"Morality" not "mortality". Predictive text wants to mess this up.

I'll not finished talking. The above is just where I'm coming from. You've already rejected meaning and morality when you need to search for some ultimate grounding to "make it real for you". Cart before horse.

You like Jeff Buckley?

"I can't help from looking outside for a guarantee
I can't help from looking outside for a guarantee
I can't help from looking outside for a guarantee
I can't help from looking outside for a guarantee
I can't help from looking outside for a guarantee
I can't help from looking outside for a guarantee
I can't help from looking outside for a guarantee
For a guarantee."

So, I was wrong, it's not merely intellectual feebleness to posit an afterlife, it's intellectual and moral feebleness to do so.

Life is a good in itself, dude, as is moral behavior. What's nihilistic is to reject life because you can't have more. In this case, infinitely more. Or to reject moral behavior because there is no ultimate reward.

You don't own life. — neonspectraltoast

What are you replying to?

No, you work out which part of your post is nonsense. It's not worth my time.

Your question is based on a false premise and just isn't worth answering. Really, read what you wrote. Think about it.

No, it's the imaginatively disabled that see the distinction between the imagination and reality as somehow an unacceptable limit. Those of us who embrace the imagination, artistically and otherwise, find life enough.

Bunch of non-sequiturs and red herrings.

Here's the claim: There is no evidence for an afterlife.

Here's the way to refute it: Show me the evidence.

It's what @180 Proof said. When people talk of an afterlife, what they are describing is more life, only incoherent, magical life, the only basis of which is the imagination. (Real) life is this. Look around. Unreal/imaginary life is what is left when you exclude this. And the afterlife is one of many imaginaries. To say personal experience is evidence for it (as per @Sam26) is no more coherent than saying my memory of my dream is evidence my dream really happened. Of course, it's trivially easy to refute the reality of a dream when anyone can attest to you lying in bed when it allegedly occurred. But those claiming NDEs suggest an afterlife inure themselves from this criticism by creating a fantastic reality to which the only possible witnesses are precisely those who cannot possibly be witness to anything, i.e. the dead. Nice racket. So, it's merely intellectual feebleness to posit an afterlife, but it's intellectual dishonesty to pretend there is any evidence for it.

Practice doing nothing. When you get that right, move on to the next thing. There's your Zen moment for the day.

I was just about to say that :nerd:

Get money out of politics and edit the Senate out of your constitution. You might have a chance then.

As I said I don't care a jot what you call yourself.

It's not so much the President that's the problem. You could elect Karl Marx president and it wouldn't make a huge difference.

[Cross posted.]

I guess you're American and afraid of the word "atheism" because, well, America. Even, I, being Irish, feel a twinge. But it ain't nothin' scary really.

I don't care what you call yourself or whether someone calls me agnostic, atheist, non-theist etc because of the fact that I don't believe in gods. I don't see what substantial difference it makes. I'm just explaining the meaning of words and drawing logical conclusions, one, a very obvious one, which is that being an atheist does not necessarily entail having an ideology. It could, if you were also an anti-theist, but it's not part of what defines atheism. That's just reality.

If you're looking for an ideological version of atheism, try anti-theism.

Note that even if I have one apple, I still don't have a basket. Either way, your claim fails.

It's simple logic, a lack of a belief is not a belief in the same way a lack of an apple is not an apple. And an ideology is a system of beliefs, so requires multiple beliefs. So, think of an ideology as being like a basket of apples. I tell you I have no apples and you tell me I therefore have a basket of apples. That's how wrong you are.

:yawn:

"Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

https://www.google.com/search?q=atheism&oq=atheism&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3j69i60.2443j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

That makes no difference. A belief system is a network of beliefs. You qualify as an atheist both if you lack any belief concerning gods or with the following one belief, "gods don't exist". One belief is not a network of beliefs, so one belief is not an ideology. It's simple English.

Obama was a corporate tool and continued Bush's warmongering foreign policy. Street is right about Carter too. There is zero racial context to that. I mean you think we don't like Trump because he's orange?

I've said it before, but you are as misguided about Dems as Repubs are about Trump. The Dems and the Repubs are competing vendors in a political market where the product is political favors and the customers are monied interests. Obama previously won this competition for corporate money, hence his two election victories. Now the Repubs are back in the mix. The most egregious examples of this competition being the bailouts. Because Obama was cool and charming and had the Dem label plastered on his butt changes none of that.

How far back do we have to go to find a president who was not a war criminal? — Banno

Hoover.

"Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism ."

https://www.learnreligions.com/atheism-and-anti-theism-248322

I mentioned that it is one of many. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Which is wrong. It is not one at all.



Learn what words mean. You are both embarrassing yourselves.

but it most assuredly is a "belief system". — Frank Apisa

No, it's not. See above.

There are many. Here is one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRtJPSmI9pY — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That's a Christian church with a controversial minister. Don't spread bullshit.

What else do atheists follow if not their ideology? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Atheism is the lack of a (religious) ideology It's there in the name. A (not) theism (religion). You qualify as an atheist simply by not believing in a god or gods.

To spell it out: An ideology is: "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

https://www.google.com/search?q=ideology&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE831IE831&oq=ideology&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.1671j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So, as the lack of one idea (a belief in God) qualifies you as an atheist, an ideology (a system of ideas and ideals) is not a necessary condition for atheism. Therefore, atheism is not an ideology.

If you think it is, you simply don't understand what words mean.

Hey why not. Glad to see you in happy mode.

Did you start this thread just so you could get away with more pork pics? :brow:

Nice critique. I'd put it that the actual self (Self) is just (?) a conglemeration of physical and mental drives and capacities, and instantiations thereof, such as thoughts, moods, and behaviours, with any more or less temporally stable subset of the above being what we refer to as a personality. And the self-reflexive mode of the personality then being the folk sense of self, or ego etc. And it's that on which theories like Maslow's self-actualization rest. So, it's scientific clothes obscure ideological underpinnings. It's not just that the theory presumes a false premise (folk self = Self), but that it aims to recreate the basis of the false premise: Those who seek self-actualization are those strongly reinforcing the folk notion of self. So, the theory functions as a mechanism (one of many) for social reproduction. And that hints at the missing piece in the puzzle of the first sentence

"the actual self is "just" a conglemeration of physical and mental drives and capacities, and instantiations thereof, such as thoughts, moods, and behaviours"

None of which is coherent except in a socio-linguistic context, which is a social super-organism that like its physical counterparts blindly acts to reproduce itself, and needs folk selves to do so.

Of course, you need to play the game anyway, just with an eye to its absurdity. You can never be "the actual self" because it is exactly that which lies outside the bounds of the type of localized coherence which forms your folk self. True actualization would be a form of insanity, a separation from mother social super-organism. Just the opposite to fake Maslow self-actualization (a marrying to one of its narrow instantiations—your dream "role", whatever).

Was a sadist and would therefore be voting to end the lockdown now so he could enjoy the additional deaths that would cause. What's the right wing of the Repub party's excuse?

As I was saying, this is the way we'll be going.

"Poland’s borders will remain closed until at least May 3, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Thursday.
Morawiecki said Poland would start easing some coronavirus restrictions from April 20.
Poles will also have to cover their noses and mouths in public until a coronavirus vaccine is found, health minister Lukasz Szumowski announced."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/apr/16/coronavirus-live-news-cases-worldwide-top-2-million-trump-doubts-china-death-toll?page=with:block-5e98b0658f0895d83068f7ca#block-5e98b0658f0895d83068f7ca

Exactly right. This is why I never listen to my doctor and instead get my medical advice from Judge Judy. That's to say, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. The medical and scientific community have made some mistakes, but you can safely presume politicians and pundits are more likely to intentionally mislead us than eggheads dragged from their labs and papers to deal with real life.

You have a king now. You don't need a constitution.

So, is Trump the helpless victim of China and the WHO here or is he the strong leader with total authority? It seems you're just going to keep playing whichever card suits your spin. I mean, I just don't know why you would think that's convincing.

As I understand some areas, like Seattle, have priced some employees out of jobs. — Hanover

The unemployment rate (until the crisis) in Seattle was 3.3%. That's what's known as full employment.

In Mississippi, on the other hand, the figure is 5.4%. Guess what? Mississippi has the joint-lowest state minimum wage in the country. You can repeat that for Pennsylvania, Louisiana etc.

Your argument is just without foundation. A higher minimum wage does not lead to more unemployment. Period. Part of the reason it doesn't is because more people have more money to spend on shit. And when you're on minimum wage, you spend what you have. Which is good for business.

https://www.google.com/search?q=seattle+unemployment+rate&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE831IE831&oq=seattle+unemployment+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.4326j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=pennsylvania+unemployment+rate&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE831IE831&oq=pennsylvania+unemployment+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.5901j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That is, I don't [want to opportunistically pretend] see this crisis as [is] evidence that we've been doing things all wrong and we need non-crisis times to be different now — Hanover

Hey, do something original dude. What am I, your guru?

That is, I don't [want to] see this crisis as evidence that we've been doing things all wrong and we need non-crisis times to be different now — Hanover

There, fixed it for you.