rationalskepticism.org

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

james wrote:
I am sorry but your response here is utterly inappropriate as a response to the OP
For the dummies in the room the OP included a line bolded in red which subsequently stated

So now this creates a space for the idealist to meet the physicalist cordially over a coffee and
create World Peace without any mention of God or physicalism

You propose a ridiculous reason as to why there is no world peace yet my response is deemed utterly inappropriate
World peace has never existed for as long as civilisation has existed but you think you have discovered the answer
Any chance of it being tested in the real world to see how effective it might be otherwise it is just empty rhetoric

James doesn't start from 'the real world'. That in itself doesn't blunt your criticism of his proposal, but it does point to why you and he might end up talking past each other. We will always be talking past anyone else in conversation when we have little or no interest in what somebody else is saying, and stick to reiterating our own views without incorporating any sense of why we might be disagreeing with somebody else. I just want to offer you a sense that you're not alone with the problem of making inappropriate responses to what someone else has said.

That said, "world peace" is a curious concept, when you think about it. You would be wise to ask where we even got the idea in the first place.

Your neighbor may be pissed that the leaves from your tree always end up in his lawn. You have a choice here. Kill him or clean up your leaves. Talking to him turns out to be a good solution if it is followed up by you taking some agreed upon action. It's not rocket science Cito. We get this world peace idea from our interactions with our neighbors.