Ah, right. My mistake.
So what is the difference between formal connotations and personal connotations that are pertinent here?
If its just a matter if of justifying to others or justifying to yourself then what I said still applies, the metric of justification doesnt change.

Im not sure why a personal belief would be any different. Seems like we might have different ideas of “belief”, could you tell me what you mean exactly by making the distinction between “belief” and “personal belief”?

You only have to justify your beliefs if you want them to be taken seriously. If they cannot be justified you can’t be surprised when they are dismissed by others.
The metric for what is justified is varied, but generally the metric will be what others are willing to accept. Generally reason and logic are accepted by other humans but some humans have a very low bar for justification (like “faith”) or very high bar (a skeptic or scientist).

Well my point was about complexity and detail not necessarily the indiscernibility between reality and a sim but yes its quite possible it makes no difference. I would say however you that it could, depending on the nature of the sim. If we have a Matrix situation then there are ways of telling the difference, and the difference between sim and reality would be whether or not the human race has been transformed into batteries by robots, that breaking free of the sims is means of survival etc, just as an example.
Also the complexity and detail could be just as rich but there could still be telltale signs of the sim, like everyone is a cartoon or some other obvious sign.
Have you seen the movie “Ready Player One”?

In general, even most wars where religion was heavily involved were primarily to build empires — T Clark

That's true but you can have religious empires so the question is where to draw the line between the empire building and the religion as the source.
I think its a worthwhile distinction to make.
Also I think whats really being referenced on the “religion as source” side is just an example of human nature, specifically the tribalism of which religion is an extension of. I think its tempting to blame religion because it’s such a good example of what dumb apes get up to in groups but its really about the sociological burdens evolution equipped human beings with.

I'm a brain in a skull in a body in a social ecosystem in a natural ecosystem in a planetary biosphere ... Too much unnecessary detail for a sim. — 180 Proof

Spot on. This world is just too generously rich in infinite details and complexity to qualify as a simulation. — Olivier5

Unnecessary detail and complexity are not really indicators that this isnt a sim, a sufficiently sophisticated sim would have both those things. I think its tempting to think those are indicators of not being in a sim because it’s hard to imagine a sim that isnt flawed in these ways given the existing flawed “sims” with current technology. In principal though, I din’t think its impossible for a sim to be just as rich or richer in complexity or detail than “reality”

Ok, I understand, thanks.

BTW, thanks for pointing out that "loved" and "beloved" are synonyms. It looks like the dictionary now agrees with you. I don't know how you managed to persuade them to change their definition, but well done.

loved (comparative more loved, superlative most loved) 1. Being the object of love
Synonyms See Thesaurus: beloved

loved – Wiktionary — Apollodorus

Oops, you forgot to include the whole definition. You are referencing the adjective use, I the verb. So that distinction seems to have caused a miscommunication.
If you look at the quotation for the definition of “loved” as an adjective it references its use in psych/self help books. Is that the way you intend on using the term here? As used in the psych/self help sense of the words?

The dishonesty is entirely yours. Though, quite possibly, you aren't aware of it. — Apollodorus

In what way am I being dishonest? If I am mistaken in my view that you are being dishonest then thats a mistake not dishonesty. (Though if you are confused by that distinction it becomes easier to understand why you can’t sense your own dishonesty.)
Anyway, what did I do that was dishonest?

In relation to the passages under discussion, there is no difference whatsoever between "loved" and "beloved". — Apollodorus

Yes there is a difference, if you use the dictionary definition of “loved” it doesnt in any way support your argument. Exactly why you chose to smuggle in a new word, “beloved”, which does support your argument.
Why didnt you quote the dictionary definition of “loved” instead of “beloved” if there is no difference whatsoever?.

Ok, so when you swap out “loved” for “beloved”, thats the dishonest part.
Why would you do that except that the dictionary definition of “beloved” suits your argument where the dictionary definition of “loved” does not? It seems you are doing it because your argument doesn't work with the definition of “loved” so you just used a different word that does help your argument…you pretend that “loved” and “beloved” are interchangeable when you know very well they have different dictionary definitions. That is a deception, dishonesty.
If it isn’t dishonesty then please share your reason for using the dictionary definition of “beloved” instead of “loved”, since “loved” is the word being discussed.

I find it fascinating that someones mind can just slip past something like that, and Im compelled to inquire so I can understand better when my own mind might be doing something like that. Its kind of terrifying to me honestly, he doesnt seem to realize he is doing it. I dislike the idea of not knowing my own mind in that way.

Whether or not he complained is not relevant to whether or not you were being dishonest.
Do you recognize that what you did is dishonest? Or at least recognize that it could come across that way? Please answer that question, it is direct and simple.

Do you not realize that you are being dishonest here, or at least that what you’ve posted could seem like dishonesty?
The salient word is “loved”, and you introduce “beloved” as an equal term and then lo and behold you post the dictionary definition of “beloved” as if that in any way supported what you are saying about “loved”. Do you know what I mean? You muscled in a dictionary definition that suits your argument. Why didnt you post the dictionary definition of “loved”? I googled it after I read your post…it really wouldnt help your case would it? So you ignored it and instead found a word that would.
Thats a sneaky, dishonest way to engage with someone, and I’m wondering if its so sneaky you din’t even know you're doing it.

Edited for clarity

I wasnt joking, not really. There is more and more research and knowledge about psychedelics and there uses. Treatment for PTSD chief among them.
We are also learning more about addiction and its relation to drugs.
I just think people generally lack perspective, and get locked into one way of thinking , a little understanding goes a long way and psychedelics or a nig bag of weed can help with that.

Force feed a pile of magic mushrooms to the worlds leaders and elite classes. The problems will resolve. :wink:

:100:

I think he just has a personality disorder and doesnt really know anything. Standard internet jerkoff.

…you might be right. I feel like I only do that about people who have shown themselves to be the degree of prick not deserving of courtesy but you’re right its pretty petty. I should re-evaluate my actions, thanks for pointing that out.

It should be lol
You can see it coming a good ways off.

He had that suicide by mod vibe.

Thats fair. I dont take many things seriously, life is a tragic comedy.
Anyway, you can not be taking me seriously and still be honest. You aren’t being honest, thats a choice you are making. Even if you just insulted and mocked me that would be preferable to dishonesty. Dishonesty is poison to discourse, you the poisoner.

And what's even worse, is that I'm the only fucking around jerk on the forum!!! Shame, shame, controversy, food fight, M E L O D R A M A!!!!!! — Foghorn

Exactly as I said:

You’re a self declared asshole who wears his inconsistency like a badge of honour, who cares what you think of anyone? Or anything? — DingoJones

We find agreement! Yes, all the other threads contain insulting snooty comments too, often by the mods . Yes, this is the Internet. Not a philosophy forum. — Foghorn

Exactly as I said:

Thats the difference between you and I, I’m engaging honestly and you engage in service of your bruised feelings, mental masterbation and ego. — DingoJones

This is a philosophy forum is on the internet, and you know that but pretended that you didnt so you could make a dig about this forum. Thats dishonest.

This is hilarious!!!! Thank you so much, I literally just broke out in laughter. I see a big career in stand up comedy in your future... — Foghorn

And this little gem wasnt on my list but Ill address it anyway.
This is an ad hom, you take a cheap shot rather than engage with the specific criticisms I made.

Your response to the criticisms was to immediately display the accuracy of those criticisms.
Pretty weak, and its kinda sad that I’m funnier not trying to be than you are with your best effort. You’re welcome for the laugh, maybe take some notes.

You’re a self declared asshole who wears his inconsistency like a badge of honour, who cares what you think of anyone? Or anything?
You excluded your opinion from consideration when you confessed to purposely acting like a jerk and fucking around.
The reason why this thread exists is precisely to have a place where the mods can explain bannings and discussions can take place around reasons for doing so. If the comments are insulting or snooty then that is perfectly in line with all the other threads and comments. This is the internet…people talk shit. Thats not a mod trait or a thread trait thats a human trait.
You’re just making it about the mods and quality of character of posters because you were scolded early on for your own posting quality. That is a particularly petty projection on your part, and obvious.

I didnt make a claim of my authority on philosophical value, you made that up. All I did was make a judgement about someone elses philosophical contributions, which is what we all do here when we engage and what you are doing right now. (Passing judgement on the philosophical value of mod posts)
Do you know why I didnt call you out for claiming authority on philosophical value even though I could have used the same semantic strawmans you did? Intellectual honesty. Thats the difference between you and I, I’m engaging honestly and you engage in service of your bruised feelings, mental masterbation and ego.

Lol, you did. Repeat this mantra “Bartricks believes in squared circles”.

Lol, it was a good call. The language barrier helped disguise the lack of philosophical value I think. Even ignoring the grammar and structure the ideas being expressed were wanting, and delivered in an obnoxious evasiveness.
Don’t give up until you take care of Bartricks. Then you may lay down your sword

The point I was trying to make is that even if you haven’t gone through a logical process to arrive at atheism logic is still present in the sense that your lack of belief adheres to the basic principals of logic such as non-contradiction and excluded middle.

I don’t think so. I’m starting at a position of non-belief prior to even hearing any of the arguments. It’s the position of ignorance, which seems to necessarily be the default position, since one can’t start at a position of knowledge. Right? — Pinprick

I wouldn't say ignorance is a “position” you have. To me “position” implies a transition from ignorance perhaps, but it doesnt seem like “I don’t know” is really a position/stance/belief. How would I have a position about something I had no knowledge of.

Logic is strictly applied only to arguments. What argument is being presented when you simply find theism’s argument unconvincing? — Pinprick

Ah I see what you are saying now. I wouldn't restrict logic for only arguments, in my view logic is a broader concept that just happens to be present in argumentation.
If you are defining logic only as it is used as part of argumentation then I think what you are saying follows from that. With no argument present no logic could be present.

You would still be applying logic to arrive at your position of non-belief right? It is logical to withhold belief in the absence of evidence.
I don’t see why logic wouldn't be applicable.

Ya was very disappointed in you myself. He’s well fed and he won’t go away if people keep feeding him.

Its not one particular god an atheist for which they lack belief, its all of them. Not Zeus, not Odin, not Ra, not Yaweh…none of them. Not mother nature, not Giaea, not the combined love of all mankind or universal mystery. All colourful flights of fancy the atheist does not believe in.
Asking an atheist to define the god they do not believe in is like asking someone who doesnt watch TV which shows they don’t watch on TV. None, they don’t watch TV.

Lol, we are having way too much fun at his expense. Its not mean if its accurate…right?

:lol:

So accurate.

Having a debate about what so many atheists are not philosophically inclined and can't really justify their atheism might be a more rewarding line to follow. — Tom Storm

Because atheists are people and most people can’t really justify their positions.
Well stated post btw.

Well you gave him the rope I suppose.

I think there were parameters about his role we aren’t privy to, limiting his responses.
The interesting part to me is how people like Amen cannot recognize how disingenuine they are being, blind to their dishonest engagement. What do you call that, and what do you say to them? Trying to help them see it is just seen as an attack, a mean angry atheist attack that…I don’t know I guess they feel justified acting like cunts in return?
Does Amen really think he acted fairly and in good faith in that? Its just so hard for me to believe he does yet its just as hard for me to believe someone would be so committed to trolling or-messing around.
Religion right? Straight up mind poison.

Its pretty bizzare that he could conclude “we’ve” conceded to an even score based on whats in that thread. Private messages maybe?
Originally he said he won by TKO which is even more preposterous. His last comment was vomit inducing. Just gross.

You don’t have to worry about flaming people, the mods will give you a warning about any problematic behaviour except in the most egregious cases.
Almost every time someone is banned its because they were warned about something and continued doing it snyway.
This site is pretty good about any flaming and insults, people get away with alot and judging by your example I would say you have nothing to worry about.

Just a thought experiment, to each their own if you do not enjoy them.
The purpose of the question was to get a sense of peoples opinion on what extreme action they think one side or the other would take if they could.

I made no assertion of it being helpful.
So you would say that if either or got the magic button they would genocide the other side? They would both kill every man, woman and child on the other side?

Ok, looks like its done for. Short and worthless to all us spectators.

So lets take a poll, maybe a mod could make one in the OP of this thread.

Who won the debate? Sound off everyone.

My take is Amen didn’t show up to the debate. Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate. That's what it looked like to me.
As I predicted, condescending and disingenuous was met with short patience and dismissal. Same old shit.
I was so hoping that we could get an honest discussion from Amen but we did not. He did declare himself the winner though which was pretty funny. Im sure we will be hearing about how it wasnt fair and 180 was the one who didnt show up and how atheist should try and calm down and think rationally and blah blah blah.