that if you can't name one good thing about the other side or one bad thing about your side, you're brainwashed.
And if you can't question your side, you're in a cult.
And if you can't question your side, you're in a cult.
Comments
-
I agree with 90% of this. So in favor, I suggest that I will give what is in my opinion, the best argument for atheism, and in turn you give what you believe is the best argument for the existence of God. -
Fuck it. Serious response.
I'll agree on one thing: the left has gotten more resistant to question, and that's unfortunate. I look back at what it was like to be a leftist in 2024 and I have to admit that was better, because nowadays I'm constantly being told "no infighting, we all have to support each other" when dealing with anarchists defending virtual CSAM.
And yet, when you consider what the right has done to America, it's honestly not comparable. Untrained officers that go by "ICE" are raiding apartments and stealing people's valuables, the government is trying to cover up sex crimes committed by none other than the president, and yet, the idiot behind all this won the majority vote while saying openly that all of this would happen.
Basically, I don't see a peaceful future for the USA - among other countries - where both sides are allowed to coexist, and at this point, I'm starting to envy countries like China where there IS only one side. If you see something that I don't, feel free to reply about it, I guess.-
I agree with pretty much everything you said, however, going China is definitely not a solution. Heavy censorship is the pinnacle of authoritarism and never leads to anything good for the common people. -
Authoritarianism is really the only solution I see, but maybe we're focused on different things.
My ideal "goals" would be to end large-scale conflict by any means necessary, and to make staying alive easier in general. Frankly, I'm not 100% sure why I gave China as an example - while they mostly succeed at the former point I gave, they completely fail at the latter (wages there are virtually nothing), and let's not forget Taiwan and Hong Kong still exist. Maybe Lenin-era USSR would have been a better example, but I'll admit I still haven't done enough research on the matter to know.
I've always been in favor of laws targeting hate speech and intentional spread of false information (a good example being such laws in modern Germany), and I still cringe when "leftists" use the First Amendment as a talking point - completely forgetting that it doesn't really have much purpose short of, well, reducing accountability.
You could argue that the First Amendment is holding back Trump and his crew of crooks, except... it isn't. Take the wrong tone with an ICE/Border Patrol officer and you'll lose an eye. How's that for free speech? -
I'm just gonna be honest. As a softcore anarchist I don't like the idea of people being silenced by any kind of authority. Sure, some discourse may be malicious false information, but if the government decides what is and isn't that opens the doors for even more misinformation instead. The way I see it, political violence is always going to be a thing. Just because people are heavily punished for disagreeing with the government doesn't mean they won't.
And of course, when you let a regime do whatever they please they begin to become corrupt and stray far from whatever good cause they were initially fighting for.
I can't really claim to understand what is going on in the US, I don't live there; but I just want everyone to be informed. When faced with facts, the majority will make the correct choice, and while democracy is still there, there will be a chance for improvement.
That was the purpose of this post, after all. And that is my main goal with everything I say in seriousness. I want people to question what they've been indoctrinated into believing and to seek the truth. -
My issue with authoritarianism is that it puts way to much power in the governments hands. And we in turn would have to trust that they will do the right thing. But let's be honest, governments are never known for doing the right thing.
-
It would have been so easy for me to point out the flaws in your argument, and how it was basically just a burden of proof fallacy. But I didn't. Because I just wanted a good faith exchange between us.
Im genuinely curious
Which is why I said that.
I will also take this time to point out that your best argument is literally just a logical fallacy, which isn't really an argument at all. And this kind of breaks the rules of your original post.
Because there is no proper argument for god that I've encountered that I don't have an answer to. That's why I'm talking to you, I like to challenge my beliefs.
In case you were curious, the proper response to my argument would be "I do not know". I do not know why he allows the suffering that is in the world. It is impossible for me to understand all of His motives
1. Life cannot come from non life
2. First cause. What was the first cause in the universe? In our universe, everything needs a cause to happen, so my logic is, is that it would take something eternal and outside of the world as we know it to be that first cause.
3. The universe is much to fine tuned for me to believe that it naturally assembled after an explosion. No matter how many billions of years gets put behind it.
4. Subjective morality makes no logical sense to me. That alone doesn't necessarily make it not true, but I've yet to see a good argument for it.
2. I don't really understand what you mean by this. When you give something infinite odds, anything and everything becomes possible. The universe as we know it had infinite odds to exist, which is why it does.
3. Coming back to what I just said. The universe is the way it is because it's one of, if not the only way it can exist at all. You're looking at the one time it did happen and not the potentially septendecillion times it did not. And of course a grand explosion is a HUGE simplification of everything it involves.
4. Contrarily, objective morality doesn't make logical sense to me. It's been tough reaching an agreement on this, so I'll just leave it there.
2. I'm not talking about probability, and a first cause has nothing to do with infinite odds. What was the first cause of the universe? If a ball sat in a room, it's impossible for it to go flying off in the distance if nothing caused it to happen.
3. There is zero evidence for the multiverse whatsoever. What would even be creating these universes? There is zero backing to this.
2. You seem to not understand the meaning of infinity.
3. I'm not talking about multiverses. I honestly don't know where you got this idea.
I still want an example of life happening on its own. And just saying "chemistry" doesn't really count as an answer for evidence. That's just the field of study.
2. I don't know where you are getting infinity from. I'm asking about the first cause of the universe. The cause with no cause.
3. "You're looking at the one time it did happen and not the potentially septendecillion times it did not"
2. As it turns out the universe (everything that exists) had infinite chances to form. This is one of the times it did form, because the laws of physics that came along with it allowed it. And for the record: If you leave that ball in an enclosed space for eternity, every one of it's subatomic components will eventually go through every possible state, including life, for instance.
3. I explained it better in my previous point, I hope.
Again, we just don't see this happen. Life does not appear on its own, and we never see that happen. Scientists haven't even created artificial life, and even if they did, that still required an intelligent mind to do so.
2. I am not talking about infinite chance, because again, if a ball is in an empty room, even for an infinite amount of time, it will stay put. Unless acted upon an object cannot change its state. So I ask again, what was the first cause?
3. If you're referring to odds, I'm not putting my faith in a 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th chance. It's not technically impossible, but it's certainly not very likely.
Anyway I'm not arguing in Darflen comments anymore. You can respond and I will read it of course, but it is evident that both of us are to stubborn to reach any kind of agreement. I hope you have a good day.
2. You are simply wrong about this. And the first cause was simple probability. I already talked about this.
3. If it had infinite chances to happen it was gonna happen eventually, that's my whole point. The universe itself is unbelievably vast. You're looking only at the one time it did happen and not the who knows how many times it did not. Again, you are ignoring my main points completely, why are you doing this?
But anyways, thanks for giving me the last word. I'll take this to Discord soon.