Messages

Ok.

If "Jesus" is "in different cultures, so geographically distant" is because something horrible, oppresive and fascist called "evangelization" happened. Your country and mine, biggest guilties.

Something non exaplained by science can happen. A supernatural claim is different. I do not have to prove you that the donkey flies. you must prove to me it does. you didn' t.

People got together before Christ. Was that "feeling" worse? Was it "false"?

And yeah... this are periods were you can feel the peace and joy everywhere... In Nigeria, Darfur, Iraq, Congo, Indonesia, Liberia...

If "God" came to touch earth with the magic stick of peace during Xmas... he is failing miserabilly.

EDIT: Just checked data of casualties in the road on this Xmas eve... 4 so far in Spain. Sad. I guess "there is a conjugation of free will love around the globe around this time of the year" is something that those 4 families won' t agree with...

I thought the "Skepticism" thread was "closed" with agreement and good words for all... But it's clear (again) that there is a "side" who still wants to impose its doctrine over the other.  

It doesn't matter that one of the sides didn't wanted to carry on the discussion when the leader of the other side proves to be an old fashioned homophobe... When "we" found an argument to discuss, we (or at least I) avoided it for for the sake of peaceful coexistence. When "you" find an "argument" to go on ("Christmas brings joy!") one of you accuses the skeptics of hypocrites if they accept gifts and the other makes a completelly ironic post about us...

Well... fortunatelly I am not a Christian and I don't need to offer the other cheek! Let' s go back to the trenches!  

Christmas means nothing. The nativity myth is a mix of different pagan myths and re-fried versions of a histories written hearsay, incosnistent with each others and with the historical facts of the period. Jesus, if existed (we do not have any archaelogycal evidence of its existance, which doesn't necessarily mean he didn't exist, as the son of a carpenter was not supposed to leave archaelogycal record of its existence) was not born in December (apparently it was summer, or early Fall). The borning of Jesus has suspicios similarities with the myths of Mytra and the election of the data is to make it match with the roman festivity of Saturnus. The Xmas tree is Skandinavian. Meeting all the family is a remind of the Jewish party of the Pésaj.

Does it bring joy? Is that your point, dear believers? Well... The premiere of any new Star Wars film does it as well, and it' s not divine inspired. So, yes... I agree with you. Completelly.

Religion is something non divine inspired which inspires people as any other non-divine inspired thing does.

And we go on still having no evidence, or even a rational supossition, that anything of the supernatural stuff in the bible is real.

So, Merry Lie to you as well... I mean... Christmas.  

I had to move my solstice day to 25th due "enviromental" reasons, but yes, Petter... I mentioned to Lorena and Jeremy (The only "known" people I saw that day) that the 21st was actually the solstice day and I "celebrated" it in my way.

Why? I celebrate the winter solstice (as YOU do, let' s remember... Apparenly every evidence we have in the bible about Christmas set it in Summer) 

There is no religious reference in my home. Receiving presents once or two per year doesn't  necesarilly have to be refused by "principles", IMO.

As said, it' s a difficult topic. I think there is a lot to discuss about some of your previous statements (People, of possible, would chose being "good", most people do have empathy, etc...)

I think people will finally do what is better for survival. In the XXIth century survival is almost guaranteed if you follow certain rules of society, probably because of that "people is good". But let' s think in the Nazi Germany in 1939. Survival was based in "following the party", so everybody did. Were all of them sociopaths or "bad"? I don' t think so. Same when somebody is bullied at school, or is the targed of lame jokes. Nobody usually does anything, since "survival" is to laugh of the poor guy who is being beaten by the thug (And sigh in relief for not being him). The example can be pushed forever: In the far west everybody had guns and was socially accepted to use them for saving the life. In the middle ages you could be killed by assaulters in a short walk from a town to another. I don't  think people were basically "worse" than us... Only different enviroment.

And what about extreme cases of evil or good? We have examples of that at any period. We had Rudolph HöB, but also Max Kolbe. How does that explain? Some wicked version of the "survival theory" can be applied here as well: The "bad guys" want their genes to survive, and only their genes. The "good guys" want the race to survive, even in danger of their own survival.

If that theory doesn't work... We have gaussian distributions.

Interesting There' s no doubt that it is a thrilling debate...

Your first cat? I would name him "One".

One question from someone who knows 0 about psychology... Does a bad person necesarilly have to be "something"? (Being a sociopath, had a difficult childhood, having "less hormon of whatever glandula", etc...)

Can' t bad people just be bad people?

***I admit it's totally off topic, and I am not refering at all to Meowster' s case...***

Happy "winter solstice"! And happy New Year!

Whatever the replies are, Meowster, they are just a "roschard" test. You' ll finally end doing what you really want to do, following your intellect and your heart. The only thing we can do is sit, and hope you take the correct decission, if it really exist.

I have no "tools" to know if it is exagerated or no... Honestly, I think it is not.

What I think is that "internet" is not an appropiate place for discussing such an important decission as this. Family, boyfriend, friends, even a psychologist might help. We (AGS mates) are basically blind and we can't really help.

Well... Finding a Christian with weird beliefs wouldn' t necesarilly mean that their idiology is definitelly fucked up... To be honest, I guess that all ideologies, even the good ones, have at least one person who twistes the meaning of the message to say weird things... If not more ^_^.

Even if that person is the leader that ideaology shouldn' t necesarilly be fucked up, IMHO...

But it opens the door for an avalange of "cons" about the divine source of Religion, methinks: Shouldn' t be a divine inspired ideology be perfect? Shouldn't be the message perfectly clear, so no anyone can missunderstand it? Shouldn' t it have some tools to choose its leader on Earth in the way he can understand and spread the word propperly? etc, etc...

Which brings an automatic reply by "believers": "God is perfect! It is us who do not understand the message propperly" or "In the same way that cold is absence of heat, evil is absence of God. If the Pope has ideas that are not close to God, it' s not God' s fault" (The famous "Einstein" theory)

And I use quotes ("") because Einstein never said that.

Two "automatic replies" I do not, to reply in short, agree with.

EDIT: On the other hand, the arguments the Pope keeps about this matter are, "biologically talking", flawless. The other thing is that, as Stupot said, we are in the XXIth century and "that"(*) is simply not going to happen. Ideologically, I find it disgusting.

(*) End of the human race because of hordes of homosexuals!

Well, when some violents acts start and someone say/thinks/ "Oh... I hate violence, but something good could get out from this" I tend to see him/her as suspicious. I do this for two reasons:

a) If this happens in my country and extreme-right groups start a revolt to take the asshole we have as a president out I wouldn't think "Oh... I hate violence, but something good could get out of this". I would think "Oh... I hate violence, nothing good can get out if this morons are finally heard..."

And

b) I' ve seen during my life a plenty of hypocrital attitudes towards violence, with institutions loudly saying "Violence is bad" but secretelly thinking "Wow! This is helping my crusade a lot!" (Nationalist parties).

I am not saying that you are in "B"... But explaining why of my suspects. If you are not in "b", I hope you' ll be able to accept the apologies about my assumptions.

Edit: Yes, Tuomas, 3 discussions in a row. In one, people tried to convince me that socialism is more effective than free market. In the other people tried to prove me that God existed. And in the third people was putting "buts" to violence.

When it comes to discussions I don't "count" how many people is for one argument and how many people is for the another.

I simply messure the weight of the arguments.

Ok... apparently now nobody agrees with the riots.

Hurraaaaaaay!

Then... why are you arguing with me since I' ve never said anything about Costas' decissions but about the riots?

I honestly think that some people here like to argue.  I do, sometimes, but not now, and to prove that I won't post anything else here till the 22nd. 

Oh, Passer-by! I consider far way more brave to leave the country than cover your face and get out to the street and throw a molotov, so, don't worry...

Is the government doing that?

Yes or No, please.

On the other hand, your "Government can act uncivilised, so, the people can as well" is funny.... Funny because when the opposite happens (Example:"People can kill people. I think the government should have the power to kill the killers") you start to shout, complain, and argue that government has to behave differently. If course you tell that if we are discussing about death penalty in Texas... Of course if we change "Texas" by "Cuba" and a "guy who slaughtered a family" for "A capitalist that was against revolution", then it' s ok. You can even buy a shirt of Alberto Korda' s pic of guy who ordered that. How nice...

How inmature. how incongruent and how sad.

(*) (I am not for penalthy death, just stating how easilly you can contradict yourself deppending if you agree what which is happening or not.)

So, Toumas... Do you think that riots, burning enterprises, burn cars is ok? Cool. I don' t.

If this succeds in any degree (Anticipating the elections, dimissions, etc...) it will be a sad day. It will mean that "burn 1000 cars" and people will listen to you.

Your "attempt to find what's wrong and fixing it rather than dealing with the actions" is a step in that direction.

Sad.

I basically refuse to listen, yes. It' s something I allways did when someone uses violence to make its message more audible.

You don' t realise, but you are "putting lines". I don' t.

ME: "Violence? Sorry, I don' t want to listen to your reasons, SHUT UP, MAAahaaannahahahhhhahaaaaaaaAAAaAaa!!! I Am not listening to you!!!"

YOU: "Violence? Oh I dissaprove it! Now, let' s see what the violents mean..."

But I never argued about the reasonings. I allways argued about the actions.

And no... There are no "buts" for that actions. Do you agree with me that there are no "buts" for that actions?

Again, I don' t understand "you", and by "you" I mean the people who say "No to riots, no to violence, "but".

There are no buts. Only 2 years for the next votings. Go to the people who has lost their business, jobs, houses, cars, and tell them so.

Again, there is this "hyperlegitimacy of the left" thing. If this very thing was happening with extreme right rioters in spite of extreme left, everybody would complain. Me included.

I can stop, and think: "Mmy political choices do not interfere to say that something is wrong when something is wrong".

Now examine yourself and try to answer the same question.

Passer-by, I simply don' t understand your point.

I asked "why".

My "Why" was not questioning if the president was doing "good", "bad" or "average". I think I never wrote a single word in this thread (Or anywhere, to be honest) about what I think about Costas' government.

I asked "Why" questioning if "The president has done bad enough to receive "that". (And by "that" you have some pics in the previous posts as an example).

Has Costas done bad enough for 400 families in Athens to lose their business places? Has Costas done bad enough for thousands of people seeing how their car burn? Has Costas done bad enough that the only possible sollution was to start a revolt where the main victim is the "average" person? I think not. I don't life in Greece, but what arrives to me is that what is happening now is, IMHO, only deserved in an attempt to preserve democracy. Costas might be an ass, but he is not putting democracy in Danger, I think. At least not much as dozens of world leaders who did not had to face a revolt.

Like what happened in Paris. "Two guys came and fired my car on, shouting: "Fuck Sarkozy!". But that was not Sarkozy's car! That was MY CAR!"

Imagine an example. Someone kills Bush because he thinks he has managed the country very unpropperly for eight years. I ask "Did he deserve to die?" And you reply to me "His decissions were bad". NO. I am not asking if his decissions are good or bad. I might probably agree that his decission were bad. I am asking "Did he deserve to die?".

Same here. I ask about the riots and you reply me about Costas'  decissions. I don' t give a damn about Costas decissions.

I ask "apples", you reply "pears".

And at the end, you say: "Again, I'm not taking the part of any political party in here. Plus, this kind of 'revolution' is not my style. I believe in education and elections, really. I also believe that violence brings vendetta. I don't like vendettas."

Which is basically my point. I think you tried to counter argument me, but I don' t see how... Please, if I am wrong and you were not trying to argue with me make me clear.

Ok... Apparently some people here think that if you don' t like your president you are allowed to this:


And this:

And this...

and...


Honestly... I thought you were more democratic, but no. If you can think of 4 "becauses" of why you don' t like your president it' s enough, you can start a revolt...

(Must I assume that the rest of the 200 countries of the world without riots have a list with, as maximum, 3 "buts" in the management of their respective presidents?)

Exactly what Pinochet did, no? Pinochet had an inmense list of things he didn' t liked of Allende. He discussed it with their buddies in the army and they agreed that the President was doing bad enough that they had to do something "more" than voting. Of course, that example doesn't  count...

When Che did it, it was ok. When the riots started against Sarkozy it was ok... Now it' s okay. With Pinochet no. When the next fascist forces start a revolt against an elected democratic socialdemocrat I will cut and paste this posts, to see what you say in that situation.

To clarify: I didn' t supported Pinochet. But I don' t support anti-system riots, either.

I thought autolabelled "pacifists" and "progresist" people would agree with me, but apparently they find "buts" when the people who starts their revolts has ideas they sympathy with... It' s funny. Patethically funny, but funny.

And Nik: If you are in the middle of the 4 years, the better. Only two for changing the situation, no? Well... The problem is that then the president might repeat, and no! That, no!