Torero

Evolution is the theory explaining the biodiversity (and similarities) we see all around. Abiogenesis is the process by which living molecules formed from amino acids. I see no problems in the bio-chemistry of that. Afterlife is impossible to prove or disprove. It is however easy to explain as the result of a fear of dying that we, conscious creatures, have by default.

There are many more options than just those two. I live my life happily, put my own self-interests and of my beloved other Homo sapiens at the forefront and I find peace in virtue and moral. That's different from actively discouraging others to live acoording to "restricting" morals.

I do not think down on you, it's great to see a young mind interested in these topics. Glad the call with csekavec helped you. Just keep in mind your mind is young and for a large part shaped by your parents and teachers. They all have an agenda (just like the media you may watch/follow). Those with an agenda hardly want you to explore philosophy (the basis of anarchism); it's dangerous to their agendas.

In your other topic you said you are 14 years old. That means you had 6 years of primary education and 2.5 years of secondary. No tertiary education (university), no fulltime work experience and in general very little life experience. That is not a shame (it's not your fault) but keep in mind that you have a lot to learn and -more importantly- to unlearn (and reading this government propaganda speech that process may be long)... Governments do not stop psychopaths from killing; they hire them and make them snipers, infiltrators or president. Imagine you are on a boat trip with an acquaintance who happens to be a psychopath with a gun. He knows you don't have one. You both sail to the Bahamas and all seems well. Which government is saving your life when he kills you at let's say 201 miles off the Florida coast and throws your body over board? In this "pretty" statist hell hole of 'yours' that guy just walks free. Psychopaths are excellent liars usually so he will make up a story hiding his killing. Read RoseCodex' patient reply about "omnipotence" again. And take this example. Do you still believe your life is (so) safe in a statist system?

If you can make the case that a vaccine is just like circumcision; a mutilation based on belief only, your last argument counts. Else a surgery on a child with approval of the parents would be "just as bad/immoral as sticking a knife in him/her". I wouldn't be surprised if also this "established world view" gets shattered but I need a bit more to get convinced than "toxic ingredients" (dose is relevant) or "vaccines cause autism" stated by people who don't have a clue about chemistry. Sorry. But interesting topic. We want a child so very relevant too.

I think your reply is very well worded and to the point. I however think I understand the rather shocked reaction from your friends. If they don't have a bad relationship with their parents or still believe in God or so, it is just incomprehensible for them that you do not have that. They simply don't understand. And that can have so many causes, but I wouldn't interpret them having problems with your mutilation remark as problems with you. They cannot empathize because they -luckily- lack the experience. If they still don't understand you after your well written reply it would be a different thing...

Yes Ancap, thanks for that. I see it a lot in "alternative" surroundings. This antivaccine movement is harmful not only to innocent children but also to the groups of people critical of "Ze News". They are associated with those people in many cases never having studied a virus through a microscope. Sorry A4E but this is a childish level of reasoning. Autism I'd say is a label, but to the antivaccers it's suddenly taken seriously and as "proof" vaccines don't work (like they do in both humans and animals for decades already).

Keep searching. The truth is a vision never to be "found". It's unreachable, by definition. But it's why (full) atheism is hard to understand for believers; there is no 1 fixed story and truth is a path to seek, not some fixed line one walks.

Nothing more ridiculous than believer sheeple who think they are atheists but swallow the NASA Bullshit like it were really scientifically sound and not the empty clumsy CGI shite it is... And not seldom those antitheist people feel themselves superior while being just as theist. Poor empty simplistic souls, they really need help.

Egoism would mean one's self-interest is guarded well. Egocentrism is when you lost eye for the self-interest of others. Nothing wrong with egoism, a lot wrong with egocentrism...

Taking government money is not immoral. If a thief steals my bike, bed and bath tub, it's perfectly ok to steal back that bottle of shampoo. So in that sense I agree with Phil. The stealing and cheating parts against the general people are things we can overcome and indeed be moral.

Just like there was never an attack on the Twin Towers, yes. Hoaxing is a much easier job than actually perpetrating an attack. No victims also means no families who can ask "difficult questions". Since the 1940s the Elites have perfectionalised that strategy but still are sloppy due to their unlimited arrogance.

What a poor story. The movie is excellent, one of my favorite tools to show the dumbing down in the world and support Stefans call for intelligence breeding (he uses the jews as example). What does the article put against that in return; So - a 'livable' wage - paid maternity leave - 'decent' funding of 'scientific' research are going to do the job? Wages in a free market with self-conscious and self-confident (self-knowledgeable) people are self-regulating. Maternity leave is well negotiated by those self-knowledged people with self-knowledged employers (who usually have kids themselves). And scientific research indicating the importance of intelligence and choosing your partner wisely is labeled "soft eugenetics", so such a fan of science the author doesn't seem to be. More easy parasiting on others and thus more state power is what the author advocates.

The similarity of the faked "attack" on Pearl Harbor and the faked "attacks" on 9/11 is clear. Apart from that many differences too.

Welkom vudewnl! On my way to the airport to fly to Amsterdam. My sister is getting married. We'll speak again, good to see some fellow Dutchies joining.

Of course responsibility can be partial. But responsibility is rooted in choice, in consent. Nobody can be held partially responsible for the violent initiative of another. That would make the motivation for that violent action valid. And that can only be with consent. And then it wouldn't be rape anymore. Actions, yes. Violent actions, violating NAP, no, of course not. You can make somebody angry, but you are not responsible for that anger turning into violence. That choice still solely lies with the initiator of the use of force; the violator. Scenario: You and me are going to (choice, consent, mutual agreement, free market) bake a cake. I care for the dough (has been a while but I was a baker in a former life) and you care for the baking process. The end result we carry partial responsibility over. Now I am going to tie your hands on your back and force you to do and review the baking process. Do you find you have partial responsibility for the cake ending up crappy? --- And on your scenario; the "initiator of the increased risk for rape" was the woman not by dressing "slutty", being flirtatious or being drunk. It was the invitation (her choice) of the man in her home (which should be an area of safety) while drunk (not sharp, increased risk of misjudgement). That action increased the risk, not her choice of clothing or any other behavioural action she took that evening.

1 - No, the initiator of the use of force is the responsible party, male or female. 2 - No, that would mean that somehow your dressing style is responsible for the choice another person makes. And that also applies to situations where there's no particular connection. If a rapist is turned on by blue shirts then somebody wearing blue would have a partial responsibility, even though that person doesn't know blue is turning a possible rapist into a real one. 3 - Your answer is already assuming responsibility. The problem with that is that if your idea of her dressing style would gain more support the culture slowly changes towards that. Look at what happened in the muslim world, where first only a head scarf was enough and in some parts even that is considered "too slutty". It therefore acknowledges the irrational "argument" of the rapist, so you're giving credit to someone who does not deserve that. That would even make you partially responsible for those idiotic thoughts. On your scenario: the choice to flirt, get drunk, wear "slutty" clothes is always with the person doing that. The responsibility that person has is only for his/her own actions, not for the actions of others responding to those choices. And when it comes to violence it's definitely not the responsibility of the one making those choices. She may be not taken seriously, frowned upon, neglected, etc. Those actions are no violations of the NAP.

The question in the title uses "Islamist". So taking Western intervention (of course bad, immoral and unwanted) as cause would be strange. It's rather based in the Quran itself. The verses where infidels should be killed are so numerous that even the most politically correct person cannot deny that islamism (wanting to make other people muslim, forcefully spreading islam) is a real part of the core of the religion.

Great initiative! I heard this one today and immediately liked it:

On what basis do you discriminate between "valid points" and "misconceptions", knowing that you can only speak for yourself or the texts Mormons use?

Those existential questions are not the field of science. A scientist also doesn't ask "why is water liquid*?" The right question to ask is "what causes water to be liquid?" The purpose of life is coming from either religion or philosophy**. You've come to an arena where the latter is well developed. * at room temperatures and atmospheric pressures ** or nihilism; emptiness to the max

Sorry but the same argument goes for most Mormons. Everyone's belief (or disbelief) is different. We can impossibly look in someone's head, especially not when it is about the deepest personal thoughts like (dis)belief. Speaking for others ("all", "most", etc.) in terms of what they (don't) believe in is dangerous ground. I believe that... is of course your own admittance. That's the way to go, I'd say. Ok, thanks, seems valid. There are many forgeries in present and past and people slandering are also around since the Pleistocene.

Welcome here, Bushrat. I also do not speak for others, just myself, and think that personal supernatural beliefs are a much less dangerous enemy of rationality and the quest for freedom of slavery than statism because religions only have indoctrination and not the guns, laws and the mask of pseudo-rationality statism (often anti-religious as Bakunin already pointed out). That said I am a rational individualist and please do not mind me pointing out this contradiction in your (capitalization is originally yours) words: This contradicts with: Are you stating the "established values every Mormon has to follow" or are you phrasing your personal beliefs? They may coincide, but can you speak for all Mormons and "what they believe"? Just reading this on wiki. A salamander? Cheers, Torero

What are your aguments to base this claim on? Electricity from coal or gas is then also not "one thing". The drilling for gas and mining for coal, exploration, planning, development, production, engineering, royalties to governments, risk assessments, etc. etc. etc. I didn't call it "one thing", but maybe I didn't get you right? The question is if nuclear technology is indeed capable of producing clean, cheap and reliable energy as is supposed. I have my doubts about it, but if you know more, feel free to enlighten the souls wandering in the dark...

You're right in pointing that out, I was on my mobile yesterday; I meant to say "not necessarily evil". A tax collector believes he is doing a good job, not that he is deliberately stealing money from his fellow human beings. Just like missionaries thinking they are there to "convert those primitives to a good religion", not realising they are the puppets of a coercive system (religion). The term "useful idiot" is a combination of two words, just like "sugar daddy" doesn't need to be a real "daddy", a useful idiot doesn't need to be an "idiot". Useful idiots are usually people with high enough IQs; they are not "idiots". They are "useful idiots".