This isn't the Alex Jones Youtube channel, it's a philosophy forum, and it's this kind of low quality thoughtless statement that makes people put you on their ignore list. — Baden

Right, it's a philosophy forum, where we're supposed to respect each other, and yet you hypocritically proceeds to insult others and accuse their ideas to be "low quality" and "thoughtless" because they don't agree with you. Then you'll start complaining "Argh Agustino, he's so nasty" - but I'd merely be responding in the same tone that you respond.

Let's presume you really believe that most of what news outlets such as CNN report has "nothing to do with reality" and is creating a "fantasy world". — Baden

Yes, however, you're too categorical and literalist in reading what I said. What I said can be translated in more accurate terms as most of what the media reports is false - say 90% false and 10% true.

These journalists didn't learn to report news at their colleges and universities, they just sit at home making stuff up, or what? — Baden

No I didn't say this. I said they falsify the news that they report by exaggerating them, reframing them, and so forth.

If your answer is "yes" to these questions, then guess what, this is not "fake news", CNN is reporting reality. — Baden

No they're not, because they're reframing those events howsoever they want. There are no context-less facts.

They are not just making things up and "creating a fantasy word" — Baden

Yes they are. Take the travel ban on what was it, 7 countries or so, which was immediately framed as a Muslim ban. That's fake news. There was no Muslim ban.

People can be - and are - ethical without believing in God — aletheist

I would claim that this is impossible. Firstly, I think belief comes in degrees - and secondly people can believe something without even being intellectually aware that they believe it, because again, belief is about actions. They may have the wrong notion of God and so forth, and claim they don't believe, and yet, they act for the most part like someone who believes in God. I would say that to a certain degree - in-so-far as they act rightly - they too believe in God, however unaware they are of it.

People can be - and are - unethical despite believing in God. — aletheist

Since beliefs are habits/actions, then they don't actually believe in God. The Pope actually made some interesting remarks recently saying it's better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Catholic - intimating to the same idea, that one doesn't actually believe if they can repeat such and such phrases with their mouth. Believing entails acting in such and such a way.

Most people are just not wired to approach issues in the way that we typically have in mind when we call it "philosophical thinking." — aletheist

Sure - but people like us are :P

Paul warned against being taken captive by "philosophy and empty deceit." — aletheist

Yes - I read this as grounding belief in God in actions, and not in philosophy (words and professed beliefs).

Only the Word and the Spirit can do the real work of changing hearts and minds. — aletheist

I agree with this.

Apologetics is not about convincing people to believe in God, it is about preparing Christians to be ready to give an answer - if and when someone asks for the reason why they believe what they do — aletheist

But here is the crux of the matter. If someone asks them why they believe in God, and they say so and so argument because they have been taught about it AFTER they already believed in God, then they have provided a fake reason. They don't really believe in God because of that argument (regardless of how good or brilliant the argument is) - it wasn't the argument that brought them to God. When someone asks you "Why do you believe in God?" - they are asking you what brought you to believe in God, what grounds that belief. So when they give the argument, they actually obscure - even in their own minds - what actually brought them to God - which was the primordial experience which grounds that belief.

Like most reasonings, they are more effective after someone already believes the conclusion, by serving as a way to reinforce that belief and/or explain it to someone else. — aletheist

For me, I found that what reinforces the belief is remembrance of whatever combination of experiences and happenings brought you to belief in God. Reasons given after the fact seem vain and empty to my ears - like a form of self-deception, because I know that I haven't come to the belief in God through them, regardless of how good they are. In these matters I lean less on the rationalists - and more on certain personal experiences - I think the mystics of the Christian tradition are closer to the heart of religious belief than the theologians on this issue.

Anyway - for me, most people around me are not believers, so I've encountered a lot of refusal/mockery of the Biblical teaching - especially of its moral teachings. In a way this has made me realise that not a lot is in our power - especially when not aided by a like-minded community. So I personally don't believe in the effectiveness of "arguments" for God, since for me, they haven't worked much in convincing people, whether they are the arguments of Aquinas, or pretty much any other theologian. Indeed, in those few cases where I've seen people get closer to Christianity it was personal experiences that brought them there.

Arguably, belief in God is a metaphysical commitment — aletheist

It is possible to consider it so, but for me, it's more an ethical commitment. Keeping the commandments of God (duty), love and community. It would be a metaphysical commitment too, except that my take is that we don't know - except by analogy to earthly things - what the metaphysical statements of Scriptures mean. For example - I believe in an afterlife as preached through the Bible, but I cannot specify what it would be like except vaguely and metaphorically - I cannot form any clear and crisp picture of it in my mind.

I engage in philosophy for self-enrichment, but theism is part of my core identity. — aletheist

So do you mean to say that you holding to theism is ultimately independent of your philosophical commitments? That would be similar to me if so.

Not sure what you mean by "connection" here — aletheist

It's the same as I asked above - do you think there is a necessary link between philosophical/metaphysical commitments and theism, or can one be a theist pretty much regardless of their other philosophical commitments if, say, they believe in the message of the Bible and the centrality of Jesus Christ, along with doing the Will of the Father as much as possible in their day to day lives?

Not really, since I believe that even my own belief in God is itself a supernatural gift from Him, so I am content to leave it in His infinitely capable hands — aletheist

Personally I can sympathise with this view. I think belief in God is the result of an experience (call it grace if you want) which is supra-rational, and cannot be conveyed to another by mere words - it's something that must be experienced personally. But obviously this entails that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to bring someone to God by yourself - through your own work - it will ultimately have to be God who brings them.

I am really just affirming a central tenet of pragmaticism - a belief just is a habit of feeling, action, or thought; nothing more, nothing less. In other words, what we actually believe is manifested in what we do, not in what we claim to believe. "Actions speak louder than words," as the saying goes. — aletheist

Okay, I see, yes I can agree with that.

Any honest Christian can relate to that. We all too often do things that we know are wrong, and thus contrary to our professed beliefs. We typically rationalize doing those things before, during, and after the commission of the acts. As Paul says at the end of the passage, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" — aletheist

Yes, which means that our beliefs in those particular cases are merely professed - since as you have stated before, they haven't yet become proper beliefs - habits/actions.

Personally I think "post-truth", quite ironically, doesn't even refer to Trump, but rather to the media itself. The media is post-truth - what they report - most of them - has nothing to do with reality, it's like the media has created a fantasy world that people live in. I think the danger is that the rate at which false information spreads is accelerating compared to the rate at which true information spreads - and so, while it looks like we're becoming freer and have access to more and more true information, in practice it is quite the opposite.

But of course, if you're one of those people who listens to CNN, and who is glued to the narrative advocated by the liberal-progressive-hedonistic establishment of the media, Hollywood and Academia, you'll probably disagree with me, for the simple reason that you take your sources - the aforementioned organisations - as speaking the truth to you. I don't. So no point telling me what the media says to prove that what the media says is true - that would be quite circular, and I can care less.

I am a theist — aletheist

Interesting. I'm a theist as well, but I've always found it hard to stake belief in God on metaphysical commitments. I mean, what do you do if one of your central metaphysical commitments from which the reality of God was determined falls apart? I've always had that "fear", so I've morphed into a skeptical theist, much like Johann Georg Hamann if you've heard of him. Basically a theistic Hume when it comes to matters of religious belief. In this manner, belief is secure since it rests on no prior metaphysical commitments - belief is properly basic as Plantinga would say.

Are you a Christian theist? How do you view the theism-metaphysics connection? And if belief in God is related to your metaphysics, do you ever fear that you may find something which will shake that belief? And if so, how do you tackle that?

Arguably one's behavior/outlook is one's metaphyics — aletheist

Based on what are you making the connection between behaviour and metaphysics - or even belief? Have you ever believed X and yet done something different? As Paul says in the Bible - "I do not do the good I want to do. Instead I keep on doing the evil I don't want to do"

Does your metaphysics show up in your behavior in some way? — Mongrel

Well first of all, it is important to separate metaphysics from attitudes. For example, a pessimist doesn't emerge out of metaphysics, but rather it is a disposition. Someone could have a very bleak metaphysics and still be an optimist for that matter. But very often I see people confusing the two.

Now, I guess I'm some kind of Spinozist of some sorts in terms of metaphysics. I wouldn't say it affects my behaviour in any particular way.

In your moral outlook? — Mongrel

No, not really. Morality requires its own immediate certainty - if you stake morality on your metaphysics, if your metaphysics ever crumbles, what will you be left with? But on the other hand if you are some sort of skeptical moralist - you'll hold to your morality even if your metaphysics falls apart. I hold to ethics as first philosophy for these reasons.

In the way you interact with people? — Mongrel

Again it's difficult to say - I don't have a single way to interact with people, and it's largely different from person to person.

But morally speaking he was. He was the paragon of virtue amongst the Roman Emperors

What you say, and what you display are distinct. — Metaphysician Undercover

What I "display" depends to a large degree on how each person interprets it, obviously.

Reread your own quote: "One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others..." — Metaphysician Undercover

I see, my bad then.

First, that isn't so - hence why I said we're all equal around here. The fact that I disagree with Wayfarer and think I'm right doesn't mean I think of myself as superior. Secondly, even if it were so, it is irrelevant. The victim has to perceive an imbalance of power between themselves and the bully, not the bully. In actual fact the bully quite often feels, inside, inferior compared to his victim, hence why they are bullies.

I would draw your attention to the actual stipulation "perception" of power. There is much evidence that you preach the precepts of your church with a "holier than thou" attitude. — Metaphysician Undercover

So Wayfarer perceives me as more powerful than him? :s That's so absurd man, we're all equal as far as I'm aware, in terms of power here.

This isn't an accurate portrayal. The press isn't leaving Trump alone either, and continuously treats him unfairly and even disrespectfully. I see what he's doing as an adequate response to the press.

That guy gets quite a bit wrong — Heister Eggcart

Not really... What does he get so wrong?

Who is he, exactly? — Heister Eggcart

A big mafia don 8-) - his name is Professor Michael Sugrue :D

there are plenty of people who will dispute even that. — Wayfarer

Like me :P

Today's news is that he has excluded a number of media outlets from the White House briefing. — Wayfarer

Well to be honest, what would you do if you were DJT, and you were trying to implement your program and the press was harassing you continuously? Wouldn't you exclude them from covering you? They are slowing down and interfering in the work you're trying to do, it's normal to stop them from doing that.

I don't remember Wayfarer mentioning the word "bullying". He doesn't sound intimidated to me, more annoyed, and in any case that wasn't why your posts were deleted. Your posts were deleted because they were disruptive and low quality. — Baden

No, but he allowed others to claim that he was bullied, which is a problem.

Your posts were deleted because they were disruptive and low quality. — Baden

Good. You should in the future delete posts from all those people who provoke me as well by being disruptive, insulting and of low post quality - you should watch out for especially Hanover and Arkady (and sometimes Benkei too, although he is a bit more reasonable).

You may recall, the first time I posted the video, you chimed in with a remark about 'navel gazing' within 30 seconds of it being posted - notwithstanding it's a 30 minute video. — Wayfarer

Yes. So what? How's that a "big deal"? How is someone posting two words "naval gazing :-O " a big deal? First of all, it was a simple joke, as indicated by the presence of the emoticon itself.

That caused me to loose my temper, and make a couple of remarks which I then regretted having made. But this forum software being what it is, I couldn't actually delete them, so I deleted everything, which I suppose was a somewhat childish response. — Wayfarer

What was there to regret about your remarks? There was nothing "wrong" with them. I still have your answers by the way. So tell me, what was wrong with them, that you felt made them worth deleting?

Maybe I should post some video of Dear Leader Trump at his magnificent campaign rally yesterday, comrade?

Also interesting that you made that judgement before you possibly could have watched any of it. That is what is called (warning - big word coming up) - prejudice.

I felt nothing wrong with them - didn't feel insulted, didn't feel anything - they were actually quite funny to tell you the truth.

If you want a post deleted, you can just edit it, write "DELETE" instead of its comment and a mod will come around and delete it. But instead you deleted everything, and then transformed yourself into the political weapon of political correctness:

That this happens was demonstrated in the shout box by a poster removing his link rather than have to read the vitriol that ensued.

And there were in fact worse than this. I was accused of bullying, being sadistic, and worse. And why? Because of some nonsense, that could all have been avoided if you didn't behave so childishly and make a big fuss out of a small thing (which by the way you now finally admit to) - or equally, allowed others to use you as a weapon to make a big fuss out of it, and introduce authoritarianism and political correctness into the government of these boards. Give me a break - one single post, containing two harmless words, was bullying... If someone deletes their thread after that, it's them who have a problem, not the poor person who posted two words. Maybe I should also start deleting my threads when someone disagrees with me, and go crying and protesting about how "bullied" I am, and turn myself into the weapon of others who have a political agenda to enforce. And I could really claim bullying with people like Hanover, Benkei, and Arkady - all three who supposedly have placed me on "ignore" and hence supposedly don't even see what I'm posting, and yet still never cease taking the occasion to throw shit when they can - in fact I have proof of them three interjecting in multiple different threads for no other purpose than to throw shit. They should be ashamed of themselves to tell you the truth, as well as all those people who are so concerned about bullying and never take action against that behaviour, leading to a situation where I have to defend myself from their attacks - and then they complain "Oh Agustino, he's so nasty" - give me a break.

Some people should go study what bullying is, because clearly they have no idea. Let me remind everyone (from Wikipedia):

Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict

There is no imbalance of social or physical power between us two - therefore at most there can only be conflict. In fact, I had some people who privately laughed at the entire accusation - more like one of Stalin's show trials than anything else.

'can't you see he's a phony?' — Wayfarer

I never said he's a phony. That wasn't me, that was someone else in actual fact.

'New Age is all nonsense. What would The Patriarchs make of this'? — Wayfarer

Yes, I did say that, but I never claimed he is New Age. In fact in my last post yesterday, I even said I wasn't talking about him at all, as I haven't watched the video and don't know if he is or isn't New Age. I was simply talking of New Age - it's up to others to decide if he is New Age or not.

Anyway, if you bothered to actually listen to Richard Rohr, you would find that he's quite a scholarly and insightful philosopher and spiritual practitioner. His understanding of 'negative way' theology, contemplation, grace and redemption are profound, in my view. We need more of those kinds of speakers, not less. He runs rings around a lot of the 'prosperity gospel' and conservative evangelical types, in my view (many of whom I am certain would accuse him of heresy.) — Wayfarer

That may all be so.

As for the New Age - I'm sure Christianity was originally a new age religion (as was Buddhism) and persecuted on those grounds. — Wayfarer

I don't think so - religions are all similar amongst each other, and neither Christianity nor Buddhism were the first. Sure, a religion can penetrate deeper than another, but that's not to say that they are novel and different - only that they reach deeper.

And I acknowledge that there are narcissistic , superficial and meaningless manifestations of the 'New Age'qua cultural fad, but it's not all that, or only that. — Wayfarer

I find the ideas of New Age - a new global consciousness, bla bla to be nonsense. It's again something seeking to appeal to (1) novelty, and (2) our sense of self-importance, all the while of course preaching selflessness.

Alas, I must congratulate you, despite not agreeing with you. You twisted the rest of the moderators hands and changed the rules of the forum almost single handedly, without doing anything yourself. The foresight alone is admirable :)

Again compared to the old site, for example, I think this place is uncongenial to women. I see that as a failing. — unenlightened

We never had a lot of women members, either here or there.

Hmm it says on your profile "Administrator"... only you and jamalgod have that, that's why I call you chief. He's the boss, you're the vice-boss ;)

What was wrong with the tone and nature of my posts discussing Wayfarer's comments on New Age, that wasn't the case with the posts at the beginning of the same thread? :s I agree with the deletion of all the posts discussing me, but that wasn't one of them at all... :s

Off topic material stifles debate, by turning every discussion into the same discussion, of everything and nothing. — unenlightened

Okay, I agree with that fundamentally. However, how do we decide what is and isn't off-topic? For example, in the Father Rohr thread, talk of women's underwear is off-topic - clearly. But is talk of New Age off-topic? Clearly, to my mind, it depends on how the thread evolves. If "New Age" is off-topic, then it should have been deleted the first time it appeared in that thread (and that wasn't even one of my posts in fact). There was a discussion going on in that thread about New Age long before I actually commented on it. So if a thread is like a river, then that river has sub-streams which come and join into it. What I said belongs to a sub-stream - it's not directly relevant to the video, but neither is it completely irrelevant to the topic. To someone who has watched the video, they could say "uhh I think Rohr is New Age", or "I don't think Rohr is New Age", and then they could discuss what bearings, if any, New Age has on Rohr or whatever they want.

:s

You said:

But if the institutions do shape the individual, then why wouldn't the individual - in at least a general way - not want that to continue? — apokrisis

So this is wrong, and I disagree with it. The individual doesn't want all institutions which shape the individual to continue. Some institutions which shape the individual, he doesn't want to continue. I gave myself as an example for this point.

But you were right when you said:

Don't you find it logical as it ensures the longevity of your particular institution and increases thus the likelihood of ever more of you? — apokrisis

And so you demonstrate how entrenched an intolerance for difference can be. You really think yours should be the only institution handing out the subcontracts. You believe deeply in genericity. It just troubles you that your version has so little general hold. — apokrisis

How does that make me any different from anyone else in the cultural sphere? Everyone else wants to propagate themselves, and obviously not propagate what is opposed to them.

(Of course if this subcontract involves a quick suicide or a conscious failure to breed, then it will soon be a forgotten trope - defined by its production of the generically incapable.) — apokrisis

There is also the question of the trade-off between biological survival and intellectual survival. The latter has a longer reach. Socrates' suicide for example, certainly led to his immortalization, and of millions of others seeking to become like him. So spiritually - or better said intellectually - he begot more children than he could ever have begotten physically and biologically.

But if the institutions do shape the individual, then why wouldn't the individual - in at least a general way - not want that to continue? In wanting that from the institution, the individual is simply saying, if we are to have more, let them be like me. What would or could possess the individual to have a different desire. — apokrisis

But an individual doesn't agree with many institutions from his society. Take me for example. There's many institutions, cultural trends, etc. which are very dominant, and yet I don't agree with, and I don't want to see perpetuated.

The devil's best defence is to say he doesn't exist X-)

I mean your post may be read as ironic - in Victorian England :P

Irony is sometimes useful as a defensive weapon when navigating minefields. (If you don't understand that, then maybe you are just terrible.) — Wayfarer

Surely, but I doubt most people would understand your post as ironic, especially if they didn't know you. Since the belief that consent is all that is required for sexual morality is so prevalent today, yours would seem to be an adequate defence for it, to someone who doesn't know.

I mean that video almost gives you a hardon as @Heister Eggcart would say >:O

Ok, so how am I to understand you meant that ironically? How does the context suggest you meant it ironically? I can clearly not perceive this - maybe I'm just terrible, or maybe you've not explained yourself adequately.

It's very powerful no? :D
Especially Part II 0:30 onwards.

Consent is the only criterion for what constitutes a proper sexual relationship. Provided all the participants are of the age of consent, and all freely participate, then that is all that is required. 'Do what thou wilt', said Crowley, 'will be the whole of the law'. — Wayfarer

Lol... you can't actually be serious now. Crowley was a Satanist. And consent being the only criteria for sexual relationships is insane, and most certainly not moral. What would Buddha say if he heard this nonsense?

You all must attend a virtual university and watch:


Please report back when you have done so! (Y) :D That will be all for today class. You are dismissed!

Not necessarily retarded. Just misguided. — Michael

That's a bit pretentious of you

Sorry. Psychic virginity does not compute. — Bitter Crank

I recommend a change of operating system ;)

Please list the extant matriarchies where men are considered property the way women are considered property under patriarchy (as if there were such a thing as matriarchy and patriarchy). — Bitter Crank

First please tell me what is the way women are considered property under patriarchy...

Victorian England, he says. Double standards preceded Victoria Regina and survive into the 21st century. — Bitter Crank

Nope, that's double application of a single standard, not double standards.

Chastity schmastity.. My guess is that chastity has been honored everywhere more in the breach than in the observance. — Bitter Crank

No no, don't laugh at it. This is a very historical point. It doesn't matter if chastity was ALWAYS broken and not observed, the historical fact, which is undeniable, regardless of what you say, is that people have thought that chastity is important. That's why they have created moral codes in which chastity was a virtue for male and female alike all over the world and independently. You obviously don't quite like this. However, your dislike of it doesn't change the historical facts.

Now do you guys think that all these people - were the retards to think chastity was a virtue?! >:O

1) Men do not have a hymen which can be breached, thus providing evidence of virginity or not — Bitter Crank

Oh dear... how does this square with what I have said that virginity isn't physical?! The hymen can break without intercourse.

2) Women were sexual property of men, not visa versa — Bitter Crank

Not in all societies. There were matriarchies as well.

3) Men were expected to have sexual experiences prior to marriage, women were not — Bitter Crank

Only in the relatively more modern period.

You have heard of the double standard? — Bitter Crank

Yes that's Victorian England.

Of course, a man can be a "virgin", not that it was much of a virtue. — Bitter Crank

:-d

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity

Right, please study this link and note how in all societies, as evidenced by their religions, chastity was recommended (as a virtue) REGARDLESS of gender.

Probably good, as I seem to recall some psychologists saying that it's harmful to suppress sexual desire. — Michael

Not having sex or masturbating isn't the same as suppressing the desire. There is suppression, expression and sublimation. I advocate that third option.

Not many people would want to have attained that status. — Michael

And is that good or bad?

Like in ancient Mesopotamia, the birth of civilisation? And yet you called them savages when I showed you that they practiced same-sex marriage. — Michael

There's a reason why those were the beginnings of civilisation. Alas, I don't take much concern with same-sex marriage, my concern is with promiscuity. Chastity has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

However, there is ample historical evidence that early humans were promiscuous, and chastity developed along with civilisation. Even Marx and Engels recognised this.

How do you delineate the savage from the civilised? — Michael

In terms of their social organisation, and capacity for building a prosperous, expanding civilisation, where culture, learning and virtue flourish. Savages who live in tribes aren't civilised.

Well, savages do have the strangest virtues. — Michael

Actually chastity is precisely one characteristic that is specific of civilisation, not of savagery.