09 Mar 05
Well, I was hoping to contain this to just the two of us, but it seems to have become a free for all. Would you mind if we started a new thread and began again? You could of course continue here as well, but the thread has veered from the path I was hoping to examine.
09 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarrmanMind? I would prefer it. It's a shame how inconsiderate people can be.
Well, I was hoping to contain this to just the two of us, but it seems to have become a free for all. Would you mind if we started a new thread and began again? You could of course continue here as well, but the thread has veered from the path I was hoping to examine.
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarrmanThe discussion you put before us is devoid of any sense of reason.
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Let's just nip this in the bud before it gets wild.
Atheism as a code of beliefs has killed far more people.
I won't pursue this further if you will not. I'll even let people call Catholics Christians if it will end this before it begins.
I'm interested to discuss this Darfius, I promise to be calm and p ...[text shortened]... nt? Perhaps we could follow the style of debate you had with Pawnokeyhole? I await your reply.[/b]
People are not killed over religion or atheism. These are excuses used to get mobs to do the killing for the rich and powerful who want to become even richer and more powerful.
If it's not religion they're using, then it's race. Or it's colour. Or it's sexuality. Or it's terrorism or it's communism or i....need I go on?
These are not reasons or causes for people killing each other. These are excuses to gain power and land.
And setting religious people up against atheists is exactly the same principle. Have us fighting each other and guess who's gonna make money out of it?
Don't be a sucker, follow the money! Who's gaining from what...if you ask this question, you are very likely to find who's responsible for most deaths in wars.
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't begrudge the publicity of the forums and I don't need you to remind me of it either no1, haven't you got anything better to do? I merely wanted to get back to the original debate without having to wade through the other posts to do so. I'm sure people will interject from time to time, but just because you can post in whatever thread you want to, doesn't mean you have to. Would it be so hard to leave it alone? You wanna post, fine, go right ahead, I don't care. I was just hoping people wouldn't mind if we had a discussion of limited tangents, that's all.
There are these things called PM's if you want to have private conversations; otherwise, these are PUBLIC forums.
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI am not asking you to make a determination about when one
You're equating something that is objective with something that is subjective. How much is too much? How much is more than enough? How much is not enough?
I can't argue against such illogical premises.
should be charitable -- that is, indeed subjective.
I am asking you if 'charity' is an illusion or real, that the idea that
giving to someone in need is real. You can't sense it, but you can
see it in action.
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioIt's an illusion. It makes no sense in light of pure evolution.
I am not asking you to make a determination about when one
should be charitable -- that is, indeed subjective.
I am asking you if 'charity' is an illusion or real, that the idea that
giving to someone in need is real. You can't sense it, but you can
see it in action.
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioTwo rocks are concrete. The concept that giving someone something of yours is charity is an illusion in light of pure evolution.
Ok. What makes it an illusion, because, like the number '2'
I can see it in action, but I can't sense it? What gives it 'illusory'
status?
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYou've simply repeated assertion. I asked 'what gives it
Two rocks are concrete. The concept that giving someone something of yours is charity is an illusion in light of pure evolution.
illusory status.' Please explain why you believe this. Here
is my reason for why I think that you are wrong.
Two rocks are concrete, but '2' is not. Two rocks are a representation
of '2.' Thus we can conclude that, while we cannot sense '2,' its
representation gives it reality.
Charity is not concrete, but giving to the poor is a representation of
'charity.' While we cannot sense 'charity,' its representation gives it
reality.
When is charity 'charity?' That is indeed subjective. However, that
'charity' exists at all is not subjective.
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioTwo rocks are concrete, nemesio. They will not disappear. We are not forced to give people things that belong to us. It has no business in a life as a result of random chance. Survival of the fittest, right? Why would a young, healthy male care if a middle aged male was about to die? More females for him. Charity could NOT have come about as a result of pure evolution.
You've simply repeated assertion. I asked 'what gives it
illusory status.' Please explain why you believe this. Here
is my reason for why I think that you are wrong.
Two rocks are concrete, but '2' is not. Two rocks are a representation
of '2.' Thus we can conclude that, while we cannot sense '2,' its
representation gives it reality.
...[text shortened]... at is indeed subjective. However, that
'charity' exists at all is not subjective.
Nemesio