Though the success of scammers is reliant upon the foolishness of the scammable...And religion and associated belief is the perfect environment in which to find them
Doubt it. Many people fall for scams irrelevant of religion or atheism.
Though the success of scammers is reliant upon the foolishness of the scammable...And religion and associated belief is the perfect environment in which to find them
Doubt it. Many people fall for scams irrelevant of religion or atheism.
Ask homeless people, not that there are any in Bosnia. Being homeless is illegal in Bosnia.
You don't seem to be even understanding the argument. Which is amazing given how simple it is.
Hmmm, do you believe what Jim Bakker believes or what Stephen Hawking believes?
Neither.
We don't redefine words because we heard one guy being called something.
Some people disagree.
We need to do what President Eisenhower did, a 90 percent top tax rate.
the effective tax rate was about 46%. It was 90% only "on paper".
Nope.
P1...Yep, prove a GOD exists.
God is unknown, so we cannot know if she exists or not. And we cannot know if lack of belief in God is good. What does an ant know about universe?
Its just a distraction. Government needs to tell people "look over there, now look over there", so they look away from government's corruption.
tax system as a whole is corrupt and flawed, and there is no way of fixing it.
Because you are starting from a wrong premise, apparently assumption that "if we just make correct change to tax system, it will work great".
Sadly, tax by its nature is deduction. there is no way for anyone to tax anyone without harming anyone in material sense.
And in economy which is interconnected and basically works on network circularity of money, a deduction from any part can easily damage other parts.
there is a reason why muslim countries with very same wealth tax (2,5%) are all shitholes.
As far as we are able to know, there is no GOD
We don't know that.
Evil is not that someone has an unfulfilled need, because evil cannot fulfill the need
🤦
P1. The system has a limited (finite) number of claims.
P2. Every claim in the system must be justified by another claim in the same system.
P3. In any limited system like that, the chain of justifications must eventually loop back (become circular).
P4. Circular justification is not a real (ultimate) justification.
Conclusion:
C. Therefore, no claim in the system is ultimately justified.
Even if we were to accept that logic exists (in form of law of identity only), these premises follow:
P1. In each closed system of limited claims, each claim is dependent on "something" to prove itself true.
P2. that "something" can only be law of identity itself
P3. If it is not law of identity, then claims are essentially unproved by law of identity
P4. It is impossible in a closed system of limited number of claims to prove that all claims actually follow law of identity
P5. Premise 4 is true due to forced infinity regress or circularity any time when all claims in a system are questioned.
For each claim, someone can ask "Why is that true?", forcing any closed system to either run out of proved claims, or force circularity. And this is true even when we accept law of identity as valid.
"bachelor is unmarried man"
Why is that claim true?
"Because it follows law of identity"
Why is that claim true?
"Because bachelor is defined as unmarried man"
Why is that claim true?
"Because society assigned such definition"
Why is that claim true?
"Because society exists and we observe it"
Why is that claim true?
"You are observing it too"
Why is that claim true?
"You are doing infinite regress fallacy"
Why is that claim true?
"I see you do it"
Why is that claim true?
the question "Why is that claim true?" can be repeated endlessly for all claims made by any closed system of claims.
Godel noticed this in math and made few incompleteness theorems, however, math isnt the only thing suffering from the very same problem.
If all claims need proof, no system of closed claims can prove all claims true in the system.
"And why is that true?"
Yeah, I can keep bringing maybe 2 or 3 new users on discord per day. thats how much effort I can consistently do. And yes, its great if you message them all to join site, because I am merely sending discord invites.
But main problem here is that no one is willing to make any consistent effort. they maybe mention debate craft to 1 or 2 people and thats all. Like, I probably sent 400 invites and only got like 40 new users. You simply dont bring in new people by mentioning it to just 1 or 2 people. Effect of mass is more true in advertising than anywhere else. First and primary goal of advertising is to let greatest number of people possible know that you even exist, mass effect. Second is saying what you offer, which also needs to be worked on on this site by making site be educational as well, not just debating. But no education section exists.
they could even pay someone in their area to leave door knob hangers around, or place some flyers on trees.
From what I have seen, personal invites work best. Like, best by far, even better than payed ads, doesnt matter if in person real life, personal invite left at door, or discord invite. As long as its "personal" it works. Posters at high traffic areas probably have lower effect, because they are not personal. People simply feel more valued when personally invited. I am not an expert in advertising, I just see what works better so far.
I have many ideas for free effective advertising, but sadly, people arent willing to do it. I mean, you can even put posters or door knob hangers, or do phone calls, which is about most effective almost free advertising there is, but given that people don't want to engage in even simple discord invites, I doubt they are interested in any form of advertising which requires any effort. Original idea was just "pay google to advertise us", and that turned out so bad that I legit think they payed money to get almost nothing in return.
This post is giving me real "walked 10 miles to school uphill both ways" type vibes
Older generations usually try to impose their traditions on younger generations. And some traditions are, of course, retarded.
Children need less school, not more. Too much school is bad for mental health. But only the knower knows.
Being angry at a woman for a choice she made is by no reasonable stretch of the imagination, rape.
I heard one guy being called "eye rapist" because he was staring at women. So yes, a lot of things can be rape, not just physical contact. If you are weird, you are assumed to be rapist or wannabe rapist by women.
There is no Magic Man bethroned in a magical place casting death and destruction upon the human species
This sounds like unproved claim. As far as I know, God exists and I am his/her favorite person. This is just what I prefer to believe.
You don't get bored asking the same fkn question over and over again?
I don't personally believe in what I am saying. I am just exploring.
right now my biggest issue is that my alts also require a phone number. Its a bit annoying, so my alts are a bit limited in how much invites they can send before discord just pops them.
Why does God allow cancer?
So that people can show empathy and care for those with cancer, and try to help them.
Unless you're willing to outsource all your energy, effort, and free time to making this a fulltime thing.
I am not, but I can invite few people each day. We went from under 120 members to 163 in a relatively short time. Of course, if someone has a better idea for advertising, they can do that instead.
P1. Doing good to someone requires fulfilling their need when they themselves cant fulfill it.
P2. Evil means someone has a need which isnt fulfilled
P3. "Fulfilling someone's need" requires that someone has a need which isnt fulfilled
P4. "Fulfilling someone's need" requires existence of evil
P5. Doing good to someone requires fulfilling someone's need, thus requires existence of evil.
Consider this scenario. If no one needed any money, you wouldnt be able to help anyone financially. If no one needed food, you wouldnt be able to feed anyone. If no one was in lack of love, you wouldnt be able to give love to anyone.
this remains true, that a lack of good is a condition for good to be provided in the first place. If God provided all good to all, no person could provide good to each other because no one would need any good from each other.
What's next, a gentle rapist?