@ A man in search of answers:

Since there is no conclusive proof in favour or against existence of such a being, every answer to such a question is a personal opinion based on experience, world perspective and what we feel is most comforting. I can share my viewpoint with you.

Being a product of modern world I am an atheist, any pantheistic approach I could be associated with would be equally atheistic in theological sense, meaning not believing in any kind of being. Modern science, especially physics, shows us more and more how are we a product of accident, a realisation of a very small probability. On the other side of the spectrum we have religion, which responds not to conclusive proof or deductive reasoning, but rather demand for human pride and vanity. Throughout the ages we needed a reason, to exist, to be moral, to be important, more important than anything else. Religion fit that perfectly, could not be disproved, required faith which, on some level, meant taking some dogmats for granted. People need direction and religion gave it to them. In 20th century people got education on massive scale, that combined with popularisation of science put forward all the arguments, that would serve as proof our existence is nothing more than getting lucky, being in the universe with right laws of physics, being on the right planet and in the right time for life to exist. Personally I don't see any objective reason why should I believe in God. More than that, a God described as in Bible, Koran or any other major religion (with the exception of Buddhism), is not really coherent with the depiction of universe we see now, hence I chose to be an atheist.

When it comes to forgiveness, I can also share my viewpoint, but it's rather bleak. In my opinion if there is morality (whether it is objective or subjective is another part of a discussion) than conscience and guilt are the only immanent justuce measures we have. Being forgiven should relieve us of that burden which, in my opinion, is not only unjustified, but unjust. Good things do not cross out bad things and vice versa, I do believe if there is morality we are supposed to feel guilty and forgiveness is not something we should seek. Atonement is something completely different... In any case if you want some practical advise on forgiveness, start reading New Testament and join Christianity, one of my friends is a devoted Christian, but remains a smart guy and is the happiest guy I know.

If I ever join any church, it will be similar to Church of Dionysus project. In Poland some of my friends tried to register the Church of Dionysus, where drinking and partying would be a part or a religious custom. It may sound crazy, but it can be done in practise, not to mention how important that would be in a country where you cannot drink in public places...but you can participate in religious customs :)

I don't know if Aranka can grant forgiveness, I don't think anyone can or should have that kind of power.

@Naomi:

Pick for a slight advantage, maintain a small edge throughout first few turns, have an intel advantage, be very agressive.

Sze, you would be an amazing politician.

I don't know what I did to be mixed up in this thread and debate.....but seemingly some people seem to presume I would condone the stabbing of a guy.
Personally I would like to distance myself from such points of view.
Even though I find men can be quite annoying I would never go so far as stabbing them. Besides, where's the fun in that ?? It won't get your point across for in their minds they'll still keep thinking they're superior......

Public mockery and lack of sleeping chances would be a better way to get guys to reflect on their dubious morality and misplaced sense of superiority.
If only more women were so strict in the enforcement of the latter.......

Wait, woah woah hold up. Aranka youre saying youre against murder? =D

And you think women should punish men using sex? Sex isn't a weapon to be weilded by a person against another. That is the attitude of a rapist. Piggy judges you. For shame Aranka, for shame.

How is having no sex the attitude of a rapist ?

Sounds more like the attitude of a devout clergymen (quite rare), one of those rare ones who doesn't like being sucked by choir boys or molesting them, with their celibacy.

Somebody used my cheat code :(

This is like watching two dogs bark at each other :(

~Piggy

Thank you Swez for your enlighting answer to my question. ( Also I did not stab a man for anyone that cannot understand sarcasm)

Szew, can you please explain evolution as you would to someone who doesn't believe in it? i'm trying to explain it but it's a little hard.
a good example i think is breeding, since it's very visible, for example the dog in the above picture.

Sze, why don't you challenge gnuff, beat him, and become the 1v1 Champion forever?

Szeweningen, it seems I have a lot of similar opinions to you, having learnt a lot about the Austrian school a few years ago I now see myself as somewhat of a consequentialist market advocate.

I believe that ideology is the downfall of civilised man and a person's ideology is the only reason why they wouldn't be utterly convinced by the superiority of the natural market process. Despite what I feel is a moderately solid understanding of economics, formulating this and providing people of varying ideological backgrounds with convincing arguments is extremely challenging. In your experience, what specific arguments have you made that you've had a reasonably decent degree of success with?

@ Warlightvet:

I don't think I am in a position to explain evolution since I have no background in evolutionary biology except for very basic high school courses, which count for nothing. Yet my advice would be to first ask yourself why someone does not believe in evolution, which nowadays is just a scientific fact, not an opinion. I cannot think of reasons that are non-theological, on the scientific field there is no dispute, if someone understands what genes and mutations are alongside with knowledge about extensive archeological and anthropological proof he has to agree with evolution. I myself have not known anyone who did not believe in evolution, but on the other hand I am not going around asking people abuot it constantly... In any case I don't think breeding is a good example since it does not really explain what evolution is about. The problem with evolution is that its consequences cannot be observed in one lifetime, thus making it hard to keep track of without very dedicated studies. If it was me I'd try the educational approach by explaining dna and genes impact on human development finishing with modern studies that show, that if you had changed less than 5% of your dna you'd be a dolphin. If someone responds that the earth is 6000 years old... well, I really do not know that to do about this :) I think it'll boil down to the level of devotion one has for his/hers religious beliefs, because i don't see anything else holding someone back from understanding basic concepts of science.

@ Qi:

I've been trying to make a date with piggy for almost a month now, atm I have no time nor motivation required to make/take challenges.

@ PROGAMER:

Every economic discussion is a very subtle thing, it is very easy to transform it into a meaningless brawl, I have seen it happen on multiple occasions. I'll partition my answer into 2 parts, first explaining why some people do not believe in the superiority of market proces, then I'll move to how to debate in economics, which is especially important if you have an austrian background like me.

It is true that empty ideology is the #1 enemy of the free market, but it is not always the case. People sometimes make a misatribution mistake, by which I mean blaming free market for somehing that was not its fault to begin with and truth be told without context it is relatively hard to distuinguish one from the other, last financial crisis is a prime example where people blame deregulation most of the time not knowing the structural source of the problem. Also considering maintream methodology, it is no surprisse people want exemplification of market failure/success and they point to scandinavian countries as an example of "good socialism" while presenting african countries as a source of "market failure" (the latter actually has some point to it). So basically the things you have to be aware of are misatribution and lack of context, which are imo the 2 biggest mistakes people make while formulating arguments. Of course it can be said about any discussion, but considering the nature of an economic debate it is especially true when you discuss economy/politics.

Now keeping in mind wgat I said about misatribution and lack of context you already should know how to formulate solid and convincing arguments, it all boils down to objectivity and precision. Austrian economists fed by their methodology have a degree of objectivity, but what they lack among many things is precision, that is exactly why austrian economy is not considered mainstream, which basically makes most austrians something I'd call "hipsters of the economy". A very good example is the theorem of reswitching which was a mainstream critique to the term "roundaboutness" used quite often. Even by how it is formulated you can instinctively see there is at least some lack of precision in it, but the problem with austrians was that they made consecutively the same mistake, they wanted to be methodologically pure while formulating non-precise terms. And here is where the problem in communications lies, the names austrians and mainstream uses sound the same, but are not the same. For example interest rate, in mainstream it is used in models in so many different contexts there should be at least 5 different definitions, while austrian definition is so abstract it is borderline not possible to observe in real life (see the problems with trying to make an empirical validation of austrian business cycle theory?). In any case I advise to do what I do, I study both austrian school and mainstream extensively but I try to use mainstream language to explain economic phenomena, just be aware that some austrian terms may have a horrible lack of precision, sometimes it is not needed, but more often than not without precise arguments you will not win your audience over, especially if they do not know what you're talking about beforehand. So to sum up, I'd try to advise joining my long-term project of translating and enriching austrian ideas into mainstream language, not only it is good from the point of view of an average listener, during preparation you will always find another angle you should have analysed a certain phenomena before.

Tlast financial crisis is a prime example where people blame deregulation most of the time not knowing the structural source of the problem.

I'd be really interested in what a contemporary austrian would identify as the structual source of the problem and how he or she argues for it. If you or anyone could provide me with a relatively layman-friendly yet thorough source that would be cool (blog entry, JSTOR, springerlink, what have you - as long as it's not an entire monograph).

Austrian economists fed by their methodology have a degree of objectivity, but what they lack among many things is precision[...] the problem with austrians was that they made consecutively the same mistake, they wanted to be methodologically pure while formulating non-precise terms. [...]For example interest rate, in mainstream it is used in models in so many different contexts there should be at least 5 different definitions, while austrian definition is so abstract it is borderline not possible to observe in real life (see the problems with trying to make an empirical validation of austrian business cycle theory?).

So praxeologists are the scholastics of social science then? :P