To avoid dishonesty, both theists and atheists would have to admit "I don't know for sure," which is agnostic, or else lose credibility. — PoeticUniverse

That's not true for the pointed out reason.
You don't know if they don't know for sure.

To live good, you need to treat yourself good.
To treat yourself good, treat the world good.
Because the world is your home.

Kill and you'll live amongst corpses.
Raise people up, so that you might live amongst equals.

Personally I participate much less mostly because of the animosity that is quite prevalent — leo

That's quite ironic, considering you're called 'leo' and rarely seen.

Truth really is stranger, eh?

Enjoy and do whatever good you can. Complaining only adds to the turmoil.

To echo a certain quote:
"Get some self-respect you miserable sack of shit! Build a house a lady would set foot in!"

And that's what me and a friend are doing.
The house is our country and the lady is the kids - the people of tomorrow.
If everyone contributes bit by bit, changing isn't so miraculous - just work and patience.

Good work on figuring out quotes.

I forgot who's aphorism this is, but essentially:
Take full swigs when the bottle is full.
Sip moderately when it is at half, so it may last.
When almost empty there is nothing left to savour, so finish it at once.

So it looks like a solution on the forefront but it's really just a patch up, since the earth has been leeched off to the bottom of the bottle.

To develop - first and foremost, we would have to discard money and secrecy. With all the artificial barriers currently barring progress, you'll have to wait out total collapse i.e the dam has to break.

Think about how much better things would be if the oil scheme failed and water was entirely free. Just two little things, with huge ramifications.

Well put.

I think that if a patient is brain dead, they aren't necessarily dead - but if a brain transplant or some other form of brain vivification isn't applied within 24hrs you may as well pull the plug and let the patient go in peace.

For me, it should be obvious, death is about resting in peace. And obviously with this particular case, at first glance, the patient didn't go out peacefully.
But as aforementioned, there could be context through which the procedure would offer internal peace, despite contrary appearances.

And as you pointed out:

But "limitation of life-sustaining procedures" (barring force feeding, intubation and respirator use, resuscitation, etc.) are a far cry from a doctor, judge, nurse, or anyone else deciding to get the patient "out of their and our misery. — Bitter Crank

So we're kind of left with trusting or not, the deciding authorities, whether they're family or not.
And while sometimes such things are obviously rushed, other times they at least appear to be for the better.

May you answer the following:
Do you find the comatose to differ from the brain dead and by how much?
If you had to compare euthanasia vs suicide, outside of the obvious shift in responsibility, how do they differ?

Often I've heard of regret from suicide survivors, but none such from euthanasia survivors, if there are any.

Is democracy capable of changing the course of inevitable disaster? — Malcolm Parry

No. There's plenty of ecological protests to no avail.
As you pointed out, it's inevitable.

Is rationing a viable way forward? — Malcolm Parry

It's a way, just not forward.
It's a temporary solution like reducing the flow of blood to stall venom.

Is there any point to changing the way we act in the developed world — Malcolm Parry

Obviously, if you want to develop further.

Okay, if you don't have problem with the criticism of religion, what are we handling and how?

Point of fact, the crusades and inquisition were akin to viking raids. Kill and pillage.
They weren't religious.
They weren't christian.
They were political.
If they had a religion, it would be the religion of money.
And the religiom of money is something attributable to the Romans.

The Romans with all their Deus ex Machina are the then equivalent of atheists.
And they had a religious war with Christians, and lost.
How did Christians fight? The same way Socrates did - they died for their belief.

Let's not pretend like the so-called 'religious motives' aren't a false flag, abused today under the guise of 'freedom and democracy'.

I have no problem with criticism of religion. I don't even want there to be any official action against the worst perpetrators by the moderators. I just want to call them out on their misbehavior. — T Clark

All fine and dandy.
But why the thread? Was calling them out to the authorities not enough?

Maybe.

You have to ask: Qui bono?

The demented patient could've peacefully lived out the rest of her life in a ward. It might not have gotten anywhere near as bad as presumed.

And if it did - it's mainly the parents who would benefit from not having to take care of her. She would be a weight off their shoulders and maybe prior to dementia she thought about it and would rather be euthanised than become a burden.

@Wayfarer care to weigh in the karmic effects?

I personally don't have enough context to make a judgement that wouldn't be rash.

You either trust the parents' ability to evaluate her personality change, or you don't.

Either way, hope she's in a better place.

Euthanasia is homicide either way.

But more importantly, what if prior to the supposed dementia she said "No matter what I say, euthanise me"?

While I get the context - anti-religious is kind of an oxymoron. As religion is just a binding system of beliefs; meaning physics and chemistry and music are in essence religions.
And each one has its zealots. Really, just look at the fighting over Temple Mount - it's the same.

As to the issue posed, I agree that anti-religious posters being largely unfamiliar with the functions of what they criticise, perhaps unwittingly, often spout polemics and go on a tantrum.
And sometimes that may incite a standoff which degenerates the thread in question.

But I disagree with both of the proposed solutions.

Segregation is throwing out discussion in favour of a gang war.
Special treatment for 'theists' is also not a solution - they're not infants and if they're true 'theists' having their faith tested is not only natural, but a way to develop it. Your solution is essentially his, but one sided.

If folk overall would employ some patience and murmur less, maybe that'd be a step in the right direction.

Figure it out, buckaroo.

I already gave you a technological description, via a computer.

No spirit - can't do anything.
No mind - don't know anything.
No soul - no one to know or do anything.

And I'll reiterate my stance as concisely as I can:
Living beings are subject to attrition; they consume and produce friction which slowly whittles them away.
They are bound to earthly bodies that anchor them down.

Enlightened beings, as the name might suggest, are free from attrition and self-sustainable.
They are a Perpetuum Mobile, unbound, and don't whittle away.

So while souls by themselves are immortal, earth-bound souls are not.
Now based on your definition of human, you can choose whichever fits.

On a side note:
Based on that - do you now understand the ramifications of Free Energy?

There's constructive criticism and then there's whining.
And whining turns discussions in to gang wars.

You can work towards those things, but you might not be able to get the opportunities, you might not be able to afford the schooling required, you might not be able to support yourself while pursuing various things, you can't just on a whim decide that you want to do something and begin to do it (at least as an apprentice). — Terrapin Station

And there it is - the problem is funding, in other words money.

On a side note: I'm self-sufficient, currently working ten different things at once - so it technically is possible to do what you said, albeit rarely.

You're right about that.
But don't you think that's a basis for polemics?

Obviously he meant atheists prefer to spout polemics rather than explore the subject.

And like a fish on a hook, you became the example.

That's possible right now, and not to much benefit.

Anyone can work as a musician or writer, and even if they're good they can't guarantee profit.

If you want the public to tip you, you need to please them - and sometimes, if not most times, that means doing something other than what you want.

And while individuals strain themselves, corporations are largely exempt - treating people like cattle.

So you either enforce order or remove the middle man.

There's two ways to guarantee that.

1. People are evaluated and a job is selected for them - this is old enforced socialism

2. People willingly work what they're best at for the benefit of the community - i.e natural communism.

But you can't have 2 without abolishing money.

We have a word here that roughly translates to 'freedomness'.

To illustrate, freedomness to freedom is like poisonous mushrooms to edible ones.
A lookalike that preys on the inexperienced and unattentive.

Democracy being moreso bureaucratic than practical makes it freedomness, in my experience.

Addendum: For instance you have the rights to education and work - but that leaves out a lot of context.

Until recently practical skills were overlooked in favour of a degree.
And despite having an 'education', rather a degree - doesn't mean you're educated.

Most such rights are just filler.
Like the word 'populism'.

It is a conjectural belief that democracy would be a viable political system. I strongly suspect that it isn't. — alcontali

Isn't it segregating in a sense?
In an 'every man for himself' sense - where there's quorum rather than consensus.

But maybe that's the semblance of the current capitalistic democracy, in which case what would merely democracy be?

If "soul" and "mind" are identical — Daniel C

They are not.

A musical piece is soul.
Its tones are mind.
Its playing is spirit.

Well think of a camera taking a timelapse photo of a flower. The colors are changing but the object exists spatially in the same place? I'm on my phone so sorry for the crappy posts. — Wallows

Now think of that timelapse as a GIF and you'll see it's layered and not spatially the same.

If two objects occupy the same space, they meld - and become qualities of one object.

I can't convince you, if you can't convince yourself.

Maybe you've heard this one:

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."

The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."

To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."

To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"

To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?

Present a scenario that shows they can.

Four strokes as in four ones.
But four ones is not one four, due to the obvious notion that it's a single stroke.

I think the point trying to be made here is that a shared value does not denote that two things are identical, as obviously they have at least one differing quality.

Take a stick.
Snap it in half.
Is it the same?

There was a sequence of events that preceded and led to you — TheMadFool

Let me guess, it's my destiny.

But then destiny is self-caused, regardless if it has or doesn't have its own destiny.

Case closed.

If we can reject causation then we can admit freewill. — TheMadFool

You don't need to reject it.
Just accept self-caused causes.

Your main error is that you think that "2 + 2" is denoting two objects. — Zuhair

One object but two digits.

You can erase one digit and be left with an object here, but not with 4. Clearly there's a subtle difference, just as between soup and its components.

The current consistency of the human body is one part physical and three parts postphysical. If you look at it currently, the soul is not the totality of man.
A natural or earthly body is like a phone casing, while the spiritual body is RAM, Storage and Processor respectively.

The misinterpretation you're making is that the soul requires a body, when it is a body - in the sense of a body of water; a body in the sense of substance.

You could thus interpret the transition of man in to a spiritual body as the transition of data in to cloud storage. An imperishable persona without need for maintenance.

But do tell, if that is not a soul, what is a soul?

Do you know Latin?
If you don't I'd suggest Deutsch.

You can win all 99 by switching as well. — Michael

You got me there.

In any case, if you're feeling up to it we can continue this in private, lest this thread spiral out like the other two. I made my case in the addendum to my earlier post.

And the future is an external to mind abstract.

Hence present aspects and retrospection are their limit.

But you practically can, you can win all 99 by not switching.

Without the assumption that you chose wrong, the three doors are equiprobable - and staying or switching you would win 33 games anyway, by the posited logic.

If we simply choose one and reveal them all it's 1/3.
If we remove the dud from the equation, it should be obvious you're limited to two options and it's 1/2.
If we by condition of the dud, assume we chose wrong, then yes, you can skew the chances to 2/3.

You said they reject the external to mind. Aspects are the internal to mind, and retrospect is an aspect of the past.

But one door has zero probability and the remaining two are equiprobable.

In theory the chances are 50/50 from beginning to end as the revealed dud is nonfactor; it only appears to be 2/3 if you focus on the dud with the assumption that you chose wrong, if you assume you chose right vice versa.

In practice, you might not win one game by switching.

One door has zero chance and chances are split to 1/2.

Where's the indication that one door is more likely, assumptions that one chose wrong aside?

Again - why are you biasing in favour of one door?

The goat likewise raises the probability of door 1.