Arkouda

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

No, I am saying you are wrong. No one else.

You.

The saddest, and funniest, part is that you are so egotistical that you don't see why you are wrong.

Maybe you will get it one day, but I won't be there for it.

Self reflection is good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

It seems that in the end it’s one of two things… There’s what’s known as the Epicurean paradox or the problem of evil, where the confusion arises from many sources: forgetting about the existence of free will and the causal chain of events, semantic nonsense or even simple immaturity. This is the one that’s just all fluff, all wind, but words can kick one’s ass, especially if you live more in words than in reality.

I am assuming we are speaking about the Christian God in this context.

God is all knowing, and omnipresent. This means that God knows in advance the result of it's own decisions.

If God granted free will to humans knowing that humans would commit horrible acts with it against each other, how can that God be considered benevolent?

And then there’s the one that I respect a little bit more: while the beginning of the causal chain that we can conceive (so, embedded in/attached to space and time) is evidently not a source of it, but also since things exist today we can’t deny the ‘proto-thing’ existed then I can somewhat accept you telling me that this essence we call matter and energy was always there and God is not necessary and etc etc. God has been understood for millennia as the ‘prime engine’ and unmoved mover, behind the universe and before it, the One that ‘comes from nothing’ that we have to accept because nothing comes from nothing and things exist. But many folk just skip that part and say “things exist, that’s all I can see and that’s all I will believe in”. That’s fair, but I better not see you making any logical inferences then, lol.

The question remains both Theologically and Scientifically unanswered: If "nothing" can come from "nothing", where did the "thing" that created "everything" come from?

If we accept the Big Bang or Creationism as two theories explaining the same event from a different point of view, what was existence prior to that? Did God simply exist in infinite nothingness up until the point of creation? Wouldn't the existence of God contradict "nothingness" simply by existing?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I’m not really sure what you want me to answer here.

If you do not know how to have a conversation with another person go learn how to do that and get back to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago (7 children)

What are the "Two fundamental arguments for not believing in God"?

I haven't heard the idea that there are only two fundamental theories.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

What would you say are some of the core principals of both that you would teach to children?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I think a blend of Socialism in the form of UBI for basic needs, social housing, full access to education and medical care, mixed with a Capitalist market economy seems likely to be best.

Missed one.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.

Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.

I think a blend of Socialism in the form of UBI for basic needs, social housing, full access to education and medical care, mixed with a Capitalist market economy seems likely to be best.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Imagine a Parliament of Independents because parties are no longer allowed and all members of Government are elected on their own personal platforms and ideas.

Parties fail the democratic process.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Fascism has a very clear definition and it is wise to learn and understand what that is before entering the conversation and declaring everything "Fascism".

[–] [email protected] -1 points 17 hours ago

Feel free to demonstrate this with some data, and don't ignore the fact that Communism and Socialism has never produced anything other than Fascism while Capitalism is the economic model most used by Democratic countries.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 17 hours ago (7 children)

Who on earth told you the free market had anything to do with capitalism? LOL.

Feel free to explain how this is a good faith comment.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 17 hours ago

Assuming that if you were able to go back to that point in time and everything beyond that point happened in the exact same way with the exact same responses by you, yes.

 

Results may vary as it is entirely possible to also convince yourself it works with the same method

 

EDIT: Thanks to a helpful comment I see why I was wrong.

 

The article itself is important because it is fucked up that BCUP kept taking donations long after they dropped out and the election was over, but it had a very interesting piece of information about the election overall that is buried in it.

Between Aug. 29 and Dec. 31, the B.C. Conservatives took in just under $3.93 million from 4,534 contributions, while the NDP received just over $3.93 million from 7,439 contributions.

Provincial political contributions in B.C. are capped at about $1,484 in 2025, up from just over $1,450 last year.

It is interesting that with the same limits, and about the same dollar amount donated, the BC conservatives hit $3.93 million with about 3,000 less donors.

Speaks volumes.

 

The question that I have not seen asked is why are these guns being destroyed?

I may be ignorant to some reason why it is not possible, but wouldn't the best idea be to buy back all of these weapons for use in the military?

I hear our military could use millions of guns and parts, and it would actually justify the cost of the program. It would also be a massive increase on military spending our allies have been asking for and that we are in serious need of.

view more: next ›