Christianity vs Earth, the right vs the left (the Nietzsche reading club)

[71 dB]

This moves the goal post relative to your prior post and it includes a contrafactual assertion, as well.  As it stands today, full deployment of all nuclear weapons would not result in the death of all humans, let alone all life.   

Okay okay then, the result would still be really horrible! Does it have to be 100 % destruction to be really bad? Mankind has that power to do really bad things, kill millions of people if not everyone. Just as if someone burns 20 % of you house you'd be pissed.

[Todd]

Okay okay then, the result would still be really horrible! Does it have to be 100 % destruction to be really bad? Mankind has that power to do really bad things, kill millions of people if not everyone.

I did write "[t]o be sure, full-scale nuclear war would be the worst possible thing that humans could do and should be avoided at all costs."  Perhaps you missed that sentence.

[71 dB]

I did write "[t]o be sure, full-scale nuclear war would be the worst possible thing that humans could do and should be avoided at all costs."  Perhaps you missed that sentence.

The exact scale of carnage nuclear weapons could in theory cause is beyond the point. The point is mankind has the power to cause untold damage on this planet and that power brings responsibility with it.

[Todd]

The exact scale of carnage nuclear weapons could in theory cause is beyond the point. The point is mankind has the power to cause untold damage on this planet and that power brings responsibility with it.

The point is that humanity cannot kill all humans, all life, or destroy the earth.  That great carnage and destruction is possible is a given.  You continue to move the goalpost.

[71 dB]

The point is that humanity cannot kill all humans, all life, or destroy the earth.  That great carnage and destruction is possible is a given.  You continue to move the goalpost.

Maybe the goalposts were in a stupid place and moving them is a good thing?

[Todd]

Maybe the goalposts were in a stupid place and moving them is a good thing?

That is the standard internet approach.

[SimonNZ]

This moves the goal post relative to your prior post and it includes a contrafactual assertion, as well.  As it stands today, full deployment of all nuclear weapons would not result in the death of all humans, let alone all life.   

You're "merely" imagining the nightmarish scenario of targeting cities. Now imagine the first wave targets are all functioning nuclear reactors. Or don't, if you'd prefer to sleep at night.

That's the opening move of Annie Jacobsen's Nuclear War: A Scenario - one stray NK missile detonating over one American reactor, and the continent-sized damage that would do.

[Florestan]

It is totally your own choice what debates you want to participate. You are not obligated to debate anything, but as long as you express your opinions online, some people will react to your claims. That's just how it is.

That's true. Still, here's two things for your consideration.

1. We could debate theodicy till both of us are blue in the face, we will not reach any agreement other than to disagree, so why waste our time and GMG's bandwidth in the first place?

2. If belief could be demonstrated it would not be belief anymore, it would be fact.

So I just state my beliefs. You can agree or disagree with them, it's perfectly fine with me either way.

[Opus131]

I think faith (or the effects of faith at any rate) CAN be demonstrated (and empirically at that), it just can't be demonstrated in a strictly material sense.

Of course, those who claim the only "valid" form evidence is the kind you can see, smell or touch generally are at a loss to explain why they accept premises for which no such evidence can be obtained, up to and including reason and logic, which lest i checked can't be found in sense data and can't be verified by looking at brain molecules under a microscope etc.

As for how can one verify faith, all you have to do is practice the religion. That would be a correct scientific approach. I mean art is the same. When i first started to listen to classical music, i didn't look for laboratory "evidence" that proved Beethoven was a genius, i had to go listen to his music and verify the claim for myself.

[71 dB]

That's true. Still, here's two things for your consideration.

1. We could debate theodicy till both of us are blue in the face, we will not reach any agreement other than to disagree, so why waste our time and GMG's bandwidth in the first place?

2. If belief could be demonstrated it would not be belief anymore, it would be fact.

So I just state my beliefs. You can agree or disagree with them, it's perfectly fine with me either way.

1. I have been debating all kind of things online for 20 years without reaching much agreement with anyone. That's what modern life is about. Good for those who can resist staying offline and spend their time on better things!

2. There are tons of things I believe in but can't demonstrate/prove. However, I think in most cases I have good reasons to believe in those things. This is why I am okay with my beliefs being challenged. Those good reasons give me the ability to defend those beliefs. I think believing blindly in things with no or very weak evidence is silly. Sometimes it is better to just say "I don't know" instead of forcing a belief.

Your beliefs are not my business. It is not for me to say what beliefs you should have. However when you express your beliefs online as claims, they become targets of criticism and people who don't share your beliefs may react to them. You are entitled to believe 2+2=5, but you will be told by math people you are wrong. It is not an attack on you as a person.

[Todd]

You're "merely" imagining the nightmarish scenario of targeting cities.

Incorrect.  You literally have no way of knowing what scenarios I was considering.  Your post conclusively demonstrates that.  Also, at least according to experts who have published works in the field, nuclear reactors are targets in nuclear exchanges.  You did an extremely poor job selling Ms Jacobsen's work.

[Florestan]

You are entitled to believe 2+2=5, but you will be told by math people you are wrong

Well, 2+2=5 is always false but 2+2=4 is not always true.

[DavidW]

I don't know if I understand what this thread is about...

[SimonNZ]

Incorrect.  You literally have no way of knowing what scenarios I was considering.  Your post conclusively demonstrates that.  Also, at least according to experts who have published works in the field, nuclear reactors are targets in nuclear exchanges.  You did an extremely poor job selling Ms Jacobsen's work.

When was the last time you simply replied "I hadn't considered that"?

I'll bet it's been years and years and years.

[Todd]

When was the last time you simply replied "I hadn't considered that"?

You have no idea at all what I have considered on this topic.  Based on your posts, you have spent far less time reading about it and considering it than I have. 

As to the topic at hand, perhaps you can elaborate, in detail, on the high priority targets for nuclear strikes in a four-hundred-mile radius of where I live.  It should be easy as some of them are well-known high priority targets.  If you can do that, it will be clear that you have considered the topic in depth.

[SimonNZ]

You have no idea at all what I have considered on this topic.  Based on your posts, you have spent far less time reading about it and considering it than I have. 

"Incorrect".

As for the other stuff I'll give another Todd reply: I have elaborated on this somewhere in my posting history. Go through all my posts and see if you can find it. (Hilarious, right?)

You want me to give me a test and have me take it? That's something you would never do.

[Todd]

You want me to give me a test and have me take it? That's something you would never do.

I did give you a test in the prior post.  You failed.  As expected.

[SimonNZ]

I did give you a test in the prior post.  You failed.  As expected.

Would there be anything other than default snark and mockery waiting no matter what I turned in? Hmm? If I had the world's leading authority post under my name wouldn't your immediate reaction be an insultingly casual dismissal?

[Todd]

Would there be anything other than default snark and mockery waiting no matter what I turned in? Hmm?

Yes, if you could successfully answer the question.  You cannot.

[ritter]

Cut this silliness out! Unbelievable!

If members have perosnal scores to settle, they can do so via PM, not here on the open forum. The tone and content of the last posts in this thread add nothing to the topic.