You're nothing but a troll behind an imaginary pulpit.

I'm well aware of the "happiest places to live" stats--the top positions belong to a few ethnically and religiously homogeneous nations.

We haven't begun a debate yet because in order to do so people have to define terms and conditions to avoid running around in semantic circles and getting caught up dispelling lies. You've lied about a few things and I called you on them, but you refuse to admit them and instead accuse me of "defending religion" while I'm doing no such thing.

You have presented no argument. There isn't yet anything to refute. All you've done is mock those who don't agree with your preaching and you've done it without any foundation.

I haven't presented a philosophy of any kind yet, I've merely tried to correct your errors. I'm still trying to get through the layers of dishonesty, prejudice, preaching and discrimination you're constructing around your viewpoint.

Please feel free to quote where I agreed with any religious doctrine. You've continually repeated this stuff about inquisition and jihad as though I've defended religion in some way and you have to inform me of its evil machinations.

You've been so defensive and so concerned about preaching the wonders of your religion that you're not even listening to what people are saying to you.

I didn't claim that all religions or any specific religion was inherently peaceful. I'm not particularly fond of religion. Most religion has inevitably led to conflict. Most religion has been justification for war and has contained principles that we in modern Western life find appalling. But most religions were not created in modern times, they were created in times when all the things you've mentioned above were aspects of everyday life for all humans. The only thing I'm defending or promoting in any way is a person's right to practice any religion that doesn't come into direct conflict with freedom and liberty.

A thousand years from now, people will look back and see a bunch of nonsense, but I don't think anyone will be shocked.

America isn't perfect, and I haven't claimed it to be, but it's the best system currently available.

As far as propagation, no one's conducting an "inquisition" in America.

Yes, there have been wars fought by Buddhists, but that wasn't my point. My point was to illustrate the absurdity of the OP's claims. Where is the "straw man" argument? I asked a few questions. For the OP to have mentioned "inquisition", he seems to be implying that a religious state is terrorizing the masses and torturing or killing anyone who opposes state religious doctrine.

To which conflict are you referring when you say "Christianity vs. Islam", and in what context, and where, and how is it being incited and by whom? And where is this Christian "war on women"?

Religion is a right because people are allowed to have thoughts and feelings. To remove the right to practice religion is to disallow thoughts and feelings. It is to disallow the spoken and written word. Tell me who gets to decide for all people what they should think and feel and where that road ends.

Politics falls within the realm of philosophy, as does religion. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be addressed philosophically. I'm saying that the OP isn't addressing them philosophically.

I didn't claim anarchism was any specific thing, but certain forms of it can be simplified to total individual autonomy. My point was not how I view anarchism but how the OP views Western society.

Since there was no philosophical position by the OP, I can't possibly be "straw manning" anything. I'm seeking clarification on some of things mentioned and presenting that other things mentioned are absurd. I'm pointing out that proselytization and blatant dishonesty shouldn't be equated with philosophy.

You seem to be making assumptions about me, misconstruing my comments and arguing points that I never claimed or agreed or disagreed with in the first place.

For someone who claims to hate BS you certainly spew a lot of it though. You still haven't responded to my queries into you having no idea what you're talking about concerning religion and doubling down on false quotes and lies about those who disagree with you.

You defend religions that are obviously and flagrantly homophobic and misogynous by getting a few example to the contrary and which I concede exist, just what a hypocrite does by not mentioning that they are just the few within the many.

As to your other requests, asked in an uncouth way. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That or you are deluded.
Then, as now, there is basically a religious test for your lying politicians.
I don't care how the religious sheeple believe.
Secularism just says to get your beliefs out of the public square where they do not belong as they create hate and violence.
Or hadn't you noticed? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

LOL.

Religions say kill them. It will teach them how to love.

You give value to that do you?

Religions have institutionalized homophobia and misogyny and a denial of equality to better than half the planet.

You go ahead and speak for it. I will not. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Gnostic Christianity. That is why they used the inquisitions on us.

They knew that our view of god was better and we had to die as they could not best our morals and ways of thinking. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Listen to yourself. Preach. Lie. Mock. Lie. Preach some more. Perhaps you should present even a shred of philosophy or substantiation that isn't about either yourself or your religion.

Is this a philosophy thread or a preach and spit venom thread?

I didn't defend a religion. You attacked religion with lies, I identified your dishonesty. The vast majority of religious people are not fundamentalists, which means there are billions of examples of people who have a lifestyle only moderately in touch with religion. There is nothing uncouth about calling someone on their ignorance and requesting evidence.

It so happens that all the straws you're now grasping at are lies too. If you're going to initiate controversial topics, at least be honest and genuine, otherwise you're trolling.

Inquisitions? What is this, the 12th century?

Jesus said go out and tell the world, and his close circle of followers determined that they should march headlong into persecution, prison or death to propagate the religion. Stop talking about Christianity as though you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about. You can't use out of context references or ignorance of the fundamentals of a specific religion as a premise for a discussion about all world religions.

Why don't you instead refer to instances of men being hauled off to prison because they refused to stop fervently proselytizing? Why don't you instead refer to where Jesus states that he is the only way to achieve salvation and that all other religions and their prophets are from the devil? Why don't you refer to statistics to demonstrate the popularity of the fundamentalism that you're implying exists within all religious minds? How many Christians openly identify as homophobic or misogynistic, or are you referring to the 10 people standing outside an abortion clinic or alongside a gay pride parade with picket signs?

There are women and gays in positions of authority in churches. Why would you omit this information from your post?

The US is the "least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth"? Have you lost your marbles?

What percentage of these religious populations actually hurls beliefs forcefully and habitually at those from other religions, or at anyone?

Where is the conflict, and what is the nature of the conflict? Are hordes of Christians fighting hordes of Buddhists in the streets of every city?

How can you reconcile your proposed violation of fundamental human rights with the law and the constitution?

Also, please reference global violent crime and terrorism statistics so that we can all have a gander at how anarchistic and violently out of control American citizens are by comparison to the rest of the world.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum.

In quantum physics, however, there are particles popping in and out of existence all the time. The famous outburst from Einstein about not playing dice with the universe is in relation to that. What causes these particles to pop in and out of existence? They seem to be exactly that, something out of nothing, then back to nothing. — Christoffer

Funnily enough, what that effectively suggests is that feasibly we're experiencing a "momentarily popped in" state within a "popping in and out of existence" overall dynamic.

This aligns, in its vast mysteriousness, with the proposal by certain physicists that there are countless "big bangs" happening continually throughout a broader reality beyond the edge of the universe. If I recall correctly, this is only a guess hazarded based on two dimensional images captured by some kind of (wave resonance?) imaging the name of which I don't even slightly remember.

But the notion is basically that these "big bangs" vary in magnitude and don't necessarily birth universes.

Yes, they do exist in the material world, or senses wouldn't be able to sense them. Symbols are just manipulations of material. Their conceptualization is processed, transmitted, received, memorized by way of chemical and energetic functions within physical locations--brains. That we perceive them as non-physical doesn't affect their being physical or not. Perception is also a physical and energetic exchange between the senses and the brain.

You offered unoriginal paradoxes based on contradictory assumptions.

For example, why would you say in one breath that nothing exists without a first cause, but in another breath that abstract symbols humans invented represent something infinite which can have no first cause?

It's actually a rationalized dismissal of the alleged relevance to my existence of sunlight being blown out of proportion 15,000 years ago.

Why are you compelled to throw your belief system and accompanying semantics around as though it's impossible to imagine that someone could excuse themselves from the ancient sun worship dinner table and go out for an I don't believe anything you're saying to me leisurely Sunday drive?

Your opinion doesn't determine my stance on cosmic anomalies.

Please accept my most humble apologies, you're right, there are four comments you copy/pasted from Wikipedia into threads started by other members, and none of them contained the words cause or effect.

Your explanation is based on a very specific assumption of conditions which are widely variable. I dismantled your airplane analogy already--every moment that injury or death are avoided is a moment closer to injury or death--each of us is at statistically increasing risk as time passes without incident. Every action brings us closer to innumerable forms of risk, and many of those risks are in some way interdependent.

Also, you can't flippantly apply an infinitesimal understanding of cause and effect to events in the universe and beyond it for which there's no method of quantitative or qualitative exploration apart from complex abstract symbolism which no one outside a small number of specialists understands.

You have been discussing nothing but "the axiom of cause and effect", you've just recently added the word "axiom" to the only thing you ever discuss.

I just explained that some humans travel despite understanding the risk while others don't. Some people won't even set foot on airport property while others enter a career as a pilot. Some people travel regardless of risk for various reasons they consider on some irrational level to outweigh it. Maybe they're more afraid of the prospect of dying of old age on their couch in front of a television than of dying in a horrible plane crash. A sense of adventure is enough to bring some people very close to death.

Either way, there are countless factors and variables behind the scenes from the surface we see all the way down to what even microscopy can't reveal. What is the cosmic crux you feel you've resolved in ten words after the human race sat scratching its heads for trillions of man/years in an absence of modern distractions?

Every time someone attempts a rational explanation for something that is infinitely inexplicable, the probability that they're wrong is infinite.

If someone "trusts" an airplane and its pilot and chance and all associated external factors with their life, then why does turbulence frighten them? That the last few planes didn't crash actually increases the odds that the current plane will crash. Probability is actually working against us every moment we avoid harm.

I'd say it's sheer stupidity that we "trust" airplanes, or any of our inventions, with our lives. We sacrifice our safety in many ways for the sake of strange new experiences. It's the high cost of being adventurous. We're at risk every moment of our lives, and we habitually increase the potential of that risk.

I'd appreciate an elaboration on how you connect the airplane analogy with the grand clockwork of the universe.

An online forum separates people in such a way that they can attack ideas without attacking each other personally. If attacks on ideas are taken personally, or intended personally, then they shouldn't be. But I think subjecting our ideas to harsh scrutiny is a good thing.

I'm not blind, and I'm not guessing. Guessing is when you say "hey, there's a thing that no one can see let's try to imagine what it might look like, I think it probably acts like this, etc". You're the one preaching belligerently and with prejudice against what you seem to perceive as "my kind".

You are presently doing everything you're accusing "modern atheists" of doing, literally all of your accusations can be attributed to you and your argument.

And hold on...you don't think belief has anything to do with a thread that is centred on a divide between those who "believe in gods" and those who "don't believe in gods"? Really?

I mean...really?

You're calling bullshit on what grounds, that you insist in present day upon using a definition from 600 BCE? Good call. Let's go back 3,000 years for all our definitions and see how rational things get around here. Let's ascribe godlessness, evil and stupidity to things we don't understand, like how someone could possibly live in absence of a very specific belief system while others insist on its Truth in the absence of evidence relying solely on faith as a guide.

The whole idea of faith, which is the basis for the religious experience, is that someone should strive to believe something that is contrary to what evidence in their environment indicates. It is a struggle to find meaning in the emptiness of being. It takes more effort to believe something that is not evident than to disbelieve it, which is the natural position to take and the reason there are fewer fundamentalists than moderates within any given religion. This is the reason someone would call religion a "hard and narrow path", because it involves a series of motivations to think and act in accordance with a desired Truth even though that desired Truth exists in perpetual doubt.

Religion is a reward system for someone's commitment to a belief in the unseen and actions in accordance with accompanying principles. Atheism is an absence of this commitment. The differences between "godless" and "doesn't believe" and "believes but won't admit it" is negligible and relies on the belief system of someone who is skeptical about atheism.

"Modern atheists" haven't "hijacked" anything, this is categorization--"groupthink". Someone who adopts the label "atheist" doesn't represent all renditions of atheist any more than someone who adopts the label "theist" represents all renditions of theist. "Modern atheists do this or that" is prejudice.

Well I guess I have to call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Straight out of the gate, you call bullshit, and then you back pedal.

Atheism is a descriptor--yes, it describes an absence of belief in gods, full stop. That its definition and context arise from "to not believe in gods" is as accurate a description of it as can be accomplished. I'm not making a suggestion, all I have to do is read words in a book called "the dictionary"--words which leave no room for interpretation or expansion.

The only motive I can see to avoid using such a descriptor is if someone lives among others who fasten extrapolations and embellishments to the meanings of words in order to focus large groups of people under a singular narrow lens. I would say descriptors are relatively important. For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation.

It's probably best to avoid moving semantic goal posts in order to make an irrational statement based on how something affects someone emotionally in a context of rational discourse. There are times I think to myself about a definition, "this could use a few adjustments", but then I realize I'm reading an excerpt from the Oxford dictionary, and the definition has been changed by someone who has emotional and political reasons for altering the meaning of something that was perfectly fine for the previous seventy years before they formed an opinion about it.

What's nonsense is that atheism has a rather elaborate philosophy and accompanying personality profile attached to it by non-atheists who then presume to tell an theist what they believe and do not believe.

My belief system doesn't entail someone else projecting their belief system onto me.

What are you talking about, I didn't come up with such a hypothesis or such a theory, so I can't take credit for that, and if I had it would have no direct relation to whether I believe in gods. Atheism is to not believe in gods, there's no other stipulation. The results of such a query on social media wouldn't surprise me because in order to be surprised you must first have an expectation based on a series of biases.

For example, if I walked out my front door and stepped onto the surface of the Moon, I'd be surprised because I expected something different based on the biases I formed from having stepped out onto the surface of Earth every other time.

I'd be rather surprised if I discovered it was completely impossible for atheists to argue with each other.

Early science was mysticism, of course we challenged mysticism, it couldn't be grounded on the scientific method, and it's become a little more difficult to contest scientific theories since those days. Science didn't just progress by overwriting bad ideas, it also progressed by maintaining what was sensibly and objectively evidenced and using it as a springboard into further knowledge. There's such a thing as being too open minded.

I've been down the rabbit hole, it eventually led me to a perception of reality that doesn't include the visions I saw.

Atheism includes no such stipulation.

Well, anglerfish are a species, aren't they, or did you imagine there was just one fish by itself down there?

So you're suggesting that I too should imagine things and then tell everyone they're real. Maybe you could come up with an example by way of which to demonstrate these phenomena.

At the expense of certain social circumstances, various sciences have brought us quite a long way toward understanding ourselves and our environment, and I'd hardly call it stagnation to make progress by contesting bad ideas.

I allow myself the idea at all times that if there were such people, then they'd be all over the place. They'd be commonplace and we wouldn't be having this conversation because no one would care enough to discuss it at any length. It's that these things don't exist that compels us to discuss them. We cling tenaciously to what ifs. Are you actually implying that someone's mind stagnates if they claim they don't believe in mythology and super powers?

Imagine if I was to believe and agree with everything I hear, surely my mind would blossom into a state of super-intelligence and I'd spend my days brilliantly shining and levitating while solving complex mathematical problems.

I mean, it sounds like that's what you're saying. I could be wrong. Perhaps you have evidence of this stuff, or perhaps you can explain how, if these phenomena are true to life, then why have we only ever seen phonies? I can't get over that suggestion (to my benefit):

May I suggest that, to your benefit, you allow yourself the idea that there might be such people, as opposed to letting your mind stagnate in to contentious rhetoric. — Shamshir

Thanks for adding some cheer to the thread. Isn't there a theme park theme song that urges everyone to believe in magic?

Anyone who claims to have super powers is either a liar, or they're suffering from delusions, and anyone who supports their claim is either a liar, or naïve, or much less likely suffering from the same delusions.

They're not broader though, they're narrower variations within a broader definition. Why are we arguing semantics?

No. It is possible to be vague by degrees, for example by being vague about certain details while clear about others within the context of a broad statement, or being vague in one's communication of the entire statement. How does this relate to anything?

Yes, I've heard of it, but I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate, you aren't saying anything about it.

I was referring to the flippancy and even the hint of pride with which some talk of "bringing down the white man", and the implication that the globe is oppressed by a white regime while globally whites are a minority. Funny how one can be so subtle in one's vitriol:

And we're just on the verge of big racial wars. Any majority wants to remain a majority. And any minority, wants to become a majority and will do a lot for this. We are on the verge of change, the "white world" is gradually ending — Geo

And a defense of Stalin by claiming "America this, America that" as if "America anything" excuses mass slaughter and flippant discarding of the lives of citizens and soldiers a nation's leader has a duty to protect, followed by justification or denial of communism's negative impact on humanity:

And why you think that communists always kill people without reason.

Why Americans essentially destroyed Indians? — Geo

And in the Soviet Union there was a war for ideology and why a war for ideology any worse than the war for the Territory, when the strong deprives the weak of his house. — Geo

And what is the fault of communism in the Second World War, except that the socialist Hitler hated it? — Geo

And an inability to conceptualize word definition:

Why is racism if it's true and I'm not talking bad about other races — Geo

And a clueless notion that Russia's attack on the West was simply an ideological war--while I was specifically addressing Stalin's slaughter of his own people, which was ignored or overlooked by this person:

And what wars in which the Soviet Union took part were not ideological? — Geo

Your motive is unclear and so is your question. You seem to be a troll.

Nice racism there man. Explain, what's the "white world" and how is it going to end? Are you talking about the multicultural world that treats all people as equals and gives all people equal opportunities?

Stalin was a worse enemy of the world than Hitler was, no one realized it at the time. He had killed far more people and his only intention during the war was to conquer Eastern Europe as a foothold for further aggression against Europe. Stalin made a pact, an alliance involving sharing Poland 50/50 with Germany. The only reason Russia eventually joined the allied forces was because Hitler was psychotic enough to attack it.

If you don't think slaughtering 20-40 million people is a fault, then that's on you. It's not something that requires convincing.

I'm not talking about a war for ideology, I'm talking about ruthless, psychotic dictatorship. Even at its most egregious, America didn't ruthlessly slaughter people by the 10's of millions.

Americans didn't destroy native Americans, disease accounted for much of the death toll, and much of it was accidental. There was a war for territory, which was commonplace from a few centuries ago back to the dawn of civilization. Why didn't you instead mention the hundreds of thousands of American lives sacrificed to end slavery? Why didn't you mention that slavery was commonplace in native American culture prior to Europeans setting foot here? Why didn't you mention that natives were living in continual war with each other prior to European settlement, and that lives were lost and territory was taken?

I get hundreds of millions from recorded history. The death count in Europe during WW2 just due to the war effort was at least 20 million. Stallion was responsible for between 20-40 million innocent deaths. Chairman Mao and successors, add another 80-100 million. Hitler's extermination camps, add another 12 million. I'm not sure how many Castro oversaw. Venezuela isn't doing very well these days.

The list goes on, there are more than just these deaths in Eastern Europe, and there are other countries not mentioned here where the state owns the means of production, look it up.

Communism and socialism are not only terrible economic models, they're angels of death, they sweep across nations murdering countless innocent civilians. This is a figure of speech and by no means intended to remove accountability from the sociopathic leadership that holds power under these circumstances. It is a system which invites the greatest evil we've ever seen into the hearts of men.

Take a look at how many combined innocent deaths have occurred under socialist and communist rule over the last century. While you're at it, take a look at what grounds were required to send someone to prison, where they would inevitably die a long drawn out death due to starvation, sickness or strenuous labour the likes of which you can't imagine if you need to ask this question.

Then why are borders at the forefront of more minds than those of which they're not?

AI doesn't exist and is very, very far off. Communism is never suitable for any society, neither is socialism. Look at the history of these and tell us how well it worked for the hundreds of millions of their victims.

The recipient of "brainwashing" brainwashes itself in weakness and vulnerability.

A man who identifies himself as something is still identified by his society, and the social identity is stronger than the self. No one intrinsically supersedes borders.

Self-actualization as in Jesus or Jann Arden, like in how to be successful class in high school? Passion is a drive toward something, a compulsion.