javi2541997 Yohan
Could it be said that the common sense default position is to be believe in moral cause and effect,AKA Karma?
Because God and Karma are the same concept from a different angle. — Adamski

Not sure I see how Karma and God is the same concept from a different angle. Objective morality I would see as some aspect of an objective God.

I understand those theists doctrines. But while gravity is indeed a physical fact that affects everyone because it explains why our bodies are attracted to the centre of the earth and has been proven by many theories of physics, God still depends on someone's faith. It doesn't matter if you do not "see" gravity because it will affect you physically.
Gravity was always been there and later on, we the humans "discovered" it through researchers because these, precisely, wanted to go further than "God's mercy." — javi2541997

This is two different categories of knowing. Empirical investigation cannot be used to prove or disprove first principles. You can't for example examine an axiom under a microscope.

God's existence needs a belief. Someone who believes in his existence. This state of mind is based on faith. And faith is a sacred/religious concept. Then, God necessarily depends on all of these characteristics to exist himself. — javi2541997

Some theists hold that theism is a common sense default state or what have you, and that not believing in God is based on a confusion, like not believing in gravity just because you can't see it, even though its influence is apparent to everyone.

Personal definitions are just fine. As far as they do not deviate much from standard ones. That's why I prefer using mainly the second ones. — Alkis Piskas

Who's standards?
Academics have one set of standards. Non academics often have other standards.

Atheism, theism, and agnosticism, have been around a long time and in other languages and traditions, with their own words that may have different meanings.
And these words are about God. Do you think there is a standard definition for God across all religions cultures and times?

For example,
"The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

This is not "simply someone who does not believe in the existence(/nonexistence)of God"
That is me, as an agnostic.
— Yohan
This is exactly the definition of atheist, not agnostic. — Alkis Piskas

I told you what I believe these words mean in their most everyday usage.
Do you disagree that I offered decent definitions of their everyday meaning?

An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of God. That's all. — Alkis Piskas

The options as far as CONVICTION of God's reality are:
1. I lack conviction that God is real or unreal.
2. I am convinced God is real.
3. I am convinced God is not real.

I am convinced these are the common everyday meanings of agnostic, theist, and atheist.

We create an imaginary God in a arbitrary way, we give it imaginary attributes — Alkis Piskas

This is not "simply someone who does not believe in the existence(/nonexistence)of God"
That is me, as an agnostic.

I agree but I would replace 'non-existence,' and 'existence' with non-life and life as without this you would have to assign some purpose and significance to the existence of something which is lifeless like a rock when no lifeform exists to label it a rock or (in the case of a microbe) at least live on it. — universeness

Far as I'm concerned a rock is a bored proto-life-form.

Does the i universe need sentient existence? What is a non sentential existence? — schopenhauer1

My understanding is that the purpose of existence is to relieve boredom. Non-existence I take as a state of absolute boredom.
I don't have any scientific answers, obviously. But I dont think they are necessary.

Maybe this is too deep, but when I think why there is something rather than nothing, I can't help but think its because not existing is a vacuum that existing fills. In other words, the state of non-existence must have some element of lack to it in order to initiate existence. This may be related to what some traditions have called the demiurge.

A religion seems to be when there is revered beliefs and ideals.
If you revere your favourite band or movie, it can become like a religion, a lifestyle. Probably because the band or movie gives expression to some cherished ideal.

I'm confused sometimes if I should welcome or repress reverence, since I think it tends to be an exaggeration of the worth of something. Yet, it also makes the thing more appreciated when its revered.

Everything is a miracle; each thing is not.
— 180 Proof
:chin: — Pantagruel

Eg. Eating a sandwich is pretty ordinary. But if you think of everything that goes into the making of a sandwhich, and then went into the making of you, its quite extraordinary.

Why not instead ask the opposite? Is it possible I am not God?
— Yohan
Because that one is philosophically uninteresting. It's obviously possible that I am not God. What's interesting is that it is genuinely metaphysically possible that I am God. Highly unlikely, of course. But nevertheless, entirely possible. — Bartricks

I am basically taking your question deeper.
Hypothetically might you be God? Sure, why not? Anything is possible.

Might you ACTUALLY, REALLY be God???

Isn't that more interesting? If you are ACTUALLY God, then it would mean you are God by NECESSITY, which would mean you couldn't possibly NOT be God.

So I'm saying lets try to prove you are God, rather than just asking if its possible to be God...because anything "could be" possible, which is not that interesting.
Although the possibility of being God is more interesting than the impossibility.

I doubt anyone can give some logic which rules out the possibility that you are God.

Isn't the default that a proposition is innocent of impossibility until proven impossible?

Why not instead ask the opposite? Is it possible I am not God?

Hum, I thought getting married and having children was how to actualize myself as a woman. I used to feel very sorry for single people because they did not enjoy the benefits of love and marriage. I have noticed in my later years, that many older people chose to live near a son or daughter and grandchildren. I loved being a grandmother and great-grandmother. Saying that is about fear seems like an odd way of understanding the joys of family. — Athena

Curiosity can be part of the motive to be with others. But a desire to be soothed and affirmed by others, or needed and valued, I see it as relating to lack of self esteem.
Not that I deny such things. If I can't affirm myself I am not against being affirmed, and appreciate it. But I want to eventually be able to affirm myself.

Can grow from relationships as relationships bring up insecurities so they can be faced and overcome, learning how to be vulnerable but also how to have healthy boundaries.

↪Yohan I do not understand what you mean. I am saying that I cannot seem to rule out - not categorically- that I may have the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. And thus I cannot completely rule out that I am God. I do not see how what you have said engages in any way with the case I made. — Bartricks

Apologies.
Ignore my comment.

Like many philosophy questions, there is a risk of confusing the map and the territory.
When Buddhists talk about no self and emptiness, they are referring to the map, as I understand it.

So if by "I" you mean the territory I, then maybe that is pure awareness, and pure awareness is what the map called God is a representation of.

The theme of your thread is absolutes.
I don't know of an absolute way to measure right and wrong.
So I can't give any absolute answer.
My point is that moral absolutes are evil because they encourage abiding by rules rather than using your own conscience. For example, how many people perpetuate evil policies with the bland excuse of "I was just following orders"

So if for example my mind says "don't kill Joe . it's immoral and evil" is wrong? Should at the end go and kill Joe cause that's the real moral thing to do? — dimosthenis9

Why not kill Joe? What have you got to lose?

I would name them your "way of living" absolute truths. They might not be relevant to universe but damn I liked these 2.
The strange thing though is that the way you wrote it, I get the sensation that you do want to keep/maintain your insanity.And I really wonder why. You do love it a little aw? — dimosthenis9

I think sane people are less happy than insane, and "real" people duped by reality.
I try to do the opposite of everything good and moral, as I think the good and moral are evil. The rule is, that the mind reverses everything. So that everything the mind believes is exactly the opposite of the way things really are.
To stay safeI try to act dangerously.
To succeed I am to fail.

My absolutes:
Hmm, never mind.

Anyway I suppose Bret Bernhoft is right.
If Shamanism is the oldest tradition of exploring the deeper side of life, it could be considered the primordial tradition of higher learning.

It is true that primitive group were not less developed. But for a lot of reasons they weren't part of the "progress" because some decided to got stuck in their primitive thoughts and ideas while other groups started to develop different ideas. — javi2541997

I dunno. It may be a natural hierarchy. In the ancient Indian caste system, the Brahmins, or scholarly class, were the smallest class. Today philosophers and scientists are still the minority. If everyone performed the duty of the scholars, who would farm and build?

You put a good example: mythology. This area of knowledge was pretty important to Ancient Greece, indeed. But keep in mind that it was "primitive" according to Plato and Socratic philosophers. — javi2541997

I thinks mythology was important in every ancient culture. Most are of it has not been preserved.
I doubt the Socratic philosophers thought it was primitive. They were probably critical of interpreting it literally and romanticising it. Explicit vs implicit interpretation can make the difference between primitive and profound.

On another note, free thinkers have to either hide their thoughts in symbols and metaphors (implicit) or else risk backlash from those who don't want to have their comfortable beliefs rattled up. Eg, the execution of Socrates.

I disagree with the fundamental notion that the ancients were necessarily, on the whole, more primitive in their development.

I think a lot of ancient mythology, for example, is very subtle and complex. What modern literature do we have that compares? Marvel Universe?

Sure, maybe it was only the minority in ancient times that were highly developed, while the masses were primitive brutes.

And what of today? Are not the masses cave men with smartphones?

Well, yes. But this is due to the fact that they didn't experience Enlightenment until the colonialism turned up. There was no demarcation because they didn't know what a secular system was about. I mean, they way of life was full of metaphors and shamanic rituals. Their citizens didn't have other choices. — javi2541997

I agree.
My point is that anything within a religious context, as far as I can tell, can be secularized, other than a belief in God, I suppose. They probably saw having sex and giving birth as sacred acts. Does that mean having sex and giving birth are related to the sacred?

Edit: Actually, I think God can be taken out of a religious context too. But it has a lot to do with linguistics.

If you check out information about Shamanism, all the papers written by specialists, agree with the fact that shamans are related to some kind of religion — javi2541997

Imagine if there were no secular arts.
In indigenous times, there was no demarcation between spiritual and secular.
So yeah, if music wasn't secularized (taken out of a religious/spiritual context), then these same anthropologists who claim Shamanism is religious would probably say that, "Music is a religious ritual".

This sort of discussion is exactly what that one poster called "a hot dog question"

Representative democracy is about the elected people representing those that voted for them. Not everyone. — baker

A democratically elected representative is supposed to represent the will of the democratic republic, is how I thought its supposed to work.

In either case, is it true?

Leaders used to claim to represent the will of God, and God is supposed to know what's good for the people, or nation, and so indirectly the leader who represents God's will is also representing the will of the nation. Am I right? I am going by deduction.

Assuming the presidents (at least in America) have all been believers, this is what the presidents tacitly should believe. That God is leading them, directly or indirectly, to lead the people.

Anyway, the job of a leader already should imply to be capable of assessing what's best for the group as a whole and representing the groups best interests.

So calling someone a representative leader is like calling someone a single bachelor, in a sense. Unless I'm missing something.

At any rate, I'm not convinced the Pope or any of the leaders claiming to represent God's or the people's will or best interests actually are

It does seem to me that representing the will of "the people" would require a supernatural aid, or otherwise a continual and caring conversation between the leader and who they are supposed to represent.

I see us as tribal, social animals, evolved to work as a group. I view the relatively isolated self as a kind of invention, a byproduct of capitalism maybe. — Pie

I think man has been isolated from the beginning, and that groups are at least one factor in that.
When someone sees me as a stereotype or representative of a group, they ignore my unique individuality, so I become isolated.

Can we not just as easily make love primary ? I fear that harm will come to what I love. No love, no fear. — Pie

Love is basically mutual assurance. People giving each other hope and consolation. Its not a thing in itself. Without fear and insecurity, how could we give each other hope and comfort?

I think fear and curiosity are the two main drivers.
Each has subcategories or synonyms, love being a subcategory of fear.
Its the desire for things to stay the same vs the desire for change. Love and fear are both about attachment: desire for stability, safety and comfort, all ways of coping with fear. Making friendships(love) helps protect us from dangers

There are two motives for staying alive:
Curiosity, which makes life a fascinating exploration of potential.

And the fear of death. Which is not really any different from being dead already.

Its not death you crave. You are dead already. You crave to truly live.

I define fundamentalism as believing something because others believe it.

Few people, far as I can tell, are not fundamentalists of some form or another, including myself.

Its not easy for me to free my mind of blind beliefs when they were poured into me from such a young and impressionable age.

I'd prefer to imagine who would win in a philosophical sparring match.

A great absurdist OP

I'm afraid Joe would win, even though Hicks would win in funny points, eloquence, and unique style.
Joe accepts the world as it is and works with it, motivating others where he can.

Hicks is perpetually dissatisfied and escapist, and brings to light the corruption and absurdity of modern life, but doesn't offer much beyond choosing love over fear and marking reality off as being "just a ride". Someone I imagine who didn't follow his own philosophically so well, similar to Alan Watts.

For me it boils down to leadership.
We all gotta play three roles. Leader of our self, follower, and leader of others.

First rule is you gotta be the leader of yourself. Otherwise you cant be a good follower/student or leader/teacher of others

If you aren't leading yourself, then when you follow it will be blind obedience, and so you won't learn or grow, and may end up following the wrong kind of person or philosophy.
And when you lead it will be tyranny, or the blind leading the blind. (People who lack personal power seek power over others)

Lastly, in my opinion, the golden rule of leadership: (In this case I mean being a leader of a mass of people, rather than say, for example, being head of your household)...and I mean, the golden rule of how to spot a good aspiring leader from a bad one:

Only a reluctant leader ever makes a decent leader.

With leadership comes great responsibility. Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Nobody would want to be a leader for personal reasons, unless those reasons are self-glorification and lust for power and privilege. The only valid reason to become a leader is the recognition that there is nobody better to fit the need. A good leader is always doing it as a sacrifice.

Voting is simply not practical. In the real world, money and connections is what gives a person worldy power.

Look around and see which class of people rule in every country. Its always the rich class.

Directly or or under the table, worldly power is plutocratic. Money rules. Not votes.

If you live in a democracy, benefit from and value that democracy, and you're able to participate in the voting process without an unreasonable burden but choose not to, then in my opinion you're freeloading to some degree. One ought not to freeload. — praxis

This is true if voting is a duty.

Neglect of duty: bad.
Fulfillment of duty: not bad.
Doing good beyond what is required: magnificence

Someone not paying taxes you could argue is a free loader. Its considered a duty.
Political involvement, eg, voting, is doing good beyond the requirement of duty (unless you hold a political position, I guess)

So, if you believe voting is a duty, explain why.
Because I value or benefit from democracy, does that mean I have a duty to vote?

Which is why a democracy has the legal means to remove such a political leader from office. — baker

That doesn't answer the larger question. How does a president represent the will of millions of strangers? You can't represent someone's will unless you know their will. Just getting elected by the strangers doesn't grant you some magical ability to know their will once elected.

Further, how likely is it that the majority poor (poor by comparison) actually want a rich lawyer (half the US presidents have been lawyers, and almost all of them rich) to represent them? And how likely is it that a rich lawyer isn't going to prefer to represent the will of the rich minority over the poor majority?

They are citizens of democractic countries, but they have the mentality of people living in a monarchy (or a cynical dystopia). — baker

If a leader makes decisions that the majority of people are against, which they do all the time, then by definition, their decisions are not democratic. Simply calling it "representative democracy" doesn't actually make it democracy.

No! It's much much simpler than that. A living, eligible to vote, person has the option to vote or not. A dead person has no option at all. — Alkis Piskas

So even if I don't vote for either candidate, I never the less support one of the candidates by choosing not to vote?

You could also say that that if I choose to vote for a third candidate, that I am indirectly supporting the most popular candidate by not supporting his closer competition. Right?

What about all my free time that I didn't use to support the close candidate? By not using it on the close candidate, did I indirectly use it to support the more popular candidate? How about my spare money. Since I didn't donate it to the close candidate, did I somehow support the popular candidate by not making a donation?

There are rules that are partial and others that are complete and by that I mean partial rules apply in most cases while complete ones all the time. Both would qualify as rules, oui? — Agent Smith

It used to be considered a rule that swans are white.
Now its common knowledge that there are a minority of swans that are black.
Does this mean the rule, "Swans are white" is true in most cases? While, say, "Swans are birds." is a complete rule?
If I was before a black swan, and someone says "Swans are white", I could say, "You are mostly right, but completely wrong in this case".
I dunno, its a word game for me at this point.