I support the abolition of all religion. You however, only support the abolition of religions other than your own
IF
You think only "non-religious" systems should be tolerated.
THEN
You are denouncing others for openly doing what you inadvertantly do.
You seem to fancy your brand of intolerance somehow better because you take issue with even more groups (except yours). Wise up
I'm flattered that you spent time investigating me and sharing your suspicions. Here's a hot tip: If you really want to get someones perspective, ask questions without including personal attacks.
I am interested in the fiscal/monetary policies implemented by his regime.
Had I thougbt your question was asked in good faith I might have had more to say. (Smirks)
So you think white people should embrace race based tribalism and stop feeling responsible concerning the well being of those who aren't "us"?
BTW I have a controversial opinion about certain ethnic groups being considered rightful owners of certain portions of our earth. Might be interesting to debate.
A more reasonable description of knowledge is:
The information (however erroneous or useful) accessible to one or more agents.
Viewing knowledge as "justified true belief" sets us up to view portions of the information we manage as errorless and our thinking becomes more rigid and dogmatically absolutist. Instead of saying "I have justified true beliefs" its better to say "I think I have adequate information".
No. I believe those strories were what some people found inspiring and chose to canonize. My religion is syncretic and has been influenced by various faiths. I think yours is too, but you are so committed to anti-religion rhetoric it would be difficult to get you to admit it.
Not that I even buy in to viewing through the overly simplistic left/right lens, but I think many of the people that you say "support the Religion of Islam" arent concerned at all with doctrinal advocacy but with defense of a group of PEOPLE that is being demonized much like the Jews were in Nazi Germany
We recognize how genocide is worked up to througb rhetoric and we're trying to counter the trend
Tell you what ask any question you want about my religious beliefs. I will answer with complete candor. Stop any time you find a "delusional" belief. If you don't find any, I will consider the debate title/description disproven. You can continue thinking being opposed to religion in general is smart, and I will keep thinking it's smarter to take an "improve religion" approach.
I suppose earlier events in the chain of events that lead to the emergence of life involved much simpler chemical reactions that didn't involve greatly complex molecules. I suspect that some form of sustained combustion was the precursor to what later became metabolism.. I understand that I may have gone too far back for anyone to find my argument compelling, but do you really doubt that certain types of fire were intrinsically involved in what became life?
Since lying is a thing for you, Im not sure what nation you're from, but I do know you are part of an international multicultural group who is bent on spewing rhetoric that helps efforts to demonize "The West" Islam and whole nations so that violence and loss of freedom results. Are you proud of the role you play in drumming up mass hate?
I agree wholeheartedly with both posts on the other side. Though I think Conor would win under MMA rules, there is a very good chance he is going to really get clowned under boxing rules. If so I suspect it will be bad for MMA overall and good for boxing
Agreed, But I think even scientifically tested and corroborated assesments of all kinds are subjective by nature. What about thinking of information as "adequate vs inadequate"rather than "entirely correct vs entirely incorrect" ? can you see how the former doesn't pretend escaped subjectivity and avoids dogmatic absolutism?
I am trying to figure out why people are more apalled by rape than other types of harmful assaults. You say rapists should " be thrown in a whole, never to be heard from again". Do you think simple assault should carry just as harsh of a punishment? if not, why not?
To speak in a "politically correct" manner is to avoid culturally taboo statements that would result in more or less severe social consequences. Take for example Sam Harris. He talks about racial superiority in a manner that is sufficiently "politically correct" so you don't see a full scale character assasination effort being unleashed on him.
Do you now understand what politically correct means?
Since you say "It has nothing to do with sex at all. It is violence." I assume that you believe that someone who has committed assault with bodily injury should have the same restrictions that you think would be appropriate for a rapist right?
What about someone who just physically attacks someone for merely verbally insulting them. They break bones which require hospitalization. Do you think this type of assault merits the same severity of punishment that rape does? if not why not?
I think in general you have a good point. here, I think its worth making even more explicitly..
It's there. It is a static object
I struggled in vain to conceptualize truth as a static object.
that often doesn't get seen from all sides depending on the position of the person viewing it.
coceptually though, it usually connotes a completeness or perfectness of the relevant knowledge does it not?
But I don't think the concept of it is bad
I used "good" and "bad" mainly to make the the debate more provocative. My current opinion is that it's fine and good as an ideal to be pursued but gravely troublesome when considered attained.
In your cultural finger pointing debate what are you asking? It's really unclear.
Think of how anti-american extremism has come to be such a problem... Instead of keeping focus on specific people in america who IN SPITE OF the basic goodness of our culture, do terrible things. They blame the intrinsic nature of our culture and spread the idea that as a whole we are fundamentally a beligerent violence prone society. Conversely we americans have our own problem with demagogues doing the same thing. It's a vicious cycle that begets increasing levels of violent extremism. It's what I call cultural fingerpointing and we have our share of morons here in the US who try to present it as a morally courageous defense of free speech ala Being brave enough to "name the enemy".
A pride that would be severly misplaced if not shared by other members of the community
Not trying to offend, but the above is a poorly phrased argument.
http://www.macroevolution.net/
(An example of a theory that's not widely accepted due to such grounds)
That first comment really threw me off. I see, you are acknowledging that because of entrenched dogmatic certitude (supposed possesion of truth) within certain scientific communities, there are new possibly helpful insights that get pushed aside. Right?
It is full confidence (not leaving room for doubt) that makes our concept of truth or facts so dangerous. It is (I think) why the scientific method is peculiarly different from other technologies. Most essentially it's about seeking to falsify theories, to find imperfections in what should I argue be assumed to be incomplete knowledge, not "facts" or "truths"
I think children with different temperaments require variant approaches. Some children simply need to be allowed to follow their innate curiousity where others need more structure and discipline or they will end up seriously underdeveloped. I am sure our systematic cookie cutter approach is nowhere near flexible enough, and stoking kids innate curiosity is nowhere near the priority it should be.
Learning needs to be part of how we live..all day everyday.