Corporation Socialism

[Belinda]

Socialism politically has discovered it has a problem: it cannot generate value. It goes bankrupt. It's found it can power itself far more effectively by parasitizing on "capitalism" (as you'd call it). So it's found it much better to sell out its own principles, in that regard, and allow much more freedom to Big Business to pull in the money that the system requires. That's Corporation Socialism.

A good exemplar is China, which nowadays runs under what it calls, "Red Capitalism." Under old-style Socialism, it was backward and bankrupt. It isn't, anymore.

Maybe your problem, Immanuel, is that you think socialists don't compete for profits.

They don't. Not without abandoning Socialist economics.

Don't imagine Socialists aren't hypocrites. They are that, for sure: the elites especially. While they crow that they are champions of "the worker" and "the People," they invariably are angling to milk the poor to death. It's what they always do. They'll take whatever they can get...and compete with the People and each other to get it...and shoot their enemies into a ditch, if necessary. But boy, do they ever compete, alright.

But "the poor" are not so poor when the regime is socialist because "the poor" get free quality education, free quality health care, and subsidised housing when the regime is a socialist regime. I know this from personal lived experience.

My country is not socialist enough concerning prison reform. The Conservatives put prisons outside state control and recently we have seen that that the independent prisons authority have not been able to supply an electronic tag that fits the prisoner, so she had to be returned to custody. Your affection for private enterprise is misplaced.

"Socialist economics" are set to maximise economic growth .

[promethean75]

Here's a clue. A briliant idea i derived from the work of comrade Rosa Lichtenstein.

You conduct a competition between individual soviets active in the same industries to produce better product in shorter time. You literally turn industry into a giant global sports event. Why? Because you have to tap that egoistic drive in man to give him some incentive. He has to be able to be better at something than someone else, or else he's not driven to improve himself.

You're gonna pretty much channel the whole Freudian libido into the work ethic. Soviet companies like sports teams engaged a ruthless battle to produce a lighter weight shampoo or a faster commercial space jet. Use your imagination for once, and you can see it, people.

As Rosa once so eloquently put it,.the future is in the production of widgets.

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism, by definition, requires government ownership of all the means of production...

I told you: that's Socialism's aspiration. That doesn't mean they always get what they want.

If Hitler aspired to own all the means of production, why did he privatise any?

Freidrich Pollock, himself an extremist Socialist (associated with the Frankfurt School, if you recognize that) and a staunch critic of Fascism, writing in 1941 gave the following analysis:

"I agree that the legal institution of private ownership was maintained, and that many attributes characteristic for National Socialism begin to manifest themselves, albeit still vaguely, in non-totalitarian countries. But does this mean that the function of private ownership did not change? Is the “increase of power of a few groups” really the most important result of the change which took place? I believe it reaches far more deeply and should be described as the destruction of all the essential traits of private ownership, saving one exception. Even the mightiest concerns were denied the right to set up new fields of business in areas where the highest profits were to be expected, or to interrupt a production where it became unprofitable. These rights were transferred in their entirety to the ruling groups. The compromise between the groups in power initially determined the extent and direction of the production process. Faced with such a decision, the title of ownership is powerless, even if it is derived from the possession of the overwhelming majority of the share capital, let alone when it only owns a minority."


Want more? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjkQZ3MmGgY

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe your problem, Immanuel, is that you think socialists don't compete for profits.

They don't. Not without abandoning Socialist economics.

Don't imagine Socialists aren't hypocrites. They are that, for sure: the elites especially. While they crow that they are champions of "the worker" and "the People," they invariably are angling to milk the poor to death. It's what they always do. They'll take whatever they can get...and compete with the People and each other to get it...and shoot their enemies into a ditch, if necessary. But boy, do they ever compete, alright.

But "the poor" are not so poor when the regime is socialist because "the poor" get free quality education, free quality health care, and subsidised housing when the regime is a socialist regime. I know this from personal lived experience.

Take Cuba. That's a good example, and one once praised for its Socialist system, especially in education.

A few years ago, if you went there, you'd have found none of the grindingly poor, the lowest of the low. Almost everybody was at level-2 poverty: poor, but not starving. Then there were the party members, who were level 3 poor: not starving, and with a few perks. And then there were the deep state party members, who lived like kings.

I also know this first hand.

Now, if you go, everybody everywhere is between level 2 and level 1. Every economic strategy of the Cuban government has failed. Only the highest elites live really well...everybody else struggles for everything. And now, Cuba's on a clock: having lost the artificial patronage of Russia, and having lost Venezuela to another Socialist economic debacle, Cuba has no patron state except China...which is now using Cuba as a vassal state, and installing their military there. Meanwhile, the whole country remains desperately poor. I have friends who have relatives trying to live there, and gas, food, medical care...all in desperate shortage.

And it's not the American embargo that's to blame. American dollars still continued to fuel the Cuban economy, as much as it was being fueled -- mostly from being taxed out of expats who were trying to help their relatives, and other such ponzi schemes cooked up by the Socialist regime. And Cuba can still trade with other Socialist states, as they did with the old USSR and Venezuela, and various Central American countries. Their problem is more obvious: it's that they have no economic plan that works, and no Socialist partners that can offer them a sustainable solution. They won't have democracy or "capitalism," so they can't succeed.

If they adopted "capitalism," then there's no question their economy would boom, because they are the first reliably-warm beach destination south of the US, with the prettiest beaches, and the largest island in the Caribbean. They should be a tourist Mecca. They have fish, they have farms, they have a strategic location. They also have fertile soil, and can grow various crops: but since the people know the government will require them to set aside most of those crops for the Party, and then won't even gather them but will let them rot, people know it's not worth their while to farm more than they can eat...so they don't. They're not stupid: nobody's going to work to create for the government a big pile of rotting fruit. And as for beef? It's a 30 year prison sentence if you kill a cow and eat it....well, unless you're in the government, in which case, you can eat beef.

There's no reason for them to struggle at all, except Socialism.

So there's your answer. Socialist economics do not only not "maximize growth," they destroy it entirely. And so it has gone in North Korea, in Venezuela, in Zimbabwe, and even in China before Red Capitalism...in every country where Socialist economics have been instituted.

Meanwhile, under "capitalist" practices, the world's poor were being raised from poverty. https://www.cato.org/commentary/global- ... ms-triumph# https://www.mackinac.org/18731 Of course, Socialist are desperate to deny that the rise from poverty in the Developing World has anything whatsoever to do with "capitalism": propaganda organs like the WEF make a point of this. But the fact that they have to admit the statistics betrays their dishonesty anyway. For they know that they cannot produce comparable results in any association whatsoever with Socialist economics. If they could, they surely would. But Socialism only kills economies. It does not produce value.

[Belinda]

They don't. Not without abandoning Socialist economics.

Don't imagine Socialists aren't hypocrites. They are that, for sure: the elites especially. While they crow that they are champions of "the worker" and "the People," they invariably are angling to milk the poor to death. It's what they always do. They'll take whatever they can get...and compete with the People and each other to get it...and shoot their enemies into a ditch, if necessary. But boy, do they ever compete, alright.

But "the poor" are not so poor when the regime is socialist because "the poor" get free quality education, free quality health care, and subsidised housing when the regime is a socialist regime. I know this from personal lived experience.

Take Cuba. That's a good example, and one once praised for its Socialist system, especially in education.

A few years ago, if you went there, you'd have found none of the grindingly poor, the lowest of the low. Almost everybody was at level-2 poverty: poor, but not starving. Then there were the party members, who were level 3 poor: not starving, and with a few perks. And then there were the deep state party members, who lived like kings.

I also know this first hand.

Now, if you go, everybody everywhere is between level 2 and level 1. Every economic strategy of the Cuban government has failed. Only the highest elites live really well...everybody else struggles for everything. And now, Cuba's on a clock: having lost the artificial patronage of Russia, and having lost Venezuela to another Socialist economic debacle, Cuba has no patron state except China...which is now using Cuba as a vassal state, and installing their military there. Meanwhile, the whole country remains desperately poor. I have friends who have relatives trying to live there, and gas, food, medical care...all in desperate shortage.

And it's not the American embargo that's to blame. American dollars still continued to fuel the Cuban economy, as much as it was being fueled -- mostly from being taxed out of expats who were trying to help their relatives, and other such ponzi schemes cooked up by the Socialist regime. And Cuba can still trade with other Socialist states, as they did with the old USSR and Venezuela, and various Central American countries. Their problem is more obvious: it's that they have no economic plan that works, and no Socialist partners that can offer them a sustainable solution. They won't have democracy or "capitalism," so they can't succeed.

If they adopted "capitalism," then there's no question their economy would boom, because they are the first reliably-warm beach destination south of the US, with the prettiest beaches, and the largest island in the Caribbean. They should be a tourist Mecca. They have fish, they have farms, they have a strategic location. They also have fertile soil, and can grow various crops: but since the people know the government will require them to set aside most of those crops for the Party, and then won't even gather them but will let them rot, people know it's not worth their while to farm more than they can eat...so they don't. They're not stupid: nobody's going to work to create for the government a big pile of rotting fruit. And as for beef? It's a 30 year prison sentence if you kill a cow and eat it....well, unless you're in the government, in which case, you can eat beef.

There's no reason for them to struggle at all, except Socialism.

So there's your answer. Socialist economics do not only not "maximize growth," they destroy it entirely. And so it has gone in North Korea, in Venezuela, in Zimbabwe, and even in China before Red Capitalism...in every country where Socialist economics have been instituted.

Meanwhile, under "capitalist" practices, the world's poor were being raised from poverty. https://www.cato.org/commentary/global- ... ms-triumph# https://www.mackinac.org/18731 Of course, Socialist are desperate to deny that the rise from poverty in the Developing World has anything whatsoever to do with "capitalism": propaganda organs like the WEF make a point of this. But the fact that they have to admit the statistics betrays their dishonesty anyway. For they know that they cannot produce comparable results in any association whatsoever with Socialist economics. If they could, they surely would. But Socialism only kills economies. It does not produce value.

But you were not there in the UK when Churchill was deposed in favour of Attlee's socialist labour government.I was a young adult at that time working as a nurse for the new National Health Service, and I knew the effect personally and on my patients some of whom were ex service personnel who were emotionally and physically exhausted after active service.

I lived through the nationalisation of public utilities during post war austerity.The economic advantage was that the work force was thereby encouraged to work hard towards reconstructing the nation's prosperity.

[Immanuel Can]

But "the poor" are not so poor when the regime is socialist because "the poor" get free quality education, free quality health care, and subsidised housing when the regime is a socialist regime. I know this from personal lived experience.

Take Cuba. That's a good example, and one once praised for its Socialist system, especially in education.

A few years ago, if you went there, you'd have found none of the grindingly poor, the lowest of the low. Almost everybody was at level-2 poverty: poor, but not starving. Then there were the party members, who were level 3 poor: not starving, and with a few perks. And then there were the deep state party members, who lived like kings.

I also know this first hand.

Now, if you go, everybody everywhere is between level 2 and level 1. Every economic strategy of the Cuban government has failed. Only the highest elites live really well...everybody else struggles for everything. And now, Cuba's on a clock: having lost the artificial patronage of Russia, and having lost Venezuela to another Socialist economic debacle, Cuba has no patron state except China...which is now using Cuba as a vassal state, and installing their military there. Meanwhile, the whole country remains desperately poor. I have friends who have relatives trying to live there, and gas, food, medical care...all in desperate shortage.

And it's not the American embargo that's to blame. American dollars still continued to fuel the Cuban economy, as much as it was being fueled -- mostly from being taxed out of expats who were trying to help their relatives, and other such ponzi schemes cooked up by the Socialist regime. And Cuba can still trade with other Socialist states, as they did with the old USSR and Venezuela, and various Central American countries. Their problem is more obvious: it's that they have no economic plan that works, and no Socialist partners that can offer them a sustainable solution. They won't have democracy or "capitalism," so they can't succeed.

If they adopted "capitalism," then there's no question their economy would boom, because they are the first reliably-warm beach destination south of the US, with the prettiest beaches, and the largest island in the Caribbean. They should be a tourist Mecca. They have fish, they have farms, they have a strategic location. They also have fertile soil, and can grow various crops: but since the people know the government will require them to set aside most of those crops for the Party, and then won't even gather them but will let them rot, people know it's not worth their while to farm more than they can eat...so they don't. They're not stupid: nobody's going to work to create for the government a big pile of rotting fruit. And as for beef? It's a 30 year prison sentence if you kill a cow and eat it....well, unless you're in the government, in which case, you can eat beef.

There's no reason for them to struggle at all, except Socialism.

So there's your answer. Socialist economics do not only not "maximize growth," they destroy it entirely. And so it has gone in North Korea, in Venezuela, in Zimbabwe, and even in China before Red Capitalism...in every country where Socialist economics have been instituted.

Meanwhile, under "capitalist" practices, the world's poor were being raised from poverty. https://www.cato.org/commentary/global- ... ms-triumph# https://www.mackinac.org/18731 Of course, Socialist are desperate to deny that the rise from poverty in the Developing World has anything whatsoever to do with "capitalism": propaganda organs like the WEF make a point of this. But the fact that they have to admit the statistics betrays their dishonesty anyway. For they know that they cannot produce comparable results in any association whatsoever with Socialist economics. If they could, they surely would. But Socialism only kills economies. It does not produce value.

But you were not there in the UK when Churchill was deposed in favour of Attlee's socialist labour government.I was a young adult at that time working as a nurse for the new National Health Service, and I knew the effect personally and on my patients some of whom were ex service personnel who were emotionally and physically exhausted after active service.

That had some social programs; but it did not issue in a Socialist polity. If it had, you would not have free voting now. The Socialists, having won, would have eradicated their competition, so as to compel the "worker's paradise" to come into being.

I lived through the nationalisation of public utilities during post war austerity.The economic advantage was that the work force was thereby encouraged to work hard towards reconstructing the nation's prosperity.

And how has that worked out for you? Did your "worker's paradise" arrive?

[Belinda]

Take Cuba. That's a good example, and one once praised for its Socialist system, especially in education.

A few years ago, if you went there, you'd have found none of the grindingly poor, the lowest of the low. Almost everybody was at level-2 poverty: poor, but not starving. Then there were the party members, who were level 3 poor: not starving, and with a few perks. And then there were the deep state party members, who lived like kings.

I also know this first hand.

Now, if you go, everybody everywhere is between level 2 and level 1. Every economic strategy of the Cuban government has failed. Only the highest elites live really well...everybody else struggles for everything. And now, Cuba's on a clock: having lost the artificial patronage of Russia, and having lost Venezuela to another Socialist economic debacle, Cuba has no patron state except China...which is now using Cuba as a vassal state, and installing their military there. Meanwhile, the whole country remains desperately poor. I have friends who have relatives trying to live there, and gas, food, medical care...all in desperate shortage.

And it's not the American embargo that's to blame. American dollars still continued to fuel the Cuban economy, as much as it was being fueled -- mostly from being taxed out of expats who were trying to help their relatives, and other such ponzi schemes cooked up by the Socialist regime. And Cuba can still trade with other Socialist states, as they did with the old USSR and Venezuela, and various Central American countries. Their problem is more obvious: it's that they have no economic plan that works, and no Socialist partners that can offer them a sustainable solution. They won't have democracy or "capitalism," so they can't succeed.

If they adopted "capitalism," then there's no question their economy would boom, because they are the first reliably-warm beach destination south of the US, with the prettiest beaches, and the largest island in the Caribbean. They should be a tourist Mecca. They have fish, they have farms, they have a strategic location. They also have fertile soil, and can grow various crops: but since the people know the government will require them to set aside most of those crops for the Party, and then won't even gather them but will let them rot, people know it's not worth their while to farm more than they can eat...so they don't. They're not stupid: nobody's going to work to create for the government a big pile of rotting fruit. And as for beef? It's a 30 year prison sentence if you kill a cow and eat it....well, unless you're in the government, in which case, you can eat beef.

There's no reason for them to struggle at all, except Socialism.

So there's your answer. Socialist economics do not only not "maximize growth," they destroy it entirely. And so it has gone in North Korea, in Venezuela, in Zimbabwe, and even in China before Red Capitalism...in every country where Socialist economics have been instituted.

Meanwhile, under "capitalist" practices, the world's poor were being raised from poverty. https://www.cato.org/commentary/global- ... ms-triumph# https://www.mackinac.org/18731 Of course, Socialist are desperate to deny that the rise from poverty in the Developing World has anything whatsoever to do with "capitalism": propaganda organs like the WEF make a point of this. But the fact that they have to admit the statistics betrays their dishonesty anyway. For they know that they cannot produce comparable results in any association whatsoever with Socialist economics. If they could, they surely would. But Socialism only kills economies. It does not produce value.

But you were not there in the UK when Churchill was deposed in favour of Attlee's socialist labour government.I was a young adult at that time working as a nurse for the new National Health Service, and I knew the effect personally and on my patients some of whom were ex service personnel who were emotionally and physically exhausted after active service.

That had some social programs; but it did not issue in a Socialist polity. If it had, you would not have free voting now. The Socialists, having won, would have eradicated their competition, so as to compel the "worker's paradise" to come into being.

I lived through the nationalisation of public utilities during post war austerity.The economic advantage was that the work force was thereby encouraged to work hard towards reconstructing the nation's prosperity.

And how has that worked out for you? Did your "worker's paradise" arrive?

There is never a workers' Paradise on Earth and never will be. The poor are always with us and the devil is visible everywhere. Socialists strive to enable social mobility, and to provide a safety net for the poor and the rejected .

[Immanuel Can]

There is never a workers' Paradise on Earth and never will be.

I quite agree. The Socialists are just dead wrong about that.

Socialists strive to enable social mobility, and to provide a safety net for the poor and the rejected .

Really? And where has a Socialist regime ever done that? China? Russia? North Korea? Cambodia? Romania? Albania? Congo? Zimbabwe? Cuba, Venezuela?...You'll look in vain for that to turn out to be true.

What you need to do, B., is be less impressed with people who talk a good game, and more impressed with those who actually do good.

[Belinda]

There is never a workers' Paradise on Earth and never will be.

I quite agree. The Socialists are just dead wrong about that.

Socialists strive to enable social mobility, and to provide a safety net for the poor and the rejected .

Really? And where has a Socialist regime ever done that? China? Russia? North Korea? Cambodia? Romania? Albania? Congo? Zimbabwe? Cuba, Venezuela?...You'll look in vain for that to turn out to be true.

What you need to do, B., is be less impressed with people who talk a good game, and more impressed with those who actually do good.

Taking the President to task is hardly talking a good game!

[iambiguous]

But Mike doesn't believe in choice, of course: he thinks everything is predetermined -- not a safe belief, if Jesus Christ is speaking the truth to us.

Actually, he strikes me more as one of those [completely mysterious to me] "free will determinists".

He defends determinism. But "somehow" [to me] he seems more intent on convincing himself that his own arguments are still the most rational.

Here, he strikes me as more in sync with what I'd expect from a Libertarian.

On the other hand, this sort of "compatibilism" may well be the most rational manner in which to address this centuries old conundrum. Even though he seems to argue in turn that we post what we do here because we are compelled by our brains to.

Though, sure, I may well be simply misunderstanding his point.

As for Jesus speaking the truth, what actual historical and scientific proof is offered to us by Craig in those videos?

And then the part I always come back to with you...the fact that beyond a leap of faith or a wager or "it says do in the Bible", you really are convinced [sans a "condition"] the proof is there that a God, the God is the Christian God. And since I'd like to be convinced myself that I should give Christianity another try, the evidence you and Craig speak of isn't convincing.

So far.

As for "being warned" there are any number of religious denominations here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- who would in turn be quick to point out that you have been warned regarding their own One True Path to immortality and salvation.

[Immanuel Can]

There is never a workers' Paradise on Earth and never will be.

I quite agree. The Socialists are just dead wrong about that.

Socialists strive to enable social mobility, and to provide a safety net for the poor and the rejected .

Really? And where has a Socialist regime ever done that? China? Russia? North Korea? Cambodia? Romania? Albania? Congo? Zimbabwe? Cuba, Venezuela?...You'll look in vain for that to turn out to be true.

What you need to do, B., is be less impressed with people who talk a good game, and more impressed with those who actually do good.

Taking the President to task is hardly talking a good game!

Dividing the world into victims and oppressors, and seizing the one chance of positioning yourself before the cameras as the champion of the oppressed is a game for narcissistic children, not adult theologians. And when the group you're championing is actually made up of criminals, drug-runners, kidnappers, gang bangers and other victimizers of the American people, you can be quite sure the speaker is far more interested in posing herself as virtuous than she is in doing good to other people.

[Immanuel Can]

But Mike doesn't believe in choice, of course: he thinks everything is predetermined -- not a safe belief, if Jesus Christ is speaking the truth to us.

Actually, he strikes me more as one of those [completely mysterious to me] "free will determinists".

I quite agree that he cannot get his story straight. One the one hand, he claims that all is Determined for us; on the other, he comes here to argue and debate, as if his listener has free will to respond to his arguments. He really doesn't know which he believes.

As for Jesus speaking the truth, what actual historical and scientific proof is offered to us by Craig in those videos?

That's not the subject of all the videos. One day, you should watch them. Why not? You seem quite obsessed.

As for "being warned" there are any number of religious denominations here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- who would in turn be quick to point out that you have been warned regarding their own One True Path to immortality and salvation.

And they are quite welcome to do so. I respect people who stand on their beliefs. And I even welcome discussion and debate over important differences.

At the end of the day, though, only the truth will turn out to be true. So one must choose wisely.

But one cannot respect those, like the liberal secular humanists, who don't know what the various belief systems actually say, and thus try to mash them all together into one omni-tolerant, humanist-coopted "agreeing" lump. Different beliefs are different and don't actually agree about these things, and actually can only commend themselves on their distinctives and important contributions.

So to pretend it's all the same is actually the worst form of insult to all other creeds, ideologies and beliefs...and in any case, is the kind of thing that only the completely oblivious can possibly imagine. Anybody who believes anything, and knows what anybody else believes, knows better.

[iambiguous]

But Mike doesn't believe in choice, of course: he thinks everything is predetermined -- not a safe belief, if Jesus Christ is speaking the truth to us.

Actually, he strikes me more as one of those [completely mysterious to me] "free will determinists".

I quite agree that he cannot get his story straight. One the one hand, he claims that all is Determined for us; on the other, he comes here to argue and debate, as if his listener has free will to respond to his arguments. He really doesn't know which he believes.

Unless, of course, the hard determinists are right in suggesting that anything anyone of us post here reflects the only possible reality.

Also, the part where Christians themselves need to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy.

As for Jesus speaking the truth, what actual historical and scientific proof is offered to us by Craig in those videos?

That's not the subject of all the videos. One day, you should watch them. Why not? You seem quite obsessed.

What are you talking about?! I have watched them. All 17 of them. Then I created a thread -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- to discuss them with you.

In fact, on page 2 after I reacted to all 17 videos, you posted this:

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes

That's it basically. And, on the contrary, I do not know the answer. In fact, even my very own conjectures here are no less rooted existentially in dasein, are no less fractured and fragmented.

Also, why do you avoid coming back to this evidence over and again? I'd think you would be eager to create your own thread in which to explore these videos. After all, it's one thing to take a leap of faith to God, or to place a wager or to simply insist that if the Bible says so, that settles it, and another thing altogether to argue that the evidence provided by Craig convinced you to actually know that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

And since I'd like to know that again myself, I was willing to invest a lot of time exploring the videos. Time that you won't spend in exploring them with me.

Now, once again, if it is important to you to save souls, then let's examine Craig's evidence on the videos. After all, though many here might scoff, I want to be born again. That's why in regard to religion I believe the discussions need to revolve around these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

As for "being warned" there are any number of religious denominations here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- who would in turn be quick to point out that you have been warned regarding their own One True Path to immortality and salvation.

And they are quite welcome to do so. I respect people who stand on their beliefs. And I even welcome discussion and debate over important differences.

On the other hand, why should anyone care about the respect you have for those who choose another God or choose atheism or agnosticism? After all, you are also here to insist that if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior their souls are doomed/damned. That's why in all sincerity some Christians will go door to door to door witnessing for Christ. While others become missionaries in order to traverse the globe saving souls.

At the end of the day, though, only the truth will turn out to be true. So one must choose wisely.

You forgot this part: Or else.

But one cannot respect those, like the liberal secular humanists, who don't know what the various belief systems actually say, and thus try to mash them all together into one omni-tolerant, humanist-coopted "agreeing" lump.

So, does this suggest that you yourself are fully informed regarding the belief systems of all the other One True Paths? After all, they are thinking the same thing about you, right?

So to pretend it's all the same is actually the worst form of insult to all other creeds, ideologies and beliefs...and in any case, is the kind of thing that only the completely oblivious can possibly imagine. Anybody who believes anything, and knows what anybody else believes, knows better.

But Christianity isn't the same as all of the other denominations, is it? According to you those like henry quirk will rot in Hell for all of eternity unless, say, you can convince him to watch the videos.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, he strikes me more as one of those [completely mysterious to me] "free will determinists".

I quite agree that he cannot get his story straight. One the one hand, he claims that all is Determined for us; on the other, he comes here to argue and debate, as if his listener has free will to respond to his arguments. He really doesn't know which he believes.

Unless, of course, the hard determinists are right in suggesting that anything anyone of us post here reflects the only possible reality.

Well, you don't think that's how it is, as manifested by your replies. If you believed it, why would you even bother?

Also, the part where Christians themselves need to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy.

Not hard. Foreknowledge does not entail Determinism.

Also, why do you avoid coming back to this evidence over and again?

Truthfully? How can I tell you the truth without sounding insulting? I'll just try and say it like it is.

Because I find you unpersuadable and boring. I don't think you're actually very rational. That's the truth.

I know that "dasein" means nothing. When I asked you which of the dozens of definitions of "dasein" you were backing, you couldn't even say. So that shows you don't know at all what you're talking about. And that's your key concept. How much hope is there, then, that I can persuade you of anything? Not much, I'm thinking.

I can't imagine anything less fun that haggling with a person who's intransigently irrational, and lapses into concepts they don't even understand, over rational material, which they can see but refuse to consider. My life only has so many years in it. So I just don't bother. I know you have what you need...and you have the freedom to consider it, or not. It doesn't change my situation whether you do or don't.

So I just feel my job is done with that. Carry on as you see fit. It doesn't change my world whether you consider it or not.

[iambiguous]

I quite agree that he cannot get his story straight. One the one hand, he claims that all is Determined for us; on the other, he comes here to argue and debate, as if his listener has free will to respond to his arguments. He really doesn't know which he believes.

Unless, of course, the hard determinists are right in suggesting that anything anyone of us post here reflects the only possible reality.

Well, you don't think that's how it is, as manifested by your replies. If you believed it, why would you even bother?

Click.

Perhaps because my own understanding of determinism here and now [which may well be wrong] revolves around the assumption that none of us actually bother of our own free will to post here at all. Instead, human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compel us to "bother" or "not bother".

Though, sure, the fact that I post here as though I was wholly in possession of free will myself simply reflects the fact that this might actually be true.

Also, the part where Christians themselves need to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy.

Not hard. Foreknowledge does not entail Determinism.

Well, I guess that settles that. You believe it. So, it must be true.

On the other hand, it can actually get quite speculative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_ ... onceivable.

Also, why do you avoid coming back to this evidence over and again?

Truthfully? How can I tell you the truth without sounding insulting? I'll just try and say it like it is.

In other words, wiggle, wiggle wiggle.

Then this part:

Because I find you unpersuadable and boring. I don't think you're actually very rational. That's the truth.

Come on, IC, we've been over this before. I told you in a previous post to forget about me. Others here may well be more persuadable, more interesting and more rational. And I'm one of the first to acknowledge this. I'm no less drawn and quartered in regard to God and religion.

Then, if I do say so myself, the "absolutely shameless" part:

I know that "dasein" means nothing. When I asked you which of the dozens of definitions of "dasein" you were backing, you couldn't even say. So that shows you don't know at all what you're talking about. And that's your key concept. How much hope is there, then, that I can persuade you of anything? Not much, I'm thinking.

Just for the record:

I'm the first to admit my own understanding of dasein, embedded in my signature threads...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

...is but another largely subjective "personal opinion" rooted existentially in dasein.

Besides, it's not like I'm here to point out any dire consequences for those who refuse to accept my own frame of mind. Let alone possessing the capacity to actually punish those who refuse to.

I can't imagine anything less fun that haggling with a person who's intransigently irrational, and lapses into concepts they don't even understand, over rational material, which they can see but refuse to consider.

On the other hand, after assuring us that I am one these intransigently irrational folks, here you are exchanging posts with me again.

So I just feel my job is done with that. Carry on as you see fit. It doesn't change my world whether you consider it or not.

Not to worry. A "condition" or not, I have little or no doubt that you will take Jesus Christ, the capitalist, to the grave with you.

Let's get back around to this part:

As for Jesus speaking the truth, what actual historical and scientific proof is offered to us by Craig in those videos?

That's not the subject of all the videos. One day, you should watch them. Why not? You seem quite obsessed.

What are you talking about?! I have watched them. All 17 of them. Then I created a thread -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- to discuss them with you.

In fact, on page 2 after I reacted to all 17 videos, you posted this:

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes

That's it basically. And, on the contrary, I do not know the answer. In fact, even my very own conjectures here are no less rooted existentially in dasein, are no less fractured and fragmented.