Will Torbald

The amount of conspiracy broohaha in the anarchist movements gives everyone a bad reputation by association. It is indeed a sign that the worst condition of mankind is its frail mind that eases it into paranoia of ask sorts, and the slippery slope of platonism/mysticism/Donny Kruger effect where everyone thinks they are smarter than experts and scientists. Just reading the words "the senses deceive" from a conspiracy believer is enough to launch a red flag of neurosis.

I'm a strong and independent woman, but please daddy, tell those boys to stop calling me a whore when I get drunk at parties and make out with strangers at 16.

I would suggest Richard Dawkins' The Magic of Reality. It's recommended for kids age 12, though, but I don't think it would be too much of a problem if they are a little younger than that if they are intelligent already.

It is up to them to first admit fallibility. It is them who have to be humble first and admit they could be wrong. When a religious person starts preaching and pseudo-debating, but all they are doing is a one sided sermon about their religion, we owe them no grace.

Just regular maturity and coming of age. I don't mean to say he shouldn't have any examples of critical thinking, but that at the age he is, he is only learning through authority. He sees adults and important big people believing in something, and goes on and repeat what he's told. One day he'll grow and realize that the authority he thought was infallible, isn't.

I don't disagree this is reasonable, but on the circumstances of the particular event, surrounded by adults, and having Jewish parents in Israel, it is a huge uphill battle. The way I see it is that the approach you explain is valid "all thing being equal" in a neutral environment. But the kid and others are being integrated into a society where philosophy, atheism, and bacon are taboo. When he's older and develops his own sense of reason, then he will be receptive.

Any vegan going into Burger King to tell people how wrong they are is going to meet resistance. Any religious person going into a philosophical debate is going to meet resistance. There is no wrong way to go at it when the initial error is from the religious person.

I don't think he would have listened to you even if you had challenged him in the perfect environment without all the distractions and public eye. If he's saying those things in public he has already internalized them, and had no internal debate on whether what he was saying was philosophically sound. So it's not that he reasoned into his position, so you can't reason him out.

1. Breathes

Thinking that every single behavior can be traced to an evolutionary advantage is a bit of a mistake. It is not that all our behaviors exist because they allowed some advantage in an evolutionary arms race against other species or peers, and we can effectively deduce why they exist or the advantage that they give. In reality many psychological behaviors are too specific, stemming from broad biological origins, or they are social-cultural-nurtured without genetic roots. Evolutionary behaviors are determined at the root of the tree in very broad general activities, while the question you're asking is about the end leaves at the top of the branch.

Rationalism is not enough to have knowledge of the world. It cannot prove the existence of a deity when you make an argument for the world any more than anything else it can't prove. Because it is impossible to exist before time.

The argument from "how you do you know a free market will be better?" is irrelevant when you have the moral case for it. It is just wrong to use coercion.

At one point you're going to have to answer the questions being asked to you like an adult. This kind of rebounding questions is sincerely annoying.

Sorry, I think you're confusing me for the OP. In any case, I made a distinction of calling it the antitheist position, not just an atheist one. It is demonstrably preferable to have a world where meaning is personally chosen rather than imposed, and misfortunes are not the result of petty sins.

The antitheist would say that not only is the glass empty, he is happy it is so.

Then you can start by excluding all religion, don't you think?

Verily I realize now that wholeness quiets infinite phenomena.

Awesome victimization. They were very constructive, and not even hostile. If the forum administrators wished for it, you'd be gone from here. No one is silencing your voice, nor attacking you. But a spade has to be called a spade.

Your scored 25 correct (out of a possible 33). This implies an IQ of approximately 150 on the European/Cattell scale (stdev 24), or about 133 on the Stanford-Binet/USA scale (stdev 16). On the one posted above. Cool test.

This is why I can't get along with you. I am not blind, and I am not going to hell because god didn't make me see him. This is bigotry.

The same way you prevent the re-rise of monarchy, slavery, cannibalism, human sacrifice, and so on. The world has moved on from their primitive roots and it will continue to evolve.

Cap is doing it to protect Bucky. It's right in the phrase "You know I wouldn't do this if I had any other choice, but he's my friend". Which makes it more of a personal rebellion, not a statement of government policy. He doesn't renounce to the symbols of patriotism either. Other than that, the idea of rejecting limits altogether is very anarchist indeed. However, after what happened in Avengers 2 I can't blame Tony for wanting a leash on his neck since his actions lead to the near destruction of the world. He doesn't trust himself with himself anymore, and since he didn't trust others very much to begin with, it follows he would begin to put limits on everyone around him.

What would you do if the answers were yes on immorality? What would you do if it were moral instead?

If he wanted more money, he would have done it a long time ago. I think he's just trying to prove a point by being exclusively based on donations. Since he advocates that in a free society only voluntary charity would be allowed, he is giving an example of how people can support each other without force.

I-it's not like I wanted to go or anything!