kwall

a hybrid of capitalism and socialism.

i guess it depends on your definition of "fair" and your definition of "socialism". i rely on karl marx for my definition of socialism, who called for a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax" as one of the measures to "spread the wealth".

i'd say people aren't afraid enough of his socialist policies.

i know some people like that. they sure are frustrating, eh?

seriously?

the feeling is fucking mutual. i've completely fucking lost interest in discussing this with you. congratulations - you fucking wore me out. i guess that means you fucking win. or something.

i guess i'll just keep repeating this. the existence of highly ordered systems is my evidence of a creative agent. not proof, but evidence. what is your evidence to support your claim that science will eventually answer all our questions?

yeah, that's themaker's quote. i assumed you two were of one mind on this subject.

no, that would be neon and themaker. agreed. i don't. i've just been trying to point out that everyone has beliefs. no. science has done, and will continue to do, wonderful things. i don't invest in mythic stories. i simply believe (or hypothesize) that there is a creative force at work in the universe. speak for yourself. agreed. everyone's thoughts about the nature of existence are unproven. perhaps you could just ignore it then? i don't know what to tell you. ok, i won't do that. thanks for the tip.

it seems that, for neon and maker, science is their god. in that, science has all the answers. "It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself". to suggest to them that a different paradigm is needed is heresy. even the atheist has a belief system. even the atheist takes a leap of faith.

nothing, i suppose. i guess i'm not really sure what you're saying here. i never claimed that your hypothesis required a creator. would you be more comfortable if i called my belief a "hypothesis"? my hypothesis is that there is a creative force at work in the universe. your hypothesis is that science will eventually answer every question that we are capable of asking. these are competing in the sense that yours precludes the existence of a creative force. is there a concession in here somewhere? my hypothesis is more logical to me. i seek the truth just as you do. obviousl

you asserted that "it stands to reason that on a long enough timeline we'll prove smart enough to answer them". i take issue with the reasonableness of that assertion. i think it stands to reason that a creative force is at work in the universe. these are our competing beliefs. neither one has any proof.

i agree. that i'm not so sure about. what does evolution say about "why"? i'd very much like to destroy your fucking sanity.

this is a leap of faith. there's no proof that this is true. i would say that this is your religion.

i dispute evolution as a means of explaining how and why life itself came into existence. as a means of explaining how species come into and out of existence, i think it's plausible.

i should've said "creator". is it your belief that life came about as a result of random activity? to me, that's a logic-defying leap of faith.

i disagree. is it reasonable to conclude that, at some point in the past, life didn't yet exist? if so, then i think it's reasonable to conclude that some creative agent brought life into existence. perhaps you don't think so. perhaps, for you, randomness brought life into existence. then i would say randomness is your "god". that's a perfectly reasonable belief as far as i'm concerned. however, there's no proof of this.

our existence points in the direction of us having been brought into existence.

a mere random collection of cells.

damn it. foiled again.

uh oh. stand back everyone!

i'm not sure it does, apart from calling it "christmas". i know plenty of people who celebrate xmas without even once mentioning jesus or anything else spiritual.