im sorry to have dissapointed you

don't worry, you aren't harsh, and what you say is not offensive, we are only philosophizing.

You’ve at best described the placeholder word I referenced. “Faith” is indescribable and mysterious and subjective and beyond reason and understanding…well such a diluted word has no real meaning but to hold a place for the good reason (faith is not a good reason to believe in anything at all) that the persons just doesnt have. — DingoJones

Yes. You are very rational in saying faith holds the place of good reason. In my opinion, the word love holds the place for an unintelligible condition that is inexplicable, most analogously to how faith holds the place for any condition that is beyond understanding. We can analyze the meaning of the words, but we can never access the actuality of living under such a condition, except subjectively. Perhaps all subjectivity is delusional, yet love and faith are not important to the subject because of how they can be understood, but for their actuality. I guarantee that people will kill for love much faster than they will kill for faith if given the opportunity.

And of course none of that matters since regardless of how you describe faith my point still stands: its a garbage reason to believe anything, as was cleverly put by someone else as faith having “no quality control”. You can use it to defend any belief, even awful ones. Thats how feeble faith is as a metric fir believing in anything. — DingoJones

"No quality control." Now that is the greatest description of faith ive ever heard. Faith is also not quantitative, and for that reason, it is immune from all metrics that might validate any reason for any position. In fact, faith is solely concerned with the qualitative because the actuality of faith qualitatively changes the individual who believes by removing the concern for quality control which makes for "no quality control". Faith is extremely fatalistic and paradoxical despite the moral obligation to observe the demands of ones faith, and the demands of one's faith can often be radical and illogical, which can be of great offense to those of us trying to make sense of things.

Things have to make sense, otherwise no one knows what they are talking about and neither do they. — DingoJones

But faith only matters when things don't make sense. Think about how faith commonly comes into play when a person experiences a great misfortune or tragedy, something that cannot be explained (e.g. my baby died of cancer). This is because faith is a subjective condition, similar to love. It only exists in direct relation to the individual - qua. the way the individual relates directly to his own life/existence.

Faith is inexplicable because it is not an object, nor an object of knowledge, and it cannot be translated into objective terms without negating its essence. Any talk or explanation of faith is mere hypothesis and speculation, and a regress into understanding and reason, all one can do is point in its approximate direction. In the end, for the subject, the assumption of faith is as undeniable as the assumption of love.

what would an alternative to virtue-ethics look like? Can you give an example of a viably universal non-normative ethical system? I am seriously curious about this. It is a very interesting topic imo.

isn't that is why God is an object of faith? Understanding always has a bedrock

well stated. Literal interpretations are as lame as they come. The bible is not a history book, nor is it a math or science book. It is a religious book that should only and always be interpreted religiously. Too bad it is all so convoluted and confused. Yet, we can't blame anyone, religion is as difficult a topic as any, it is more abstract than math, more allegorical than literature, and the suspension of philosophy.

No matey, you're just confused. The word 'faith' has several different meanings. Delineate them. — Bartricks

What did I not delineate when I said, and I quote word for word:

I am talking about faith in the strict religious sense — Merkwurdichliebe

???

Perhaps English is not your first language, in that case I can forgive your very apparent selective stupidity.

Euthyphro is a perfect example of how reason destroys faith.

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd. For what one can know by faith one can, in principle, uncover by reason too. — Bartricks

I'll concede to everything you said about belief/faith in an intellectual sense, but I am talking about faith in the strict religious sense. And in that light, you don't have a clue my little puss-puss.

In the strict religious sense, Faith does not know shit, it does not understand shit, and it is completely content to wallow in absolute ignorance of shit. Faith stops at faith, unlike reason, which goes infinitely farther than faith. In fact, any and all acts of reason necessarily negate faith. Yes faith is negated by reason, do you understand what that means?

Everything exists in relation to other things, though. — Olivier5

If there are no absolutes in existence, then that statement is correct. But I'm not so sure that there are no absolutes in existence. Even on this thread, I have been arguing that there is no absolute good, but even then, I am only saying that about the good in the moral sense in which humans use it. I don't know whether or not good exists absolutely in some other sense.

And Maoist China. — Apollodorus

Definitely Mao. He might be the greatest genocidal maniac to ever take a shit. I think he took shits.

Looks like he may have known how to effectively use religion. No wonder he was successful. — praxis

And he is not the last person that knew how to effectively use religion to achieve success in the world.

You know, I might go so far as to argue: that to be successful in the world, it is best to avoid being religious, but to use religion to one's advantage whenever possible.

But the whole point of religion is having faith that one knows the will of God and is protected by this God as long as one does not do something that needs to be punished. Reason has nothing to do with it. — Athena

Faith is the basis of all religiousness, I agree. Yet, to relate oneself to God intellectually, such as presuming to know God's will, is directly and utterly opposed to faith. Why, you might ask? You already said it: "Reason has nothing to do with it." You know it - the powers of reason pertain exclusively to the intellect.

Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking is essential here. If what we believe is true is not the result of slow thinking, it has a high chance of being a false belief. — Athena

Mr. Kahneman sounds awefully Lockean. If I could speak with him, I would explain to him that not everything exists in the mind.

For example? — praxis

USSR and Napolean come to mind

What would it take for evil to be legitimately described as "absolute", in your opinion? — Olivier5

It would be absolute if it existed independently and not in relation to other things. As I told barstick, if something like eternal forms could be proven, then the concept of absolute evil would be definitely viable.

Moral awareness, and becoming an autonomous moral agent, isn't particularly related to theism. — jorndoe

This is a great point. I would add, that for the religiously inclined, moral awareness and the concept of becoming an autonomous moral agent is a prerequisite for religion and observing the demands of one's faith, but the connection ends there. Religion and morality are as comparable as ethics and art - and philosophy weaves its way through all three.

I read your post, don't I feel embarrassed. :rofl:

Yes. Morality is not a human construct. Some things are. My house, my trousers, my money. And some things aren't. Morality being one. — Bartricks

You must not believe in eternal forms, correct? I, personally, don't not believe in eternal forms. Therfore, if eternal forms is the case, and we can demonstrate its absolute certainty, then we should have no problem agreeing that morality is absolute. Good and evil would then be absolutely identifiable by every adquately eqiupped moral agent, with no disagreement, just like a table or house can correctly be identified by a child to its teacher, with no disagreement. I can accept that position. Unfortunately, when I look, I cannot see evidence of that in the world. Perhaps you have some examples to show me what I'm missing.

Jeez, why oh why don't they teach philosophy in schools?? You probably know another language and some algebra, but no philosophy, right? Unbelievable. Ethics is, by its very nature, the most important topic possible, yet they don't teach it in schools, with the result that it is only a tiny philosophical elite who know that morality is not a human construct (and we've known it for thousands of years). The rest of you are fated by your ghastly over-confidence and ignorance to spend the rest of your lives convinced - utterly convinced - that morality is a human construct on the basis of incompetent reasoning. I'd feel sorry for you if ignorance wasn't such a cozy blanket. — Bartricks

You've been alive for thousands of years?...cool!

Who is this ill-fated and overlyconfident ignorant "you" that you refer to? I thought I heard some whisperings of this group on a you tube clip of Fox News, but I paid it no mind. Are they the ones responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic?

Seriously! Who doesn't like cozy blankets?

Now I will enlighten you if you want, for I have gobs and gobs of expertise and I can assure you you're wrong about pretty much everything where morality is concerned. But it will be very unpleasant for you - you do realize this?

I agree that ethics is the most important topic possible, but I'm usually wrong, as you are so eloquently illustrating. After all you are the expert. By the way, I've been looking for an expert for the longest time, someone to teach me the truth... now that I have found you, I am very excited about what I'm about to learn about from you. Plus, I really don't realize how unpleasant it will be for me, so I am all in. You seem like you possess some knowledge that no one else possesses, and I mustneeds hear it pronto. Chop chop, no time to dilly-dally missy!

No evil people doing evil things? Just the boys being boys having some fun? Maybe some folks get hurt, but who cares? And anyway they're not important . And you're down with that, yes? No evil? — tim wood

I can handle evil people doing evil things. It is the good people doing evil things that breaks my lil ole hart.

Hurt? yes, some people say they care, others pretend to care, and a few probably do actually care, who knows. Yet, harm does not equate to evil without some decent rhetoric and a dash of bullshit. However, I never said morality was unimportant, and I'm not down with the notion that it is "unimportant", I'm simply approaching the topic extemporaneously.

I believe that human beings have every justification to identify and condemn those so called evils which are destructive towards relatively peaceful and harmonious coexistences between them. However, morality is still a human construct. At the level of the religious, there is, as Kierkegaard pointed out, a teleological suspension of the ethical, for no other reason than that the demands of one's faith are unconcerned with the humanly constucted ethical sphere of existence (nevertheless, I admit is a critical and infinitely important component of being human).

I'll bet you could do your own thought experiment in the privacy of your own mind that would convince you that evil is real and exists, and that in absolute terms.

Yes, but that still doesn't make evil absolute, objectively speaking, outside of the confines of my mind. For myself, I have the capacity to make anything absolute, whosoever has the authority to stop me? But to others, my "absolutes" will likely appear as complete bullshit (like most of what is posted on this forum :blush: ), because I, the subject who determines my own absolutes, I have no authority over the relativism of objectivity.

Is morality not a human construct? I've never seen evidence of its existence in nature, independent of human judgment. Perhaps you can enlighten me by pointing out something moral that is not based on a human jugdment. Then I might be able to see how morality is not a human construct. Until then, morality is clearly and irrevocably a human construct, as any intellect capable of thinking about it for more than five minutes would and should realize.

Purely? Relativistic? Human? FIrst: make your argument. Second: if true, then why even think in terms of omni-benevolence/omnipotence of God? — tim wood

1) make an argument. -check. (Do I need to define my terms? I figured they, were cut and dry.)

2) because humans have a relentless compulsion to think in terms of good and evil, and it's easy to justify one's own morality if one can affiliate it with some absolute criterion.

But the qualities of God surpass all human understanding, and ideas like omnipotence/omni-benevolence are weak attempts at comprehending the paradoxical and ineffable nature of God - it is merely humans projecting their own concepts of causation and morality onto something beyond their grasp. It is here, where the intellect fails, that faith becomes relevant for the believer. I would argue that until a religiously inclined person has resigned himself to pure faith, he is not a true believer, but a pagan.

morality is a human construct, good and evil are determined by purely relativistic human standards. There is nothing inherently or absolutely evil about genocide, only that we agree that it is evil, probably because we dislike something about it, or perhaps because we do not want to be criticized for holding a controversial position.

Interesting, the specimen devours its own feces.

As to "unprecedented territory," on the assumption that different territories may share some commonality, — tim wood

Unprecedented territory is a reference to ground that has never been covered and is unmapped. It would take the greatest of fools to assume one could navigate an unkown space by referring to apparent commonalities with previously known spaces.

By any reasonable comparison ours really is the best of all possible worlds, or at least of those already sampled. Can you say electricity, washing machine, microwave, supermarket, vaccinations? — tim wood

You said: "By any reasonable comparison ours really is the best of all possible worlds, or at least of those already sampled."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

-Of those already sampled from history: it is all garbage
-of those that are possible: you really believe that "ours really is the best of all possible worlds"? Really?

The naivete of a child is always charming. How old are you? Eight?

I appreciate the world and all it's wonders, but people...not so much. — Book273

I hate people. The concept of people is completely played out and lame. But nothing is more wonderful than the existing human beings that I encounter directly in life.

the race is in decline. Which is saying something as I did not have a high opinion of it prior to this. — Book273

We are on unprecedented territory. It is pretty bad. That is the topic.

But at least it sucks enough to seem mildly interesting, instead of outright horrifying, as it actually is.

I would just say that do notice that one really has to notice that not everything is a conspiracy theory, even if many things are. The thing is that if people have first trusted the authorities and then find them lying, there is this natural urge to dismiss everything they say or what is said later. Yet that's going a bit too far. The basic way is just a) to inform oneself and have a good general awareness of history, economics and politics prior for those issues become hot topics, b) look for various sources that aren't linked to each other and c) understand just what are the facts and what part is the interpretation of the facts, that can be biased by a political or other agenda. Most easiest way for c) is to listen directly what politicians and professionals themselves say, and not only refer to what some reporters says they said or did. Look how opposing sides comment the same issue and use your own thinking.

It's simply far too easy to get trapped in your own bubble now days. Those fucking algorithms are so hard to change when looking for information. If one bothers to look for that. Yet notice that these things are real. — ssu

That is good advice. Moderation is good in moderation. But history is too repetitive for me not to feel completely alienated from, and suspicious of anything that is proposed/advocated/mandated/&c. by government, business and media. Each has specific vested interests, the bottom line for each is power, money and influence, none of which take your or my well being into account. As far as they are concerned, you and I are here merely to concede, consume and conform. In it all, I see major problems which call for major change, and I feel excruciatingly novel thought is more effective than moderate thought at effecting such change.

And the pandemic has huge effects and is real, even if people can criticize of the effectiveness and reasonability of the taken policies against pandemic. The policy issue is totally different from the virus existing.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you! — ssu

I don't doubt the virus exists. It is policy issue (specifically in regard to the overexageration of the severity of the virus) that I have issue with. Of course, I know that I have less fear of sickness and death than most, which explains why I am so dismissive of all those people just falling in line with the policy. Yet I cannot help but notice that there is definitely an element of fascism involved in all the covid hysteria (you either fall in line or you are the enemy), and that is a giant red flag for me. In my study of history, I have seen the safe bet (of falling in line) turn into a nightmare one too many times for me to ever just fall in line because it is what is popular at the time. But that's just me, it's a terrible tragedy.

And merry Christmas to you! May we all be happy and healthy!

Actually God synthesized Covid to kill off the old as punishment for Brexit.

I liked your joke, don't worry about it. — Kenosha Kid

God is such a goofball.

Thanks.

I'm not sure why this stupid comment. If the data shows disproportionate deaths to a certain group, the risk factors (e.g. lack of access to health care, pre-existing poor health, genetic factors, occupations typical of the group, etc.) ought be assessed.

Your comment is in fact so non-responsive and such an obvious and poor attempt to inflame, I wonder if your presence in this discussion is in good faith at all. — Hanover

Sorry for that comment. It is obviously a ridiculous theory. It was actually a bad attempt at a good joke, meant to mock all the speculation over these statistics.

The advice is to sleep through it.

So I have that to look forward to. — frank

I love a good nap too.

A wild idea: governments would each agree to reduce military spending by half. In the US that would free up around $350B. Some good could be done with that! — tim wood

Ha!!!! Not a chance in hell.

Building WTC 7 you sheeple!!! — ssu

:rofl:

And btw, I remember very well on the old PF the 2003 invasion, the time of Freedom Fries. There were those who saw it as their duty to defend the invasion on PF, yet a lot of people here were totally against it. I made my mind when reading a small memoir of a Iraqi weapons inspector that convinced me the whole thing was bogus and that the war was quite similar to the Spanish-American war. Many people thought here that the US would fabricate the WMD's later, but no, who cares. — ssu

Damn, your old! Lol. Btw, french fries blow freedom fries away any day of the week.

Let me guess, that s.o.b. Scott Ritter got to you? Me too. After that fiasco, I adopted the law of contrary public opinion as a personal maxim. So then, you see why I am like I am with the covid hysteria?

Don't do it! . . . Nevermind, just do it

I found it interesting in the article, where it notes that covid is racist:

Deaths among white people in 2020 were just 11.9% higher than average years, a much lower increase than deaths among Latinx people (53.6% higher than average), Asian people (36.6% higher), Black people (32.9% higher), and American Indians and Alaska Natives (28.9% higher). “These disproportionate increases among certain racial and ethnic groups are consistent with noted disparities in Covid-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

My new theory: whites synthesized covid to kill off nonwhites.

Ignoring all subjective interpretation of cause of death, you're left with a huge spike in death. That correlation certainly ought raise eyebrows, especially since we have no other explanation for the spike and we do have on the ground accounts of covid-19 causing death.

We have a statistical anomaly showing a death spike and data supportive of what is causing it. What is your alternative theory explaining this spike? — Hanover

Great point. My opinion: such predictive data is unreliable when it comes to something as complex as national mortality rates. It is a fact that people believe what they want, and there is no difficulty in finding and interpreting data that will support one's position. For example, the article you provided admits of shortcomings in the research, saying:

But the 300,000 number probably also includes people who died because they were scared to seek out medical care because of the pandemic or had their care interrupted, and because of other causes. One limitation of the study, the researchers noted, was that the U.S. population is growing and getting older, so more deaths might have occurred in 2020 versus recent years without a pandemic, making a direct comparison harder.

Let that be my alternative theory. Let that count as some other explanation for a spike in deaths in 2020

I'd rather be alone on the way to hell. Ya know, mull things over, think about eternal torment without having to deal with anyone else's baggage. — frank

:rofl:

All I hear is a chorus of whining when I disagree with your bullshit. It verges on par with religious fanaticism. But that's what happens when slave morality meets free thought. I saw with the same nonsense when I opposed the Iraq war back in 02-03, (which people like you were on board with the entire way until it turned out to be bullshit). It is familiar territory for me. But keep with your group-think, at least you won't be alone on the road to hell.

Still, though, there's this: something with a mortality rate of around two percent has killed more people in less than one year than were killed in the US Army in all of WW2. Anything to that? Ya think? — tim wood

My cousin says covid has killed more Americans than all deaths in all wars combined. Must be true. :vomit:

Again, I'm supposed to just accept the numbers you regurgitate on covid mortality rates because you believe them? Sorry, I'm not the gullible chump you are looking for. I have substantial evidence that the numbers are being surreptitiously inflated, and good reason to reject the propaganda that you so zealously subscribe to.

Why do I get the feeling you disagree with me on the covid issue?

But you just tell us how it is, Merky. — ssu

I'm sorry, I cannot tell you how it is, I can only how it isn't.

And that something did hit us can be seen from the statistical difference: the mortality rate doesn't normally vary to nearly twice the number as in the earlier month on a national level. — ssu

Nice graph. Is that suppose to convince me? Even if i accept it at face value, a graph does not constitute evidence (such as covid causing a spike in death rates). You are giving it a groundless interpretation that supports your narrative. But it's ok, just keep believing what you are told if it makes you feel better.

The heterogeneous mortality effects of the COVID-19 pandemic reflect differences in how well countries have managed the pandemic and the resilience and preparedness of the health and social care system.

Is that so? Did you ever think that the heterogeneous mortality rates (caused by covid) are due to the various ways in which various countries report causes of death? Of course you haven't, you just accept what you are told and run with it.