Atheism as a lack of belief is legit if "god exists" (theism) is incoherent or meaningless, kinda like saying "$#&£!!??" The attributes don't stick (re Epicurean riddle: not all-good, not all-powerful, not all-knowing) i.e. God is an impossible object, like a married bachelor! — Agent Smith

Not really. Everyone has a concept of god. Much like everyone has a concept of Santa Claus. Some believe she exists, some believe she doesn't exist.

It's not that attributes don't stick in an atheist's world view. They stick, in his world view, too, very much. The atheist just does not believe that the unit actually exists.

You misunderstood me. Perhaps I should have said that equation was not suitable. That is, in our universe multiple volumes are summed using a simple addition, but I suppose that in some other universe the volume might need a more complex equation. But in no universe is it not the case that 2+2=4. (Well, except for impossible universes...) — Banno

I don't think I misunderstood you. I think I did not understand you.

And I believe the QM example I bought up applies to this, OUR, existing universe. (Verification needed.) So if the equations don't stand up in a universe, then it does not stand up in our universe, either. You said multiple volumes are summed using a simple addition, and you said multiple volumes are summed with a different, more complex equation. The funny part is that in OUR universe, it is summed up both ways.

Much like Schroedinger's cat: both alive AND dead. Both simple and necessarily not simple.

I also liked "Pride and Prejudice". The scene in which the fallen nobleman proposes to the chick (I can't remember any names) and she starts sobbing is the emotionally most laden scene in any movie I've seen. I howl in tears as I cry every time I get to that scene when I watch that movie. Which happened about twice, I'd say.

It's just that the three angles of a triangle inscribed on a sphere add to more than 180º. — Banno

Aha. No-one mentioned in my studies that EG is on curved space. Then it's not a triangle, is it. A triangle strictly exists in two-dimensional space. A curved space ALTHOUGH a SURFACE, is three-dimensional, nevertheless.

Rather, 1+1=2, but that arithmetic is not suitable for such a universe. — Banno

So it is NOT universally true. Does that not mean that 1+1 <> 2?

1. Life of Brian.
2. Holy Grail.
3. Snatch.
4. 2001 A Space Odyssey
5. A Clockwork Orange
6. Bullets over Broadway.
7. Michael Clayton.
8. Jason Bourne (the first three of the Quatregy).
9. Fargo.
10. Badlands.

Special Mentions:
Point of No Return (American, not the original French),
Dead Gorgeous,
Flawless,
Fracture,
Perfume (German).

I heard that in QM the smaller a volume of space, the larger its stored energy. Regardless of what's contained in that space. I am not sure if this is a fact of QM.

But in case it is, then 1+1<2 is true.

Because if you add two given volumes of space, then their energies combined will be less than the sum of energy stored in either.

Again, this needs verification.
---------------------------
Another way of looking at this, is the Non-Euclidian geometry. The circle comprises more than 360 degrees. So 90+90 <180.

These are two theorems (if they stand) that gives a proof that 2+2 may equal 3 can be part of a math system that is still compatible with reality and with its own inner structure.

Disclaimer: I understand neither QM nor the non-Euclidian geometry.

:clap: :up:

2+2 = 4 seems true in any possible world — Andrew4Handel

I've always had trouble with that. If it "seems", then it's an empirical observation. Have you/we/anyone seen all possible worlds?

This is an axiom in math, therefore it is immovable in that system. But math is a logical structure, built on axioms, and if you remove or change any of the axioms, then the superstructure changes, yet, the axioms are always accepted as true. Thus, 2+2=3 is a different axiom, and it does not fit in our accepted math, but if you remove 2+2=4, and substitute it with 2+2=3, and leave every other existing axiom intact, then it won't produce an inner self-contradiction; it will produce a different superstructure of math concepts.

You can have Liza Minnelli and Fred Astaire. I'll keep Marilyn Monroe and Rachel Welsh. Okay, you can have MM if you gimme Boardwalk and New York Ave. Plus the Electric Company.

I understood them. — Vera Mont

I am no judge to know what you understand and what you don't. I am just going by your replies.

I don't follow the genocide part. — Vera Mont
You must be totally blind then to history.
— god must be atheist

Must I? The sentence you quoted was a response to:
Religion is a result of evolution and genocide.
— Andrew4Handel
I don't think those events are part of evolution; nor do they predate the invention of religion - and in no way did they cause religion. — Vera Mont

You said -- please check the above quote and the originals -- that you did not understand the genocide part. That's what you stated you did not understand. So I explained the GENOCIDE part, eh? why bring in more things you don't understand and can't figure out on your own, and blame my answer for your inability of working out thoughts, as if I were a custodian of your thinking processes. And please note I inserted into the question I answered a phrase "and its spread". That is a key element in there.

I understand that you disagree with me about many, many things. That's half the fun of it. But I am getting more and more tired of arguing with you. Let's put it this way: I state my criticism of your claims, you deny the validity of my criticism, but I shan't go further into the argument, because if you did not understand my critical views the first time, you never will; not in the least because you are so doggone emotionally attached to your opinions.

In other words:
1. You say something.
2. I argue that that something is wrong.
3. You say that that something is not wrong.
and that's where the buck stops.

I won't go into "4. proving to you just once more that you are wrong", because that is the most frustrating experience on this site: going over something over and over again with somebody obstinate enough to insist that their first and wrong opinion is right.

Humans make meaning and create values which don't exist outside of our value systems. — Tom Storm

That, Tom, in and by itself, makes it worth it to pursue the idea.

I bid (call my own and thereby take possession) of Alpha Centauri, the Milky Way and the Great or Dapper Dipper.

I think it is high time that we take care of the galaxy. We take care of our heritance, Mother, the Earth. We are the custodians of this rock. And we took the better of it, this rock is pretty near put uninhabitable by now.

Let's strive for not creating the same fate for the Galaxy. Let's use only its reusable resources. Let's not exploit it for all its worth, and then discard it like an old glove or scatter its ashes on the fields like the torn pieces of an old picture of your one-time lover.

We must IMMEDIATELY print T-shirts with some slogans that blame government, the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex and the greed of our growth-based economies for the unavoidable demise of the Galaxy once humans start to care about it and try to preserve it.

Judging the universe is rather like waging war on Neptune — Ciceronianus

I shalt not judge the Galaxy lest it place a judgment on mee.

State atheism (gosateizm, a syllabic abbreviation of "state" [gosudarstvo] and "atheism" [ateizm]) was a major goal of the official Soviet ideology.[49] This phenomenon, which lasted for seven decades, was new in world history.[50] The Communist Party engaged in diverse activities such as destroying places of worship, executing religious leaders, flooding schools and media with anti-religious propaganda, and propagated "scientific atheism" — Andrew4Handel

I was part of this in Hungary, between roughly 1960 and 1972, when I was 6 to 18 years of age.

There were no public executions of priests, and there were no jailing anyone because they were religious.

That is true, however, that in schools, factories and offices, we had to support atheism as the state ideology. People still remained religious; about 1/3 of the total population.

It was not a "follow atheism or die" process.

In Hungary no places of worship were destroyed by the state. Instead, they were restored from the damages incurred during wwii, and they became national monuments, a type of tourist attraction.

Unfortunately Westerners got a heavily edited and falsified view of the communist states and life there within. Much like the Hungarian state television and radio at the time depicted a dire view of the west: a dog-eat-dog world, where man is another man's wolfe, no humanity, no humanitarianism.

The difference was that Hungarians did not believe the state propaganda about life in the West, and the people in the West believed everything, lies and truths, spread by their media about life in communism.

Faith isn't restricted to a belief in gods. For example, I've noticed that a great many Americans have faith in their Constitution and the democratic process. — Vera Mont

You are employing the fallacy of "equivocation".

Faith in government, democratic process, money, is a trust. They obviously exist, and there is no one who can deny they exist. In that sense they are NOT a belief.

Faith in god is a belief.

The example you brought up is an exercise in not having a sense to pick up nuances in the meaning of words.

This phenomenon is a rampant error on this forum. You are not alone in making this mistake, repeatedly; you are in the majority.

My favourite call on Christianity was uttered by a God.

The Dalai Lama said, "Christianity is a beautiful religion. Too bad nobody practices it."

There you have it. By God himself.

Religion is a result of evolution and genocide

I don't follow the genocide part. — Vera Mont

You must be totally blind then to history.

- Autodafe
- The Turkish genocide of the Kurds
- Hitler's role of murdering 6 million Jews
- Biblical references
- the Violent Christianization of most of Europe
etc.

By killing people of other religions, they either convert, or else die.

Christianity's spread in Europe in the middle ages must have decimated the continent, with the result of eradicating hundreds, if not thousands, of tribal religious.

This is what they meant to say when they said "Religion (and its spread) is a result of evolution and genocide."

I think Atheism would be praiseworthy if it was simple lack of belief. It would amount to awaiting evidence to alter ones beliefs.

But instead we Have Books like "The God Delusion" and The Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution — Andrew4Handel

I think Religiosity and believing in a deity would be praiseworthy if it was simple presence of belief. It would amount to not needing to await evidence to establish one's beliefs.

Instead, we have religious wars, persecution, discrimination, intimidation, Autodafe and inquisition in the diligent pursuing of religious beliefs. Genocide and slavery.

You see, Andrew4Handel, the knife cuts both ways. The atheists at least stop at screaming and spluttering anti-religious sentiments. The religious go way beyond that, not just one step, but a thousand steps beyond that, to defend their faith.

I call your argument biassed and not significant, once you put the atheists' actions to the Christians' and other religious'.

Faith is a belief. Is atheism a belief? Is there belief without faith? (Faith connotes belief in god(s); atheism connotes (wrongly) lack of belief.)

"Cunt" is supposedly the worst term of abuse, but that supposition shows both a lack of imagination and experience. — Banno

SEXISM ON THE FORUMS!!! The bearer of (i.e. the decoration around) a C can be just as capable as the CS.

Mind you, the CS could be either of the sexes. So I withdraw my complaint.

No atheist denies the possibility of a god's existence. They just state they don't believe in it.

No religious man or woman denies the possibility of having no god or gods. They just believe that it or they exists.

Belief has no bearing on existence, as does a lack of belief.

When it comes to a being's existence, belief in it has no bearing on it, as does the disbelief.

This is a silly thread. You can't argue beliefs; you can argue logically only, if both opponents in a debate accept the same axioms or same premisses. This is why arguments between the faithful and the atheists always remain fruitless: their starting points are different, and the starting point of either side can't be proven or disproven.

Yes, it can be evidenced or not evidenced; but even still the evidence is not bound to be accepted by the opposing side.

This is a silly thread.

Of course there is regulation. Such does not implicate Marxism though. Marxism becomes implicated when you speak of the great worker revolt and the reorganization of labor where the workers unite and control — Hanover

Without the revolution, guns and slogans, we live in a Marxist society if you hold the truth that workers unite and control.

Who controls societies' decisions? The Parliament. Who elects the parliament? The people. What percentage of the People of voting age are workers in the United States of America? About 94%.

So America, unwittingly, by force of having a national body of electors of whom nearly all work, is a Marxist state.

Are they unprofitable or are they forced to price their goods lower than they would because of competition from counties that don't have all sorts of EHS and labour standards and you want to ensure a critical industry continues to exist in your county? — Benkei

Instead of the costumers paying higher prices for food in countries where the farming industry is subsidized, the cost of production plus profit is paid from where? From taxes. And who pays taxes? People and corporations. And where do the corporations get their income? From people and taxes.

You can't get away from profit and low prices. Somebody pays, and it always boils down to the customer.

So instead of allowing farms to make their money the proper way, we, yes, we, the fucking people, pay the government to regulate the prices of farm products, and then we, the fucking people, pay the government taxes to pay the missing money to the farmers.

It's a system. It's not a bad system. In the end everyone is at where they should be: Farms get their proper income, people pay the price for farm produce the same amount as they should, except in two different venues: they pay a little to the farmer, and they pay a little to the taxman, who transfers these monies to the farms.

It's not a directly-involving system, but the end result is precisely the same as without and as when people paid proper prices for locally produced farm products.

The advocation of global warming by you was indeed not in this thread. So if you think you are not an advocate of reversing global warming then please state it here.

[you, Mikie] Advocate that the workers be paid more than what's enough to eat, pay for healthcare and live. — god must be atheist

I haven’t advocated for either on this thread. — Mikie

Oh, c'mon.

Then what is this:

But let's assume they [the workers] are being paid a decent wage. They get enough to eat and live and have healthcare. Is that it? They deserve only that? What if they're the ones doing the lion's share of the work? Don't they deserve more than simply a "decent living wage"? — Mikie

I don't like the "suspended" expression to be used for temporary banning. In Hungary during communist times they suspended people by various small body parts until they passed out or confessed, whichever came first. It's an emotionally laden word for me.

That's not quite the topic. Regardless, to pursue it: workers aren't being paid a decent wage, in reality. And the reason they're not is partly determined by these OP questions -- namely, how profits are distributed and who makes the decisions. The decisions certainly aren't being made by workers.

But let's assume they are being paid a decent wage. They get enough to eat and live and have healthcare. Is that it? They deserve only that? What if they're the ones doing the lion's share of the work? Don't they deserve more than simply a "decent living wage"? — Mikie

This is rather curious. I am not making a judgment here, and I am not taking sides. I am merely noticing that throughout this thread you
1. Advocate the reversal of global warming by suppressing those activities that contribute to global warming.
2. Advocate that the workers be paid more than what's enough to eat, pay for healthcare and live. (Live?). This means that workers should have a bigger carbon footprint. Which accelerates global warming.

The Dawn of Everything , a book by anarchist anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wengrow,claims that the above received wisdom is wrong. Their arguments have created quite a stir in anthropological circles.

“Human society, in this view, is founded on the collective repression of our baser instincts, which becomes all the more necessary when humans are living in large numbers in the same place. The modern-day Hobbesian, then, would argue that, yes, we did live most of our evolutionary history in tiny bands, who could get along mainly because they shared a common interest in the survival of their offspring (‘parental investment’, as evolutionary biologists call it).But even these were in no sense founded on equality. There was always, in this version, some ‘alpha-male’ leader. — Joshs

If the text-quote is from "The Dawn of Everything," then the their own text contradicts their proposition, inasmuch as the proposition calls me wrong, when I said there have always been hierarchies in social arrangements, so much among humans as much among other social animals.

Inasmuch as the underlined part calls the wisdom wrong that states we have always lived in hierarchical societies (my point), the italicised part directly contradicts that assertion.

180 proof, here's an example in which the author invoked the underlining and the italicization properly to explain the point. You don't do it that much any more, thank goodness, but in the past you heavily relied on all kinds of editing marks in your posts, which served no purpose but to make the reading of those posts harder.

I am glad you are gradually giving up that old bad habit. Good going, man!

We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

Absolutely. Police in uniforms may have not been involved, but tribal discipline was enforced. Same thing.

The libertarian concept ignores two facts: any (not just human, but all other) social structure in living beings is built hierarchically. If you get away from hierarchy(**), you destroy social structure. 2. social structure in human societies is more protective and accommodating for an individual than living outside a social structure.

Libertarians are small-minded, myopic, selfish, and greedy individuals, void of any basic insight into human nature.

(**) This is the basic inherent fault in the idea of democracy. The only way to achieve that is to make the demos the top of the hierarchy, but it turns out that voted-representative system easily manipulates the Demos and destroys the ideal mechanism of the system. The other inherent problem with democracy is the multi-directional will. In any monocracy, such as absolute monarchies and dictatorships, the absolute decision and executive power rests in the hand of one individual, in which case there are no contentious directives. Once the authority grows beyond decisions made by one person to be made by more than one person, then opinions are liable or bound to be different on issues, and no consensus can be found. If the top of the hierarchy is the demos, then it's seven billion different directions that policy wants to develop, yet it can only do one direction.

The futility of bringing back banned members has been demonstrated. A NUMBER of banned members come back with a different identity (all they need is a different email address) and then later they get banned again for the SAME MISDEMEANORS as before.

So... what would be the real benefit to bring back banned members, Amity?

However, I think it is quite unjust to permanently ban a long-term poster who has contributed well and evenly for most of their TPF travels. — Amity

These members don't get banned.

I wouldn't mind reinstatement after a banning, except of course for Bartricks whom I hated from the bottom of my heart.

Then again, why would we want to bring back old trouble with anyone else as well, when we know banning is not a correctional service, only a cutting out of rotting catalysts.

What I mean is that for what someone was banned will always come back, people don't change that much. So if it has been demonstrated that the person is incompatible with TPF why try it once again if he or she REALLY is? A wise man said, a sign of stupidity is to do the same process over and over to the same thing, and expect a result different from what we already got.

This is the reason I think it's futile to bring back banned members.

I agree with everybody. In his last appearance, in the thread "greatness" he SURPRISINGLY made sound arguments, and consistenty logical lines of reasoning.

I thought he was making a turn-about, and now I see why, because he got a warning.

But I also agree with the on-grave-jumpers-and-spitters, he was a veritable troll and a highly aggravating sparring partner.

He was good at two things: 1. Insulting others. 2. Pulling them into an argument. 3. Keeping them in the exchange of (false) ideas.

:halo:

I have noticed that many of the banned only got to that place after attempting to dominate all other conversations in a discussion. — Paine

Looks like I'm ripe for getting banned.

I see their point but I don't understand it. Simple. I guess the only who is inflexible here is you — javi2541997

Sorry. Yes, I guess I am inflexible because I can get out of my mind and am capable of understanding more diverse behaviour patterns. You, on the other hand, are more flexible, because you can't imagine how some behaviour patterns are possible, due to the fact that you can't understand them.

I am not referring to the works but the author. — javi2541997

Well... the author creates the works. How can you seperate "author who never finishes his works" from the author? It is incredibly about the author. Not the works. Sorry.

It is not necessary to see "judgement" as a negative mark. — javi2541997

You're right. I felt funny using that word. Judment carries too much notion of "condemnation". Whereas I meant it as a form of opinionating.

I am not a moderator or any sort of official on the premises but I observed the following.

Furthermore, I never saw your post, so the following discourse is purely speculative.

Please don't take anything I say personally.

To me this is the clue.

You don't have absolute freedom of speech in a moderated forum. — alan1000

You were most likely a bit abrasive or -- heavens forbid -- racist or sexist or anti-Marxist. Childism (promoting child pornography) is right out. So is violencism, sexual abusism, stupidism. (I've seen people escorted out of this forum for wearing a t-shirt that said "I'm with stupid".) Sellism, advertisism.

On the other hand, egotism, megalomania, personal cult, religionism, and nihilism are still allowed. For the time being.

However, discussions on genderism, anti-genderism, invisibility, and funny ways to approach the gender-gender spectrum, going along with the times, are highly encouraged.

I have seen a number of post deleted by a person who was teetering on committing suicide. He wasn't saying he would, but he was yankering and jabbering on and on about his depression, his inability to get a good night's sleep and loss of appetite. He was trying to establish a foothold where he would encourage others to be exactly the same as he was, but eventually he left in dismay because 40 (approximation) percent of all his posts were taken down.

In most of the cases, artists tend to represent a expression of themselves and the society in their works. Thanks to their talent we can see "reality" with other eyes.
In the other hand: I bet that the artist who burns their works would end up regretting such action. — javi2541997

"In most cases..." yes, but there are the exceptions, if the cases you talk about are "most", and not "all".

I don't know... you seem to attribute a lot of your own values on a lot of people, without any actual reason but your own bias.

People are diverse. You can't make everyone comply to your values. And why should they? Because you don't see their point? Well, it's more of a report card on your inflexibility than a report card on reality.