A bullet in one´s head is not a symptom, but a cause of death.
HIV is not a symptom, but the cause of AIDS. If you die from AIDS; AIDS is the cause of your death.
et cetera…
There´s no need for anything supernatural to explain this stuff.
“No, I wouldn’t, because you would not have to make cancer a hypothetical disease, it - unfortunately - is a very real one.”
Once again, you have missed the point. I am talking about the comparison of a real situation to a hypothetical situation. The hypothetical situation in that analogy was that you have cancer and it is of no relevance to my reasoning that cancer is a real disease. If it helps, here is that analogy again, but this time with a fake disease. If you had a cold and I said ‘well if you had a hypothetical disease that does not exist but would make you very sick and possibly kill you, it would be worse’, would you respond with ‘no it wouldn’t because that is a hypothetical, whereas I really do have a cold’?
"don’t think God, even if he sends you to hell (…), he won’t be as cruel as the ones who slaughtered people in the camps.
You are free to think that, based on your hypothesis of an existing hell, “eternal life” in hell would be worse. But even if I believed in hell, this does not automatically mean that I believe it to be the worst thing that could happen to me. And I don’t think you’ll find many believers agreeing in all details about what hell is supposed to be about."
So you argue against the severity of my hypothetical situation by changing the situation. I don’t think I can explain more clearly the hypothetical situation that I am saying would be worse than the holocaust. I have been vague about what exactly happens in hell so it is not necessary that believes agree in all details about what happens in hell, all that is necessary is that people are tortured for eternity, and this is a hell that many believers believe in. Do you think that the hypothetical situation that I have mentioned, and not the one you changed it to in your last post, is worse than the holocaust?
“To me the holocaust was hell on earth”
Sure, but not in the way I defined ‘hell’ in my previous posts.
“It does - No, it doesn’t - YES, it does - NOOO, it doesn’t …= don’t we sound like little kids sometimes ;-). Still enjoyed the discussion, though.”
I think that is fine. These topics are difficult and it is to be expected that it will take many posts before we can agree on anything, if we ever agree on anything. I don’t understand why people give up and conclude that there is nothing left to be said so quickly in these sorts of discussions. In physics, arguments of this sort will go on for years. People certainly don’t decide to give up and decide it is useless after a few thousand words.
@Paule
Es sind Symptomen der sündhaften Natur des Menschen - darauf will ich hinaus.
But hey, we’re never going to agree. It’s cool 
“But hey, we’re never going to agree. It’s cool ;-)”
Well, at least you´re not saying that raping little girls will make them go to heaven…so yeah, it´s cool^^
ad Colin: (…) …In physics, arguments of this sort will go on for years. People certainly don’t decide to give up and decide it is useless after a few thousand words. (…)
I think the stakes involved are different ones. If I talked to you about language-related issues concerning my work, I might be going even into more details than I did here. Although I think I have written maaaaaaaany words - some most likely would say too many already.
I think you are more used to these hypothetical discussions - maybe also thanks to your scientific background - than I am.
I’m actually a rather plain person. I have my views which are based on the things I hear, read, see and gather from discussions with other people. But if I find that I cannot follow the line of argumentation of people or if I feel we are going in circles, I personally think it is best to agree on disagreeing.
If it were a question that would concern me more directly, I probably would try to continue to make my point in case I saw any benefit in it. I normally don’t involve in completely hypothetical discussions whose outcome does not really have much relevance for my real life. I’m probably not philosophical enough for that.
Whether people think there is a hell or not, does not have any impact on my life as long as they don’t try to create hell on earth for me.
I do discuss topics that are not directly related to my own life, of course, because I’m also interested in what makes people’s minds work but when I think I have said all I wanted or needed to say I don’t feel like repeating myself like a jukebox playing a broken record.
As I said, even if I were to accept your hypothetical concept of hell, my answer would remain the same. Maybe my answer would be different if I were a believer. But why should hell, if it existed, be such a terrible thing for somebody who does not believe in its existence. If I understood you correctly, your hypothesis was always based on the assumption that there is a hell and NOT on the assumption that there is a hell AND I believe in its existence. In that case my answer would have been different.
I do concede, however, that I might not be able to clearly and completely grasp all your thoughts in English.
“I do concede, however, that I might not be able to clearly and completely grasp all your thoughts in English.”
Take a chill pill Robert!^^
You speak English at a higher level than many native speakers, well…as far as I can tell.
your empty New-Age jargon is really tiring. People who truly gained insight into the wonders of the universe are the Einsteins, Newtons, Darwins, Watsons and Cricks. Every time you board a plane, get into a car or use all the other amenities technology provides us with you should know that these are the fruits of the scientific method, the only method we know of to gain true knowledge about us and the universe we live in.
Your problem ist that you have spent your entire life with your head jammed right down into the smelly human vomit-bag that is science. That is, of course, your right, but it isn’t for you to call other peoples’ beliefs “empty”.
@Robert.at
Of course we are not employed full time to solve these problems, so we are not going to spend years debating one subject. My point is really just that people on internet forums get so frustrated and impatient when they have been discussing something for a few pages and still have not come to agreement. However, there is no reason why people should come to an agreement about a difficult topic in such a short time. When they don’t, it doesn’t mean they are not getting anywhere or that they will never agree on the things they disagree about. I don’t think we should argue for very long on one topic, but only because I run out of stamina quite quickly.
“As I said, even if I were to accept your hypothetical concept of hell, my answer would remain the same. Maybe my answer would be different if I were a believer. But why should hell, if it existed, be such a terrible thing for somebody who does not believe in its existence. If I understood you correctly, your hypothesis was always based on the assumption that there is a hell and NOT on the assumption that there is a hell AND I believe in its existence. In that case my answer would have been different.”
You don’t have to accept my hypothetical concept of hell at all, nor should being a believer make a difference. My argument was not based on any assumptions about there being or not being a hell, nor on any assumptions about what you believe. Unless you want to discuss this more, I will leave it at that.
@ spritsmugler
“the smelly human vomit-bag that is science”
Wow. I have never understood your attitude towards science.
@Colin
That comment was a little (how shall we say?) ‘flamboyant’ - but I enjoyed making it immensely. 
(I have a vivid picture in my mind of Friedemann, groping around and trying to find his car keys with a big brown bag right down over his face, while muttering his latest calculations to crack the deeper existential problems of life.)
@kimojima: “…Nearly every scientist is concerned about one thing: explaining what is “out there”…”
According to Friedemann, they are more concerned with making cars and aircraft work properly! (And it strikes me that they don’t always make a terribly good job of that…)
‘’…the smelly human vomit-bag that is science’’
Jay, just wondering, were you bullied at school by a sadistic chemistry teacher or something?
ad Colin: (…) Unless you want to discuss this more, I will leave it at that. (…)
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. And I admit I find this a bit frustrating since you keep telling me that I am missing the point of what you are trying to tell me. This is not the first thread where I find your line of argumentation difficult to follow.
Either it is your way of thinking that I don’t get or I really have a linguistic problem here. You say one thing, I say another thing. We don’t seem to get through to each other.
We didn’t even reach the point where we actually discussed the actual topic since you kept sending me back to base one
I’m sure we’ll do better next time though.
ad Paul: Thanks for your compliment. Don’t worry, I’m totally cool about not understanding everything people write in this forum. I’m happy with my level of English but I do realize that I sometimes might miss a point due to linguistic problems. I even misunderstand and misinterpret people in my own native tongue ;-).
Of course, it could also be that they are the ones contradicting themselves over and over again.
“Don’t worry, I’m totally cool about not understanding everything people write in this forum.”
Just like Robert, I also understand everything people write in this forum.
(p.s. There is a joke in my previous post. I feel I should point it out, since I understand that jokes don’t exist in German grammar and so a lot of people might not get it.)
@Jamie: “…Jay, just wondering, were you bullied at school by a sadistic chemistry teacher or something?..”
As a matter of fact I wasn’t. However, the guy who taught me Physics and Chemistry at school was, let’s say, ‘unusual’:
The funny thing is, he never once tried to put a finger on me. Perhaps because I am 6’3" and built like a truck? Or maybe he just wasn’t that in to me? Who knows.
(I had a massive teenage crush on another Chemistry teacher though - she had truly enormous breasts! :-P’)
ad Jay: (…) Perhaps because I am 6’3" and built like a truck? (…)
Gosh, I’d better be really nice to you from now on. I’m a dwarf compared to you and while you seem to be a truck, I’m probably more like a tricycle (but a pretty sturdy one). And we all know what trucks do to tricycles ---- they run them over…cccrrrkkkk
(…) …she had truly enormous breasts! 
(…)
Ah, you womanizers. Why are you guys so obsessed with size?
What ever happened to “small is beautiful”? Now, don’t you jump to any conclusions, my friend…
ad Colin: (…) …I feel I should point it out, since I understand that jokes don’t exist in German grammar and so a lot of people might not get it (…)
German grammar is fine, the people are the problem
ad Jay: I just had a look at the first link you posted.
There is one sentence that - linguistically speaking - struck me: …indecently assaulting young boys …
How do you assault someone in a “decent way”?
P. S. Was that guy really your teacher?
@Robert: “…Ah, you womanizers. Why are you guys so obsessed with size? ;-)…”
In fairness it should be remembered that I was 14 or 15 at the time and fizzing with testosterone. By the time I turned 20, I started to see things differently; then I was attracted to (almost literally) all women - tall, short, skinny, plump, big, small…
[…]
EDIT for taste and decency