Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
That is the biggest outcry of stupidity to men.
that somehwere, in the mind of Zelgje at least, exists a clear form of communism that actually works and defeats capitalism in every way [cut]
That is what I mean...it is profoundly not true non existing and made up fairtale bittybatty talk!
So, tell me where exactly where I wrote that "clear communism" actually works and defeats capitalism in every way?
Honestly mitch, I think you made that fairytale up in your own mind. ;)
that somehwere, in the mind of Zelgje at least, exists a clear form of communism that actually works and defeats capitalism in every way [cut]
That is what I mean...it is profoundly not true non existing and made up fairtale bittybatty talk!
So, tell me where exactly where I wrote that "clear communism" actually works and defeats capitalism in every way?
Honestly mitch, I think you made that fairytale up in your own mind. ;)
I think communism can not beat capitalism in economics. Just in global as "better system" for humans :-).
The point of communism is common ownership and in this system there can not have so high productivity as capitalism cos just competition, also individual competition among people, not only company is resource of high productivity. Common ownership kill this.
What do you think Zwelgje ?
The point of communism is common ownership and in this system there can not have so high productivity as capitalism cos just competition, also individual competition among people, not only company is resource of high productivity. Common ownership kill this.
What do you think Zwelgje ?
in every sense ... I always have to think about China if I read comments like this. Not that I think China is a nice place to live (I can't really know, I never been there), but to show the 'every' is also just partly true.
The bolded part is just plain hillarious. Hey, Charlie, maybe China doesn't even exist. I've never been there either. :D
The point is, man, that communism will not live on in China either. Fullstop. It will be dead in every sense even in the great country such as China. China is an economic factor only because it has so freaking many people there. Even Castro's Cuba could be presented as a success story if it contained 1/5 of Earth's population.
Yes, in that time it made sense, but European socialism as we know it is still a dirty word and a way of thinking that is considered to be wrong and not excepted. Obama can't even get little change done as we all know by now.
Yes, I agree about that. Americans are overly paranoic against socialism and they're generally ignorant about anything outside of the US.
Dawkins extremist...
Dawkins is a fundamental extremist because he has made a career of actively denigrating religion without bothering to acquire even a superficial understanding of the subject matter. I respect an atheist who actually understands the doctrines that they are criticizing, and who have actually managed to tackle the strongest arguments offered by the opposition. I do not respect an atheist (or a theist) whose work is riddled with logical fallacies, who has made no effort to understand the very thing that they are attacking, and who is almost completely ignorant of the current state of the debate.
Case in point. Dawkins devotes an entire chapter to the Ontological Argument. But he doesn't understand Anslem's formation of the argument, is completely ignorant of the philosophical objections to the argument, and apparently has never heard of many modern re-workings of the argument. He actually explains, in so many words, that it can't be true because he doesn't understand it. That, my friend, is fundamentalism. Contrast that with Antony Flew, who actually studied (and understood) the original argument and all of its historic variations before offering a well-reasoned and well-informed response. Or Kant (who was a theist) - he actually evaluated the current state of the argument in the 19th century and came up with a very sound objection that is still used by philosophers today. Richard Dawkins couldn't even be bothered to look up the subject on Wikipedia before dedicating an entire chapter of his book to mocking it.
Richard Dawkins is an arrogant charlatan.
The bolded part is just plain hillarious. Hey, Charlie, maybe China doesn't even exist. I've never been there either. :D
The point is, man, that communism will not live on in China either. Fullstop. It will be dead in every sense even in the great country such as China. China is an economic factor only because it has so freaking many people there. Even Castro's Cuba could be presented as a success story if it contained 1/5 of Earth's population.
Yes, in that time it made sense, but European socialism as we know it is still a dirty word and a way of thinking that is considered to be wrong and not excepted. Obama can't even get little change done as we all know by now.
Yes, I agree about that. Americans are overly paranoic against socialism and they're generally ignorant about anything outside of the US.
Dawkins extremist...
Dawkins is a fundamental extremist because he has made a career of actively denigrating religion without bothering to acquire even a superficial understanding of the subject matter. I respect an atheist who actually understands the doctrines that they are criticizing, and who have actually managed to tackle the strongest arguments offered by the opposition. I do not respect an atheist (or a theist) whose work is riddled with logical fallacies, who has made no effort to understand the very thing that they are attacking, and who is almost completely ignorant of the current state of the debate.
Case in point. Dawkins devotes an entire chapter to the Ontological Argument. But he doesn't understand Anslem's formation of the argument, is completely ignorant of the philosophical objections to the argument, and apparently has never heard of many modern re-workings of the argument. He actually explains, in so many words, that it can't be true because he doesn't understand it. That, my friend, is fundamentalism. Contrast that with Antony Flew, who actually studied (and understood) the original argument and all of its historic variations before offering a well-reasoned and well-informed response. Or Kant (who was a theist) - he actually evaluated the current state of the argument in the 19th century and came up with a very sound objection that is still used by philosophers today. Richard Dawkins couldn't even be bothered to look up the subject on Wikipedia before dedicating an entire chapter of his book to mocking it.
Richard Dawkins is an arrogant charlatan.
The bolded part is just plain hillarious. Hey, Charlie, maybe China doesn't even exist. I've never been there either. :D
The point is, man, that communism will not live on in China either. Fullstop. It will be dead in every sense even in the great country such as China. China is an economic factor only because it has so freaking many people there. Even Castro's Cuba could be presented as a success story if it contained 1/5 of Earth's population.
In fact, one could say China is the example of anarcho-capitalism. If that is communism, I am the emperor of China. I'm not.
About Dawkins: he's not a fundamental extremist. A fundamental extremist wants to impose his opinion on the rest of the world. He doesn't. He's very critical and sometimes just plain rude about religion, but he's not an extremist. How you say something doesn't make you an extremist, it is what you say that matters.
I respect an atheist who actually understands the doctrines that they are criticizing, and who have actually managed to tackle the strongest arguments offered by the opposition.
No such things exist. Or at least, I've never seen one. It's a bit like your god ;-)
The point is, man, that communism will not live on in China either. Fullstop. It will be dead in every sense even in the great country such as China. China is an economic factor only because it has so freaking many people there. Even Castro's Cuba could be presented as a success story if it contained 1/5 of Earth's population.
In fact, one could say China is the example of anarcho-capitalism. If that is communism, I am the emperor of China. I'm not.
About Dawkins: he's not a fundamental extremist. A fundamental extremist wants to impose his opinion on the rest of the world. He doesn't. He's very critical and sometimes just plain rude about religion, but he's not an extremist. How you say something doesn't make you an extremist, it is what you say that matters.
I respect an atheist who actually understands the doctrines that they are criticizing, and who have actually managed to tackle the strongest arguments offered by the opposition.
No such things exist. Or at least, I've never seen one. It's a bit like your god ;-)
How you say something doesn't make you an extremist, it is what you say that matters.
No, actually, it's exactly the other way around but an extremist usually isn't aware of that and is very far from realising it. Otherwise, he would not be an extremist. If one is moderately expressing his opinion, being right or wrong, he is confident about his opinion and does not feel threatened by different opinions. Then normal communication with people of different opinions is possible. Then one might even learn something new and even have his opinion evolve. Moderate people with moderate opinions are not able to communicate normally with talibans or Dawkins followers.
No such things exist. Or at least, I've never seen one. It's a bit like your god ;-)
[irony] Well, if you never saw one, and if Dawkins never saw one, then it definately isn't any. How could it be? [/irony]
[sarcasm] And if some of the greatest philosophers (e.g. Kant) argued against such arguments, then those losers merely left an option of their oposition being right. [/sarcasm] :P
No, actually, it's exactly the other way around but an extremist usually isn't aware of that and is very far from realising it. Otherwise, he would not be an extremist. If one is moderately expressing his opinion, being right or wrong, he is confident about his opinion and does not feel threatened by different opinions. Then normal communication with people of different opinions is possible. Then one might even learn something new and even have his opinion evolve. Moderate people with moderate opinions are not able to communicate normally with talibans or Dawkins followers.
No such things exist. Or at least, I've never seen one. It's a bit like your god ;-)
[irony] Well, if you never saw one, and if Dawkins never saw one, then it definately isn't any. How could it be? [/irony]
[sarcasm] And if some of the greatest philosophers (e.g. Kant) argued against such arguments, then those losers merely left an option of their oposition being right. [/sarcasm] :P
Well, if you never saw one, and if Dawkins never saw one, then it definately isn't any. How could it be?
I never said such things, don't invent them please ;-)
And if some of the greatest philosophers (e.g. Kant) argued against such arguments, then those losers merely left an option of their oposition being right.
Because of the reason above, this is utter bullshit ;-)
I never said such things, don't invent them please ;-)
And if some of the greatest philosophers (e.g. Kant) argued against such arguments, then those losers merely left an option of their oposition being right.
Because of the reason above, this is utter bullshit ;-)
No, actually, it's exactly the other way around but an extremist usually isn't aware of that and is very far from realising it. Otherwise, he would not be an extremist. If one is moderately expressing his opinion, being right or wrong, he is confident about his opinion and does not feel threatened by different opinions. Then normal communication with people of different opinions is possible. Then one might even learn something new and even have his opinion evolve. Moderate people with moderate opinions are not able to communicate normally with talibans or Dawkins followers.
So someone who wants to impose his opinion (for instance someone who says everyone should be part of the catholic church, and all other religions should be forbidden), but says it on a friendly way, never says something rude, ... is not an extremist? I beg to differ.
It's not because you say religion is stupid and you express this in an insulting way for religious people, that you are an extremist.
So someone who wants to impose his opinion (for instance someone who says everyone should be part of the catholic church, and all other religions should be forbidden), but says it on a friendly way, never says something rude, ... is not an extremist? I beg to differ.
It's not because you say religion is stupid and you express this in an insulting way for religious people, that you are an extremist.
I never said such things, don't invent them please ;-)
Because of the reason above, this is utter bullshit ;-)
OK, I will not use irony nor sarcasm any more. It seems you're not getting it. I will keep it literal.
So, you wrote that there are not such things as strong arguments in theistic philosophies, or that at least you never saw one. I was ironising the fact that both you and Dawkins use your ignorance as arguments which also probably enables you to be on the same wave length. :P
I have written here examples of philosophers who have been reasonable and kind enough to take the time to understand theistic philosophy and then take a professional and educated approach at tackling its strongest arguments by their own strong counter-arguments without using the extremist retorics such as insults.
So someone who wants to impose his opinion (for instance someone who says everyone should be part of the catholic church, and all other religions should be forbidden), but says it on a friendly way, never says something rude, ... is not an extremist? I beg to differ.
It's not because you say religion is stupid and you express this in an insulting way for religious people, that you are an extremist.
It is amazing how you are able to either confuse or simply manipulate the difference between "what" and "how".
So, once again from the beginning. I am arguing that "how" is the key to extremist behaviour. If someone says "everyone should be part of the catholic church", he's argumenting about "what" he thinks is right. If the same person says "all other religions should be forbidden" or "we should fly planes to skyscrapers of our opponents" or "we should tell our opponents how stupid they are", he is then talking about "how" this should be accomplished. So, that person would be extremist in their approach to "how" their "what" should be applied but their "what" (everyone should be part of the catholic church") is stil not extremist.
So, if Dawkins thinks that religion is some "mindless mambo-jambo", that's perfectly fine. But, if he also believes that such opinion gives him the right to insult people who find religion sacred for their life, then he's an extremist in his approach, i.e. his "how" he thinks his worldview should prevail is - agressive and extremist.
Get it now? Which is "what" and which is "how"? :D
(editado)
Because of the reason above, this is utter bullshit ;-)
OK, I will not use irony nor sarcasm any more. It seems you're not getting it. I will keep it literal.
So, you wrote that there are not such things as strong arguments in theistic philosophies, or that at least you never saw one. I was ironising the fact that both you and Dawkins use your ignorance as arguments which also probably enables you to be on the same wave length. :P
I have written here examples of philosophers who have been reasonable and kind enough to take the time to understand theistic philosophy and then take a professional and educated approach at tackling its strongest arguments by their own strong counter-arguments without using the extremist retorics such as insults.
So someone who wants to impose his opinion (for instance someone who says everyone should be part of the catholic church, and all other religions should be forbidden), but says it on a friendly way, never says something rude, ... is not an extremist? I beg to differ.
It's not because you say religion is stupid and you express this in an insulting way for religious people, that you are an extremist.
It is amazing how you are able to either confuse or simply manipulate the difference between "what" and "how".
So, once again from the beginning. I am arguing that "how" is the key to extremist behaviour. If someone says "everyone should be part of the catholic church", he's argumenting about "what" he thinks is right. If the same person says "all other religions should be forbidden" or "we should fly planes to skyscrapers of our opponents" or "we should tell our opponents how stupid they are", he is then talking about "how" this should be accomplished. So, that person would be extremist in their approach to "how" their "what" should be applied but their "what" (everyone should be part of the catholic church") is stil not extremist.
So, if Dawkins thinks that religion is some "mindless mambo-jambo", that's perfectly fine. But, if he also believes that such opinion gives him the right to insult people who find religion sacred for their life, then he's an extremist in his approach, i.e. his "how" he thinks his worldview should prevail is - agressive and extremist.
Get it now? Which is "what" and which is "how"? :D
(editado)
OK, I will not use irony nor sarcasm any more. It seems you're not getting it. I will keep it literal.
I'm getting it. I just think it's weak ;-)
So, you wrote that there are not such things as strong arguments in theistic philosophies, or that at least you never saw one. I was ironising the fact that both you and Dawkins use your ignorance as arguments which also probably enables you to be on the same wave length. :P
I never used it as an argument. So once again, this is utter bullshit. I don't need arguments to proof your god doesn't exist, you need proof he does exist. I just have to counter your arguments. There is no way one can proof that your god doesn't exist, so I'm not going to try to do that.
I have written here examples of philosophers who have been reasonable and kind enough to take the time to understand theistic philosophy and then take a professional and educated approach at tackling its strongest arguments by their own strong counter-arguments without using the extremist retorics such as insults.
But none of them has ever been able to proof your god. Insulting is not extremist (see further).
It is amazing how you are able to either confuse or simply manipulate the difference between "what" and "how".
...
Get it now? Which is "what" and which is "how"? :D
Don't pretend I'm stupid. Thank you.
So, once again from the beginning. I am arguing that "how" is the key to extremist behaviour. If someone says "everyone should be part of the catholic church", he's argumenting about "what" he thinks is right. If the same person says "all other religions should be forbidden" or "we should fly planes to skyscrapers of our opponents" or "we should tell our opponents how stupid they are", he is then talking about "how" this should be accomplished. So, that person would be extremist in their approach to "how" their "what" should be applied but their "what" (everyone should be part of the catholic church") is stil not extremist.
You don't get it. You say that 'how' is the key factor of extremism, I say 'what' is the key factor. Thinking all other religions should be forbidden, IS extremist in my opinion. How you say this, doesn't matter. The content of his opinion is more important than the package.
So, if Dawkins thinks that religion is some "mindless mambo-jambo", that's perfectly fine. But, if he also believes that such opinion gives him the right to insult people who find religion sacred for their life, then he's an extremist in his approach, i.e. his "how" he thinks his worldview should prevail is - agressive and extremist.
I have the right to insult whoever I want. Or better: there is no right to not be insulted. There is a right to not be accused of things you didn't do (defamation), but that is a different thing than insulting. (However, intelligent people who recommend you to refrain your right to do so in certain cases: it's not because you can that you should.)
(editado)
I'm getting it. I just think it's weak ;-)
So, you wrote that there are not such things as strong arguments in theistic philosophies, or that at least you never saw one. I was ironising the fact that both you and Dawkins use your ignorance as arguments which also probably enables you to be on the same wave length. :P
I never used it as an argument. So once again, this is utter bullshit. I don't need arguments to proof your god doesn't exist, you need proof he does exist. I just have to counter your arguments. There is no way one can proof that your god doesn't exist, so I'm not going to try to do that.
I have written here examples of philosophers who have been reasonable and kind enough to take the time to understand theistic philosophy and then take a professional and educated approach at tackling its strongest arguments by their own strong counter-arguments without using the extremist retorics such as insults.
But none of them has ever been able to proof your god. Insulting is not extremist (see further).
It is amazing how you are able to either confuse or simply manipulate the difference between "what" and "how".
...
Get it now? Which is "what" and which is "how"? :D
Don't pretend I'm stupid. Thank you.
So, once again from the beginning. I am arguing that "how" is the key to extremist behaviour. If someone says "everyone should be part of the catholic church", he's argumenting about "what" he thinks is right. If the same person says "all other religions should be forbidden" or "we should fly planes to skyscrapers of our opponents" or "we should tell our opponents how stupid they are", he is then talking about "how" this should be accomplished. So, that person would be extremist in their approach to "how" their "what" should be applied but their "what" (everyone should be part of the catholic church") is stil not extremist.
You don't get it. You say that 'how' is the key factor of extremism, I say 'what' is the key factor. Thinking all other religions should be forbidden, IS extremist in my opinion. How you say this, doesn't matter. The content of his opinion is more important than the package.
So, if Dawkins thinks that religion is some "mindless mambo-jambo", that's perfectly fine. But, if he also believes that such opinion gives him the right to insult people who find religion sacred for their life, then he's an extremist in his approach, i.e. his "how" he thinks his worldview should prevail is - agressive and extremist.
I have the right to insult whoever I want. Or better: there is no right to not be insulted. There is a right to not be accused of things you didn't do (defamation), but that is a different thing than insulting. (However, intelligent people who recommend you to refrain your right to do so in certain cases: it's not because you can that you should.)
(editado)
I never used it as an argument.
Rubinho to Sasha76 2011-10-31 11:11:57
Last line.
There is no way one can proof that your god doesn't exist, so I'm not going to try to do that.
Well, by saying that there are no strong arguments in favour of God's existence, you are actually trying to do that but are merely not admitting it when it suits you.
But none of them has ever been able to proof your god.
So? If it cannot be proven, how does that matter in any way?
You don't get it. You say that 'how' is the key factor of extremism, I say 'what' is the key factor. Thinking all other religions should be forbidden, IS extremist in my opinion. How you say this, doesn't matter. The content of his opinion is more important than the package.
No, you didn't get what I wrote. Please, read again. I agree that opinion "all other religions should be forbidden" is extremist. Forbidding is "how something should happen". On the other hand, opinion "everyone should be part of the catholic church" is not extremist. That opinion is "what should happen". You combined these 2 opinions to show an extremist view but these 2 are not complementary opinions and it is possible to have them independently of each other.
It doesn't matter so much if someone is yelling and pulling his hair out or smiling politely while saying an opinion. That also counts for the "how", but the "how" is more about the goal and means of getting your message across to other people. If you intend to insult other people or restrict their rights, then we are talking about extremism.
I have the right to insult whoever I want. Or better: there is no right to not be insulted.
Both of these sentences are logically completely identical but that's not so much important here. What is more important is that these are horrible and extremist opinions. If someone insults you or your family, the right thing to do is first, turn the other cheek, second, try to ingore and avoid that person if and however possible, and third, if he keeps coming back at you, do whatever is necessary to stop this person from hurting you or your family.
Rubinho to Sasha76 2011-10-31 11:11:57
Last line.
There is no way one can proof that your god doesn't exist, so I'm not going to try to do that.
Well, by saying that there are no strong arguments in favour of God's existence, you are actually trying to do that but are merely not admitting it when it suits you.
But none of them has ever been able to proof your god.
So? If it cannot be proven, how does that matter in any way?
You don't get it. You say that 'how' is the key factor of extremism, I say 'what' is the key factor. Thinking all other religions should be forbidden, IS extremist in my opinion. How you say this, doesn't matter. The content of his opinion is more important than the package.
No, you didn't get what I wrote. Please, read again. I agree that opinion "all other religions should be forbidden" is extremist. Forbidding is "how something should happen". On the other hand, opinion "everyone should be part of the catholic church" is not extremist. That opinion is "what should happen". You combined these 2 opinions to show an extremist view but these 2 are not complementary opinions and it is possible to have them independently of each other.
It doesn't matter so much if someone is yelling and pulling his hair out or smiling politely while saying an opinion. That also counts for the "how", but the "how" is more about the goal and means of getting your message across to other people. If you intend to insult other people or restrict their rights, then we are talking about extremism.
I have the right to insult whoever I want. Or better: there is no right to not be insulted.
Both of these sentences are logically completely identical but that's not so much important here. What is more important is that these are horrible and extremist opinions. If someone insults you or your family, the right thing to do is first, turn the other cheek, second, try to ingore and avoid that person if and however possible, and third, if he keeps coming back at you, do whatever is necessary to stop this person from hurting you or your family.
Rubinho to Sasha76 2011-10-31 11:11:57
Last line.
Did you see the ';-)' there? It was a little joke of mine. Sorry if it was a weak joke.
Well, by saying that there are no strong arguments in favour of God's existence, you are actually trying to do that but are merely not admitting it when it suits you.
I'm not trying to proof that your god doesn't exist. If you don't believe me, that is your problem.
So? If it cannot be proven, how does that matter in any way?
It matters, there I will only accept the existence of a god when it is proven. That proof might not matter to you, it does for me.
No, you didn't get what I wrote. Please, read again. I agree that opinion "all other religions should be forbidden" is extremist. Forbidding is "how something should happen". On the other hand, opinion "everyone should be part of the catholic church" is not extremist. That opinion is "what should happen". You combined these 2 opinions to show an extremist view but these 2 are not complementary opinions and it is possible to have them independently of each other.
Okay, I misread. Sorry. So "everyone should be catholic" is not extremist but "everyone must be catholic" is extremist? I can live with that. Agreed.
Both of these sentences are logically completely identical but that's not so much important here.
I just wanted to stress that there is no law that gives you the right to insult but that there are no laws that forbid you to do so. But indeed, it is not important.
What is more important is that these are horrible and extremist opinions.
Insulting is not extremist. I repeat myself here.
If someone insults you or your family, the right thing to do is first, turn the other cheek,
When someone insults me, I skip this thing. I never offer the other cheek.
second, try to ingore and avoid that person if and however possible,
This is what I do.
and third, if he keeps coming back at you, do whatever is necessary to stop this person from hurting you or your family.
I disagree. If he doesn't stalk you, there is nothing you can or should do. And whatever is necessary? I hope you see this is certainly not right. You cannot kill a man because he was insulting you or your family. You have never the right to kill or hurt anyone physically.
Last line.
Did you see the ';-)' there? It was a little joke of mine. Sorry if it was a weak joke.
Well, by saying that there are no strong arguments in favour of God's existence, you are actually trying to do that but are merely not admitting it when it suits you.
I'm not trying to proof that your god doesn't exist. If you don't believe me, that is your problem.
So? If it cannot be proven, how does that matter in any way?
It matters, there I will only accept the existence of a god when it is proven. That proof might not matter to you, it does for me.
No, you didn't get what I wrote. Please, read again. I agree that opinion "all other religions should be forbidden" is extremist. Forbidding is "how something should happen". On the other hand, opinion "everyone should be part of the catholic church" is not extremist. That opinion is "what should happen". You combined these 2 opinions to show an extremist view but these 2 are not complementary opinions and it is possible to have them independently of each other.
Okay, I misread. Sorry. So "everyone should be catholic" is not extremist but "everyone must be catholic" is extremist? I can live with that. Agreed.
Both of these sentences are logically completely identical but that's not so much important here.
I just wanted to stress that there is no law that gives you the right to insult but that there are no laws that forbid you to do so. But indeed, it is not important.
What is more important is that these are horrible and extremist opinions.
Insulting is not extremist. I repeat myself here.
If someone insults you or your family, the right thing to do is first, turn the other cheek,
When someone insults me, I skip this thing. I never offer the other cheek.
second, try to ingore and avoid that person if and however possible,
This is what I do.
and third, if he keeps coming back at you, do whatever is necessary to stop this person from hurting you or your family.
I disagree. If he doesn't stalk you, there is nothing you can or should do. And whatever is necessary? I hope you see this is certainly not right. You cannot kill a man because he was insulting you or your family. You have never the right to kill or hurt anyone physically.
Don't pretend I'm stupid. Thank you.
Oh yes, and I didn't want to offend you so I am sorry about this as it was unintentional. I was merely joking but without mocking.
But now it also occurs to me. Why are you asking me not to insult you if I have the right to do that?
Oh yes, and I didn't want to offend you so I am sorry about this as it was unintentional. I was merely joking but without mocking.
But now it also occurs to me. Why are you asking me not to insult you if I have the right to do that?
I ask you to not insult me, just like you ask me to not insult you. However, you do have the right to do so. I repeat myself: it's not because one can that one should. Not insulting is the basis for a discussion. If one starts insulting, I ignore him. He has the right to insult me, I have the right to ignore him for using his right to insult me.
(editado)
(editado)
Did you see the ';-)' there? It was a little joke of mine. Sorry if it was a weak joke.
Oh, sorry. I didn't get. Yes, it was weak but no problem. :)
I'm not trying to proof that your god doesn't exist. If you don't believe me, that is your problem.
OK, I believe you.
It matters, there I will only accept the existence of a god when it is proven. That proof might not matter to you, it does for me.
But if it cannot be proven, then you're actually saying "I will never believe in God before an impossible condition is met".
I disagree. If he doesn't stalk you, there is nothing you can or should do. And whatever is necessary? I hope you see this is certainly not right. You cannot kill a man because he was insulting you or your family. You have never the right to kill or hurt anyone physically.
But I wrote "if he keeps coming at you" so I meant actually, if he does stalk you. Police should take care of this problem and part of their job is to hurt people if necessary so your claim is actually wrong. But, one can find himself in a situation where there is no police to take care of the dirty job for you. I am thankful I never had to deal with that kind of situation and I wish I never will but I won't pretend that it is theoretically impossible and that I don't know what I should and would do then.
Oh, sorry. I didn't get. Yes, it was weak but no problem. :)
I'm not trying to proof that your god doesn't exist. If you don't believe me, that is your problem.
OK, I believe you.
It matters, there I will only accept the existence of a god when it is proven. That proof might not matter to you, it does for me.
But if it cannot be proven, then you're actually saying "I will never believe in God before an impossible condition is met".
I disagree. If he doesn't stalk you, there is nothing you can or should do. And whatever is necessary? I hope you see this is certainly not right. You cannot kill a man because he was insulting you or your family. You have never the right to kill or hurt anyone physically.
But I wrote "if he keeps coming at you" so I meant actually, if he does stalk you. Police should take care of this problem and part of their job is to hurt people if necessary so your claim is actually wrong. But, one can find himself in a situation where there is no police to take care of the dirty job for you. I am thankful I never had to deal with that kind of situation and I wish I never will but I won't pretend that it is theoretically impossible and that I don't know what I should and would do then.
I ask you to not insult me, just like you ask me to not insult you. However, you do have the right to do so. I repeat myself: it's not because one can that one should. Not insulting is the basis for a discussion. If one starts insulting, I ignore him. He has the right to insult me, I have the right to ignore him for using his right to insult me.
I don't have the right to do so and you do have the right to protect yourself if I do it repeatedly. I mean, even the forum rules don't allow it. Do you think such rule should be removed? And if you don't, how can you support this as a right and also support it to be disallowed?
I don't have the right to do so and you do have the right to protect yourself if I do it repeatedly. I mean, even the forum rules don't allow it. Do you think such rule should be removed? And if you don't, how can you support this as a right and also support it to be disallowed?
But if it cannot be proven, then you're actually saying "I will never believe in God before an impossible condition is met".
If your god exists, then it is possible to proof he exists. I say it is impossible to proof something doesn't exist.
But I wrote "if he keeps coming at you" so I meant actually, if he does stalk you. Police should take care of this problem and part of their job is to hurt people if necessary so your claim is actually wrong.
The police will fine him, and if he keeps doing it, they'll lock him up. They'll never intend to hurt people physically.
But, one can find himself in a situation where there is no police to take care of the dirty job for you. I am thankful I never had to deal with that kind of situation and I wish I never will but I won't pretend that it is theoretically impossible and that I don't know what I should and would do then.
Well, I cannot believe there is a situation (in my country) in which the police does not do what they should (in this specific matter). However, I say one shouldn't hurt that person physically in my opinion. I don't know what I would do of course, that's impossible to know until it happens.
If your god exists, then it is possible to proof he exists. I say it is impossible to proof something doesn't exist.
But I wrote "if he keeps coming at you" so I meant actually, if he does stalk you. Police should take care of this problem and part of their job is to hurt people if necessary so your claim is actually wrong.
The police will fine him, and if he keeps doing it, they'll lock him up. They'll never intend to hurt people physically.
But, one can find himself in a situation where there is no police to take care of the dirty job for you. I am thankful I never had to deal with that kind of situation and I wish I never will but I won't pretend that it is theoretically impossible and that I don't know what I should and would do then.
Well, I cannot believe there is a situation (in my country) in which the police does not do what they should (in this specific matter). However, I say one shouldn't hurt that person physically in my opinion. I don't know what I would do of course, that's impossible to know until it happens.