that's not true at all, i kept replying because i wanted to see if she could legitimately debunk what i put forward

its like when i've had conversations with you and asked you how you plan to bring in a communist utopia without a government... i'm asking because i legitimately want to know how you think it can be done and i haven't received an answer yet lol

if you want to try to debunk anything i've said, you are free to do so

yes i agree with you, but there are many people that accept it as gospel because they trust the source of information, often without understanding the information themselves

I'm not a Utopian socialist though, nor do I reject the existence of a form of government (that'd be virtually impossible). I am anti-statist though.

you said you are for a classless society without hierarchy, you don't get anymore utopian(and counter human nature) than that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism

I am not a utopian socialist. And there'd obviously still be problems in said theoretical society, the goal isn't to create a perfect world, it's to create a better world.

You are completely clueless about science, the scientific method and how a model is built. - That's the only reply I can give that useless statement of yours.

It is not the same thing written on a napkin.

You have provided zero evidence to substantiate any of your claims in the history of this thread.

I think it is safe to say, that I am right and you are wrong until you make the effort to do so.

No. Stop with your rubbish goal post shifting. - I answered a question. The question was... "Did I stutter and say there was no difference?"

Because they did. You have only provided your own baseless opinion.
I don't have a faith-based system, I require evidence... And thus I will not take the claims of some random person on the Internet that I have never and will never meet at face value because... I am not gullible.

All science is up for debate. It's what science is about.
But that wasn't what I was asking.

You disbelieve in many aspects of science. - You don't believe in the scientific process and belittle it at every chance you get, well guess what? The smartest minds in all of human history back the scientific method because it works, people that are smarter than you.
Fact is, you are anti-science... Do you know who else is anti-science? People who don't believe that man ever went to the moon. (There is evidence for that.) - Or people who believe the Earth is Flat (Because the Bible says so.) - Or people who believe that Vaccines are toxic. (Despite eliminating entire diseases.)

That is the kind of people you are being lumped in with.

I wasn't being immature, I was being brutally honest.

...Are you serious?
Your suggestion is batshit crazy.

The laws of Physics represent the sum of all our knowledge in regards to the natural world. - It is backed by mathematics, science, working models, repeatable tests and intimate studies. - And you want to toss it away because you disagree with it?

We know enough to understand your line of thinking, you have been clear in your reasoning.

  

if as you said yourself your society has a government putting the rules in place... do you at least concede that it would be a two class society?

the class that puts the rules in place and enforces them and everyone else stuck at one level with "equal" status?

another thing is why are you so averse to hierarchies?

Well, hopefully everyone who is affected by the decisions would be part of the decision-making process if they desire, to eliminate the existence of the two classes. I am averse to hierarchies because people who have power tend to abuse their power one way or another.

"You are completely clueless about science, the scientific method and how a model is built. - That's the only reply I can give that useless statement of yours."

that's an improvement... you spent the last few replies posting evidence that you claimed showed scientists have modeled a singularity

"It is not the same thing written on a napkin."

you're done denying that you read an article despite claiming you did?

"You have provided zero evidence to substantiate any of your claims in the history of this thread."

lol this is ironic given the context

"No. Stop with your rubbish goal post shifting. - I answered a question."

you claimed initially that atheists countries have a record of advancing human rights and claimed that you have examples... 

"All science is up for debate. It's what science is about."

your previous reply claimed that i am anti science for saying that some aspects of evolution can be debated... wtf lmao

"Because they did. You have only provided your own baseless opinion.

I don't have a faith-based system, I require evidence..."

so here you are again claiming that you have links that verify that scientists have modeled singularities again

"You disbelieve in many aspects of science. - You don't believe in the scientific process and belittle it at every chance you get"

can you name the aspects of science that i do not believe in?

i do believe in the scientific process and have already posted in this thread that i think its the best tool we have for evaluating the universe

"The laws of Physics represent the sum of all our knowledge in regards to the natural world. - It is backed by mathematics, science, working models, repeatable tests and intimate studies. - And you want to toss it away because you disagree with it?"

lmao singularities break the laws of physics that's what i was referring to

"We know enough to understand your line of thinking"

if you believe so

"I am averse to hierarchies because people who have power tend to abuse their power one way or another."

there's truth to this, but that's a one-sided way of looking at it

people who work hard and move themselves up the different hierarchies do at times abuse the people below them in the hierarchy in terms of low pay in work environments, abuse, sexual abuse etc etc etc

but they also through their efforts advance civilisation forwards by innovating to develop new technology among other things

the first personal computers if i remember correctly were made by a guy in his garage who had the idea of making computers accessible for all and over time he worked at his idea and worked at it and he gave a great contribution to society... enriching his personal life obviously but also the lives of those around him and as a result conditions for everyone improved

he was able to achieve this because he had the freedom to step outside of the status quo and go about things differently and obviously a large incentive for people to take the risks required is that they'll be able to move up the hierarchy through their efforts in terms of their social status, finances etc etc etc

the problem with what you are proposing is that you take away the incentive of moving up the hierarchies of social status, finance etc so there's less of a reason to work hard and in such a system since things are more rigid people have less freedom to innovate and come up with new ways of doing things

there's loads of other problems with it but the stifling of innovation i think is a massive problem

there's also that people are so unbelievably diverse that you'd never be able to completely stamp out hierarchies... how do you address for example differences in intelligence? in attractiveness? in strength? in anxiety? and on and on and on its impossible since all of these qualities individually create their own hierarchy and they are interrelated in different ways

i think the proper path is to accept that inequality is an inherent aspect of being a person in society and the best society is one which gives everyone freedom to at least have a chance at advancing as far as they are capable, while accepting that things cannot be made perfect and some people will unfortunately have things harder than others