 and ran it until 1994, when he resigned from the company. McAfee Associates achieved early success as the creators of McAfee, the first commercial antivirus software, and the business now produces a ...

Read this article:

John McAfee - Wikipedia

Bitcoin Will Hit $1 Million in 2020 Because Maths, Stupid …

By CCN.com: John McAfee has been really bold when it comes to predicting the price of bitcoin, claiming that each unit of the cryptocurrency will be worth $1 million by the end of 2020.. The cybersecurity expert had first said in July 2017 that one bitcoin would be worth $500,000 by the end of 2020. If that didnt happen, he promised that hell do something that none of us probably want to ...

Original post:

Bitcoin Will Hit $1 Million in 2020 Because Maths, Stupid ...

Contact | John McAfee

Who is McAfee The Official Blog of John McAfee. Media inquiries & Speaking engagements : Interested in bringing John McAfee as a technology , cyber security , blockchain, bitcoin, crypto currency or other related topics as a keynote at one of your future events / shows ?Fill out this short form with a brief description and contact information

See the original post here:

Contact | John McAfee

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 more 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 the original here:

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 ...

See the original post:

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.

Read more here:

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.

The rest is here:

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

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.

Read the rest here:

Cryptocurrency News: Looking Past the Bithumb Crypto Hack

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.

Read more from the original source:

Cryptocurrency News: XRP Validators, Malta, and Practical Tokens

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.

Read the rest here:

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

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.

Go here to see the original:

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

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.

Here is the original post:

Cryptocurrency News: What You Need to Know This Week