• How to wake up from the American dream
    When did you first wake up from the American dream? — an-salad
    1619.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/historical-significance-1619/596365/
  • Changing the past in our imagination
    I'm very modest: I imagine that earlier today I purchased tomorrow night's sole winning lottery ticket. :wink:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪Fire Ologist
    :up:

    :point: Pandeism – Pandeus, sive Naturans – is my speculative jam.
  • Purpose: what is it, where does it come from?
    I don't know. :chin:
    The questions here are, then, what is purpose (in itself), where does it come from, what is its ground? — tim wood
    I think "purpose (in itself)" corresponds to Spinoza's conatus: everything necessarily persists in its being.

    "It comes from" nature naturing.

    "Its ground" is reality.

    Or, what exactly gives it all meaning, makes it all worthwhile?
    Being (or life) is the (or an) end-in-itself like song dance music (i.e. rhythm/melody for rhythm's/melody's sake).

    "Meaning" is ... māyā ... perspectival, semantic, ephemeral (or as Camus might say 'nostalgia').

    I think (nurtured) self-worth, or dignity, "makes it all worthwhile."
  • Is atheism illogical?
    the illogic of someone claiming that necessarily God cannot exist. — Fire Ologist
    I agree. To say anything determinate either way about an indeterminate, or generic, "God" is illogical (i.e. nonsense).

    However, no observable evidence entailed by attributes ascribed to any allegedly "revealed" deity that has been actually worshipped during recorded human history has ever been demonstrated, ergo it is reasonable to conclude that such (Bronze-Iron Age tribal) deities do not exist in a factual (i.e. non-fictional) sense as several hundreds of generations of 'devout' worshippers have believed and extant religious cults still dogmatically reify.

    Of course I (we) could be wrong. Show me (us) :smirk:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    :clap: Another vapid apologist ranting his non sequitur strawmen. That's all you got, lil' meshuggeneh. Pathetic.

    Closing in on the Hamas [Gaza] vermin. — Moses
    Ah yeah, now isn't that just a return of the fuckin' "nazi" repressed in (some) Ashkenazim? – "Sieg Heil! Zion-über-alles!" Fuck you, Bibi & the IDF. :scream:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    I fail to see exactly what it is you are failing to see. — Pantagruel
    You took the words right out of my mouth.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I don't really mind as long as you follow the the 7 noahide commandments. — BitconnectCarlos
    Non serviam – I refuse to "follow" any superstitious "commandments" (re: Plato's Euthyphro, etc) seeing as "following" them did not prevent the Nakba and subsequent Israeli colonizer-settler occupation-oppression of the last several decades. Your zionist "Noahide Commandments", BC, seem as compatible as the nazis were with slaughtering elders women & children and ethnically cleansing, so wtf bother with such tribal "blood and soil" superstitions? :mask:

    Derived from the moral reasoning of Rabbi Hillel the Elder (& Kongzi centuries before him), I am committed to
    Whatever we know harms humans and nature, I do not voluntarily do to any humans or nature
    which for me culminates in aretaic negative consequentialism (i.e. flourishing by actions and/or inactions which effectively prevent or reduce harms and injustices) that, therefore, categorically obligates me to practice solidarity with oppressed communities (e.g. secular Palestinians) struggling to resist their occupiers-oppressors (e.g. Israeli Zionists). Tikkun olam. :fire:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901665
  • Is atheism illogical?
    How do you respond to those who might argue that the Bible is allegorical and that it contains a 'broader truth' about Yahweh, who does not always conform to the stories, except through fable? — Tom Storm
    I'd respond "Okay". Stories and fables exist, but not "YHWH" (except as one of the main characters).

    Out of interest are there any other frames you know of a believer might use to preserve belief in Yahweh without literalist scripture?
    All that comes to mind at the moment is Paul Tillich's notion that to say either "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" is idolatrous / blasphemous / meaningless (I can't remember which) or Quentin Meillassoux's "inexistent God" that is yet to come to be (or something like that) à la waiting for godot... :smirk:

    ↪Pantagruel
    I don't know what you are talking about. As far as I can tell, sir, your reply has nothing to do with what I've written.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    I don’t think it’s rational to conclude as fact that something does not exist. Don’t know how you prove a negative. — Fire Ologist
    Here's a "rational" example of "how to prove a negative" from a 2020 thread Belief in Nothing ...
    [P]redicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).

    E.g. (A) Elephant sitting on your lap ... (B) YHWH created the world in six days ... (C) In 2024 George Bush lives in the White House ... (D) UFOs take-off & land at JFK Airport ... etc

    So: absence of evidence entailed by (A/B/C/D) is evidence - entails - absence of (A/B/C/D): search (A) your lap, (B) the geophysics of the earth, (C) who is currently POTUS, and (D) control tower logs, arrival / departure gates & runways at JFK Airport ...     — 180 Proof
    I think this proves we can prove a negative.

    I guess I meant people who “know” there is no god. — Fire Ologist
    We can know only that particular deities do not exist but not that 'every conceivable deity' does not exist. To wit:

    IF 'absence of evidence entailed by a particular X's predicates', THEN this 'absence of entailed evidence' necessarily is evidence of the absence of that particular predicated-X.

    So, more to the point, absence of evidence that is entailed by "your god" entails the absence of "your god".

    If a deity in question is described with predicates – attributed in scriptures? by theology? by ontology? – which entail changes (events) the deity has caused in (to) the world – and given that the world is scientifically observable – then such changes (events) purportedly unique to such a deity must also be observable.

    (A) If, however, such changes (events) are not observed, then a deity with those predicates cannot exist; otherwise,

    (B) if these entailed changes (events) are observed, then such a deity must exist.

    So yes, in this way, it is quite reasonable to expect that such a deity can be demonstrated either to exist or not to exist.

    (C) And insofar as a deity is described without any predicates which entail this deity has caused changes (events) in the world, then there are not any purported facts of the matter to investigate, and such a deity is ontologically indistinguishable from an idea or fiction.

    In sum, positive atheism (i.e. to claim this or that god does not exist) is not illogical as per (A) above.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Addendum to this discussion of only a month ago
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894404

    You just believe in a different sort of God. — BitconnectCarlos
    If that is so, then Deus, sive natura – Spinoza's God¹ (and not "the God of Abraham" or any other Bronze Age tribal / sectarian cult-superstition) – which I contemplate without worshipping-fetishizing (i.e. idolatry) like Albert Einstein et al. As a philosophical naturalist (i.e. Epicurean-Spinozist + absurdist²), I have a speculative, 'irreligious' affinity for pandeism³ which makes me an ecstatic⁴ ... rather than spiritual or religious.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism [1]

    https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism [2]

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054 [3]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_(philosophy) [4]
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Because they believe in God? Or is it the talking snakes? — BitconnectCarlos
    The latter follows from the former. Like the principle of explosion: any nonsense follows from contradictions. :pray:
    Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire
    "Zion" re: Joshua (Jericho) to Netanyahu (Gaza) ...
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    So what? All Abrahamic sects are the same superstitious nonsense (especially the literalist – e.g. jihadi & ultra-zionist – delusions). Of course you missed my "explicitly irreligious" counterpoint so I'll repeat it here:
    ... it's the unholy "parties of god" on both sides committing atrocities that "explicitly" sabotages any prospective (secular) resolution to Israeli-Palestinian hatreds. — 180 Proof
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    the explicitly irreligious — BitconnectCarlos
    Yeah, we're the ones who do what's right for exigent reasons to do right for its own sake; we're not craven like most of "the explicitly religious" who superstitiously obey "commandments" for the sake of reward or to avoid punishment in some imaginary "afterlife". After all, it's the unholy "parties of god" on both sides committing atrocities that "explicitly" sabotages any prospective (secular) resolution to Israeli-Palestinian hatreds.
  • What is truth?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    Okay. Take care and be well.
  • What are your core beliefs?
    Some "core beliefs" which I try to live by:

    Do no harm as in: What we find harmful, I try not to do to anyone'.

    Have courage as in: I expect the worst, prepare for the best and try to  accept whatever comes.

    Trust evidence as in this motto: In Nature We  Trust.
  • We don't know anything objectively
    We don't know anything objectively. — Truth Seeker
    False. Some obvious examples – "We know objectively" that no individual was born before her parents were born. "We know objectively" that we are natural beings whose existence is both consistent with physical laws and inseparable from nature itself. Also "we know objectively" that we cannot in any way know at any time 'all that is knowable'.

    Again ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901112

    ↪BC
    :up:
  • What is truth?
    "The red pill" really shows that there is no red pill ... just as "there is no spoon", "the matrix" means there is no matrix. ~ Agent 180 Proof :cool:

    How do I know that I am not in the Matrix? — Truth Seeker
    Well, for starters, you don't have any reasonable grounds to doubt that you are "not in The Matrix" ...

    How can we really know what is and what is not external to my mind?
    Whatever makes "my mind" mine (e.g. embodiment) cannot be internal to "my mind".

    Solipsism can't be proven or disproven.
    Speculative suppositions are not matters of "proof" like (e.g.) mathematical theorems; rather they are matters of reasonableness. For instance, do you believe it is reasonable to doubt that there are 'other minds, the external world'? Apparently, Seeker, as this discussion demonstrates, you do not.

    The simulation hypothesis can't be proven or disproven.
    How do you know this? Are you an expert or non-superficially familiar with universal quantum computation¹ (D. Deutsch)? Cite a fundamental physical law that is inconsistent with – prohibits – "the simulation hypothesis"; if fundamental physical laws do not prohibit it, propose some reasonable grounds to doubt that this universe is 'a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, etc' (N. Bostrom ... R. Penrose², S. Lloyd, S. Wolfram³, G. Mandelbroit ...) Again, it's a hypothesis about – model of – (aspects of) the physical world that is either experimentally testable (i.e. scientific) or it is not (i.e. pseudo-scientific or metaphysical) and therefore, in either case, is not a matter of "proof".

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Turing_machine [1]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology [2]

    https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/ [3]
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    And as usual, BC, you don't have a substantial or factual point, only another vapid non sequitur. :roll:

    ↪Moses
    On the contrary, whenever in recent decades "Isreal" is mentioned I think of that (US-backed) war criminal Netanyahu and mentioning "Palestine" I think of the criminally dispossessed masses suffering under Israeli occupation since 1967 (or 1948).
  • What is truth?
    I counted that there are two bananas in my fruit bowl. — Truth Seeker
    This is only datum, not "knowledge" (i.e. a historical and/or scientific explanation), that is more-than-subjective insofar as (a) you can actually eat the bananas and (b) you cannot actually eat the fruit bowl and, even more so, (c) you can actually measure (e.g.) the resting masses of the bananas and fruit bowl, separately and together. What grounds, Seeker, do you have to doubt that "two bananas in a fruit ball" refers to more than just your "subjective sensory perception"?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Gaza (Intifada) = Warsaw Ghetto (Uprising) ...

    "Never Again" unless we do it to the goyim! :shade:
  • What is truth?
    How would I know anything objectively? — Truth Seeker
    :roll: (e.g.) Start counting ...
  • What is truth?
    I think that my claim is merely subjective. — Truth Seeker
    And therefore it's imaginary at best (i.e. not a true "claim") or self-refuting at worst.
  • We don't know anything objectively
    All of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective. How can I possibly know anything objectively? — Truth Seeker
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901112
  • What is truth?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    How do you know that "all of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective"? If your claim is merely subjective, then it's only a belief; however, if it is more-than-subjective, then you (we) know it is not true.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos The double standard is to say colonisation is wrong but to support Israel, to say oppression is wrong but to support Israel, to say human rights are universal but to support Israel, to say self determination is a right but to support Israel, to say war crimes are wrong but to support Israel.

    None of that excuses Hamas.     — Benkei
    :clap: :fire:
  • What is truth?
    We can't know anything outside our subjective perceptions and understanding. — Truth Seeker
    Including your merely "subjective" claim that "we can't ..." :roll:
  • We don't know anything objectively
    Do you agree that "objective truths" are actually shared subjective truths? — Truth Seeker
    No. If that is all they are, then they are not objective (i.e. subject/pov-invariant, language-invariant, gauge-invariant AND fallibilistic).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪NOS4A2
    And yet non sequiturs even if true, dude, because Criminal Defendant-1 is conspicuously guilty AF. :victory: :lol:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    If the roles were reversed, sure. If it were mostly Israelis living in a concentration camp and being killed at 10x the number as their occupying oppressors, I for one would be condemning the latter. — Mikie
    ↪Mikie Indeed. I think power is important. I'm less concerned about who is evil and who isn't (like orcs vs elves) and more about who has power and what are they doing with it. — bert1
    :100: :100:

    And moral cretins like @BitconnectCarlos are pathetically incorrigible with respect to (our) critique of historical oppressions. Why do we keep casting these pearls before apologetic swine? I suppose we must ... or else risk becoming (or abetting) the oppressors we oppose.
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    natural selection is not random — wonderer1
    :100:
  • Christianity - an influence for good?
    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. — Ephesians 6:5
    Re: the Pauline "Christ" myth (i.e. conspiracy theory) conjured together by committee in Nicea during the 4th century CE reign of Constantine the Great from the diverse strands of hand-me-down hearsay gossip about 'an itinerant, Aramaic-speaking, wonder-worker who preached mostly to (& for) oppressed, poor, illiterate masses' in and around Galilee in Roman occupied Judea during the 1st century CE reign of Tiberius and who was named "Yeshua" (Iesus in Latin) ...

    ... addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892455
  • Is atheism illogical?
    Is atheism illogical? — Scarecow
    The answer depends on the argument. I find the OP's argument is illogical (unpersuasive).
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    If you say X is eternal and X is all there is and from X all new combinations and variations arise, how do you parse out your claims from the deist's? — Hanover
    Easily. Simply put – Deism posits a separate X & Y: 'the uncreated creator deity' and its 'created world(s)/universe(s)' in which the latter is temporal and the former eternal (i.e. causa sui). However, my "claim"
    ↪180 Proof
    is acosmist (Spinoza) and/or atomist (Epicurus), therefore, in either case, not deistic.

    I also wonder about the possibility of 'no origins' ... — Jack Cummins
    This corresponds to 'no edges' (in space). If existence (i.e. everything that exists) is the effect, then its cause (i.e. origin) is non-existence (i.e. nothing-ness that is also the absence of any conditions for any possibility of existence) – which is nonsense, no?
  • Usefulness vs. Aesthetics Regarding Philosophical Ideas and Culture
    So what is leftover when discarding the aesthetic/metaphysical? — schopenhauer1
    Mostly, I think, we are deflating – deemphasizing – rather than "discarding the aesthetic/metaphysical".

    What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view?
    Intellectual desire.

    What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists?
    It doesn't matter except to a subject who adopts an "aesthetic view".

    Why are some people drawn to it and some not?
    Sensibility.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Responsibility sticks to power. I rather suspect anti-Israel sentiment, and the relative downplaying of Hamas's nastiness (at least in this thread - it's not the case in most the media I've come across) has to do with the fact that Israel can, and indeed is, killing a great many people and destroying all the buildings and infrastructure, and Hamas is not. If the boot were on the other foot, I rather suspect we'd all be slagging off Hamas. But each cunt has its day, as someone famous might have said, and today it's Israel who is the cunt. — bert1
    :100: Typical tactic of the oppressor (and their apologists) to blame the oppressed for mirroring their oppression. Yeah, if only the jackboot was on the other's throat ...

    @tim wood (in case you've missed it)
    https://youtu.be/J1N93pFcopE?si=btRT5nnIv2VkTmWp
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    ↪Hanover
    :up:
  • A poll regarding opinions of evolution
    I don't think anything truly resolves the question of the origin of our existence. — Hanover
    Suppose there was no "origin"? Suppose, as Spinoza reasons, existence is eternal (and merely reconfigures itself every tens of billions years (à la Epicurus ... or R. Penrose))? I'm partial to as parsimonious a metaphysics as can be conceived.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Anyway, done with genocide apologists. — Mikie
    :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪RogueAI
    Any surveys of polling trends (with explicit margins of error) which sample only Likely Voters in 7 swing states (decided by 3 or less points in 2020) re: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin? This won't be any more predictive six months out from the general election than daily/weekly snapshot cllickbait polls but rather would be more relevantly diagnostic of the respective campaigns' / parties' persistent weaknesses with respect to the electorate. :chin:

    @Relativist
Home » 180 Proof