dimreepr

Nope.

When one thinks one knows, understanding is not to be trusted and belief takes over.

Nope, the disconnect is belief.

That only works when there's a disconnect between knowledge and understanding.

Touche.

are they cogent? Sorry, that seems harsh but I have to ask "what questions"?

That's why I don't report them, they're generally just confused. And it's quite funny.

As some members have pointed out the ultimate demarcation point is the individual but I don't think that answer is valid. Not only does it stop a reasonable philosophical question in its tracks but I don't think it's true; we're a social animal amongst many others as moony pointed out. It's clearly on a spectrum. My local village, for instance, competed in many ways with our neighbouring villages, as did my local town, county, region etc. But there's no meaningful cultural difference, if we take out the 'artificial' polarizing factors (yes I know), but I think a simplified question may be interesting to explore. But language is far too near the upper extreme on the spectrum; England, America, Australia, Canada etc... I sorta know what you mean, the closest I got was reading Les Miserables - Victor Hugo, two books in one, the story and a biography of the culture. Highly recommended and without spoilers.

Thank you Gees, what a lovely insult.

They just add flavour.

I'm simply trying to suggest that neither extreme makes sense and that you and raider are equally welcome to your warm and cozy moments and that neither of you actually needs a god, to do so, either way.

"You're conflating politics with atheism, the other extreme conflates politics with theism. However, you're extreme is more ignorant." This was my reply to Shauno (I think that's the spelling) a rampant theist, please don't be the other extreme, not as ignorant but... You must know that pedophilia exists outside of a religious setting, a gymnastics coach for instance. Don't condemn Raider and his fellows for believing in Jesus (his/her name may/may not be Jesus but someone clearly started it) and getting a warm fuzzy feeling, since I'm sure they'd be happy to accept, you don't. A classic case of trying to justify a belief you can't explain, by accusing others of having the same/similar belief. In the playground it goes something like this "I know I am but what are you ".

Is it? Understanding shows why dividing by zero is futile.

Can science never be a religion in your understanding of religion? TBH I'd like to think you're correct, but science depends on the understanding of knowledge/data; is it really such a stretch that a break between the two could create a religion?

And mine, religions didn't invent stabbing.

Stabbing people leads to guns/cars/internet/washing machines etc... Does that mean stabbing people is not so bad?

At what point do our cultures differ?

Indeed, much like all polarised political arguments, the OP may as well have asked 'would the world be better a better place without humans?' a much simpler question to which the answer is, yes if your not human and no if you are.

Cultures evolve, the stone-age didn't end because we ran out of stones. Yet they persist and continue to emerge, despite the ignorance of those who hate "them".

And there's a line.

Then why did you ask me to?

I have. You first.

I disagree, I can laugh at the video I presented because of the method of delivery, whereas I can't imagine a method of delivery that would make me laugh if the described rape is cruel, brutal and lethal. There is always a line, we may not be able to pinpoint it, but it's there.

Yes, the human race. We can't f*&^ chimps.

Turns out we can...