First, I'd like to congratulate you on having the most intriguing screen name on this site I've come across to date.

Also,

The point of a government is to enact the will of the people using its might, resources, and governmental status. There are things due to the nature of an open society not every citizen can know, operate, or have access to. If the government literally only has the funds to "maintain it's own existence" .. and not do anything else .. well that's kinda not how government works. Why would something that doesn't do anything of purpose need to exist in the first place?

Vice or virtue aside the "will of the people" which is the majority of what people want and need shall be enacted, enforced, and made more easily possible or otherwise brought into reality per statutes of the Constitution.

Of course I speak in the context of a government by the people and for the people, ergo, it is elected individuals doing what the majority of citizens want. Now we can talk about corruption all day .. but that aside, the individual citizen who can't be "unelected" or will otherwise face no accountability for failure or unscrupulous actions or activity isn't deterred by transparency in the same way an elected official who does need to succeed in the court of public opinion to get reelected is.

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Freedom is having the ability to lose it.

Something like a skill, trade, or craft takes time to hone and master, which requires work, effort, and time. Knowledge too. A studious pursuit of knowledge either in philosophy or science is truly never complete or "finished". It requires a lifelong pursuit and commitment. You can take downtime and even give up, but somebody else from another nation will do what you neglected or were too lazy to do if so.

You can see what happens when the greatest generation is told "hey guys.. great job. you no longer have to do anything anymore .. ever". That sounds amazing. True victory. Then just sit back and watch. Absent of discipline, knowledge, and structure even the salt of the Earth will turn scum of the Earth in a few generations flat. Happens every time. That's what's happening here, I fear.

Not everyone wants to succumb to the complacent degeneracy sipped from a poisoned chalice of ancient triumphs no one can even remember or even actually knows for sure happened.

Funny I was going to post "there's no 'I' in team".

Meaning the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the slightly less many. We agree to vote, not vote to agree.

If a cause is deemed wrong or offensive the logic behind it should be self-evident when brought up to the public through an action or awareness campaign or committee. However, just because you believe something is evil doesn't mean it's not a lesser evil. That is to say every point has a counterpoint. A popular and powerful one being "it would cost (you) money" such as mandating all food product be organic and cruelty-free or something.

I still don't know if he was a theist or an atheist and that's what scares me. :sweat:

"Defining Morality in a Reality with no Foundation" — SteveMinjares

There is a foundation. Imagine you when you were six years old. If I punished you, spanked you, or otherwise made you feel bad, you knew it was undesirable, warranted or not. We all have the foundation of morality inside us from birth. Even now as an adult, you know what causes pain, suffering, discomfort, or irritation. Don't act like it's some obscure concept that is up for debate.

Is meaning purpose? Or is purpose meaning? If existence has no meaning or purpose (whichever you err on the side of) how does that relate to an object created of variable purpose such as a rod, tube, pipe, or carbon filament? It has meaning to have purpose, however that purpose will vary depending on what application it is used for. If such objects are argued to have absolute meaning or intent of use rather, then of course they do. And if not, their purpose is to have meaning or rather their meaning is to have purpose, of which they do, just of variable definition and practice. Just as one man's definition of success in life is not necessarily the same as that of another, the idea of purpose or meaning becomes subjective in an absolute way.. does it not?

Would someone tell me how religious people explain this without defying physics. — scientia de summis

Sure, if they could. But they can't. That's why they're religious. Your ancestors were the same of other scientific reactions and happenings they couldn't explain. How far you've come. Or perhaps.. you've reached the arrogance and devaluation of the mystery (ergo joy) of life they hoped for you to avoid. Congratulations.

In even shorter: fast and unstable wins the race. It wins many races, that's for sure. I'm not sure why you're so inclined to frequent a place that holds the opposite in high regard, frankly. Or, perhaps that's exactly why you do.

Why is it that a boy raised on a remote island somewhere can find joy in building sand castles, collecting shells, and watching the clouds or the tides rise and fall, when a boy raised in a mansion in upstate New York always needs a new video game or iPhone every month?

Why are some men's favorite time of day just sitting around by a fire and telling stories, perhaps playing games either in or kept score by simple marks in the sand, just socializing with others, while for some, doing so would be a chore they'd pay to get out of.

The hedonic treadmill, perhaps? Probably. Perhaps we're all just chasing shiny objects at the end of the day, in an effort to feel more alive and human in an inhumane world. Perhaps, it is the shiny objects that chase us, gradually robbing us of our humanity. Does a man drink a can of beer until it's empty? Or does the beer drink the man until he's empty? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. Before too late.

I guess it would depend on both where those who doubted less than you ended up and where those who doubted more than you did as well. I'm sure there's a sweet spot, highly related to your time and place of dwelling, as well as other factors including what is at stake.

For example, are we doubting a philosophical notion or scientific law? If you believe something that turns out to be untrue, your not going to suddenly lose all sense of logic and the universe probably won't begin to unravel either. :grin:

Are we doubting whether to trust a person you only somewhat know with a small loan? If he dips and you never see him again, or just mismanages it and is simply unable to pay you back, that could have a notable impact on your life.

Are we doubting whether or not to use the raw chicken you were thawing but forgot about til half a day later? If spoiled, it could make you ill.

The dynamic I see is "better safe than sorry" vs. (I'm sure there's a more apt saying but it's one I found to be relatable) "scared money don't make money" or maybe "woe is the man who endlessly pondered the meaning of a life he forgot to live" .. which implies sometimes to get a reward you have to take risks .. or else everybody would do so and said reward would no longer be a reward but a given.

If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. This leads to the universe being deterministic.

What are your thoughts? — Tombob

Dumb it down for me some. A newly built wall, and it's future state of ruin (provided it's not repaired as needed) both exist, just not in the same place or time, essentially? Kind of a trippy concept to wrap your head around. Is this similar to the "moving spotlight theory" of time? "It's all relative", etc?

To me, in a strictly scientific understanding of "reality" absent of anything spiritual, it would make more sense to me that somewhere "in a galaxy far far away" (lol) people really evolved billions of years ahead of us who have since been able to master time, space, gravity, and every force on Earth and beyond long ago and..I dunno just kind of mess with us every now and then. Or help, if in the right mood. :grin:

That's not really on topic but basically something related to your question is "how did the Universe start"? The big bang as evidenced by some massive explosion from what is called "the singularity". What created the singularity? What predated it? Was there just a white space like in some abstract philosophical cartoon? Are we really all in a black hole and what we call "black holes" are just punctures in it? Where do they lead? Are there multiple universes? Are they side by side, stacked on top of each other or in completely different realms we cannot (or at least I cannot) even begin to grasp? What are your thoughts?

Eh, it's not all that bad. You can still talk to people. Hang out. Material concerns and physical death are no longer paramount. Not really at least. All your needs are met. :lol:

Until you try to regain your body that is.

Acknowledging the hedonic cycle is as good a start as any I suppose. Is life worth living due to constant satisfaction? Well that one's up to you. Meanwhile, you have people living in third-world, war-torn poverty who manage to find themselves amongst the occasional smile or chuckle every now and then so, again, up to you it would seem.

Fallen world. Plain and simple. Let it go. So you can use the system against itself, and see how far you are allowed to go. It may not be far. Or.. it may be further than even you once thought. You'll never know, until you do.

Well, sure, in a way. If a philosophical argument were indisputable fact it would have already crossed over into the threshold of science already, graduating from a theory or proposal to that of a fact or law. Wouldn't it?

Because. Why don't we have "White History Month" or "Men's Day", just to remind other people they are so marginalized they need a holiday to commemorate them. Cycle, rinse and repeat. It's made to be internalized, and it generally is. More invisible chains, chains that are more binding than if they were physical because at least those can be unlocked with a physical item even absentmindedly. Unfortunately, you'll need to use your mind to break free from these.

What I am saying is that all great ideas idea emanate from the individual whereas all horrendous ones emanate from groups (because they have the power to effect all kinds of horror). — synthesis

A single person invented the nuclear bomb. Considering all persons being equal, i'd call that pretty horrible. Though perhaps considering it was (often) quick slaughter perhaps it even acting as a deterrent prevented true, slow, and personal slaughter. Who's to say really. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Louis Pasteur invented pasteurization with the help of his wife. Not quite a "group" per se. That's likely because in a group everyone is still striving and reaching to do their own thing just within limits and confines defined by said group. In a group, positive events, like a discovery, usually go to the individual for positive credit which acts as an incentive to keep being or doing your best where negative events, like execution by firing squad, are shared and all members are equally responsible, for purposes I don't like to think about frankly. Still, the benefit of the group is always present.

There are those — synthesis

I'm sure there are those who think just about anything really. Perhaps even a significant amount.

why are so many people smitten with group mentality? — synthesis

You answered this yourself. Better odds. Still, I think there's another angle to this. There's a difference between being socially conscious and full-blown mob mentality. The latter being nobody is really thinking or acting in accordance to their own beliefs or what they think is best, rather just doing what the guy next to them is doing out of pure instinct.

For the US I wish the criminalization of weapons. It will give some peace to the people. And if everyone feels safer there's more room for solutions. — TaySan

Nothing brings one a sense of peace like not being able to defend oneself or at least die defending oneself on equal terms I suppose.

Science. Humanity evolving. Forms of atomic communication over large distances (which are documented) that have yet to be discovered by science. Plants communicate with each other, but this is typically by physical spores, pheromones, or other observable elements that have been documented extensively.

This is kind of metaphysical, if not supernatural. At that point you can argue anything, and I see you wish to avoid that, as does this forum. So all I'll say is, not all that glitters is gold.

Also: beyond that, the tech for both translating thoughts into words and words into thoughts is unfortunately here. With that in mind.. anything is possible now isn't it?

"No comment" = "I don't agree with this, but what I do agree with makes this seem like nonsense to me. But I like some things you post or at least something about you. So, hi"

There is no right or wrong here but only asking which direction attracts you the most: the attraction to wholeness or to fragmentation when appreciating beauty? — Nikolas

Beauty transcends even this for it is truly in the eye of the beholder. If beauty can be comprised of wholeness and fragmentation, then surely the wholeness is the work of art, and fragmentation is the appreciation of its many colors, both dark and light, equally together forming a single piece that is neither whole nor fragmented.

A fresh apple on a table can be beauty. For it is sustenance in its purest form. It can also be ugliness, if perhaps it was stolen from a hardworking man's farm that resulted in his death. The same apple though rotten and pulsating with worms and fly larvae can be beauty, because perhaps the thief who stole it was brought to justice and is no longer able to eat it, or perhaps, if it were outside, now becomes fertilizer for the poor man down on his luck who managed to snag his property for a bargain at a tax auction, and will now enrich the soil that he intends to plant many fields to feed those deserving, perhaps devastated by the same thief that plagued his father. It's hard to say. Impossible even.

Would you perhaps consider posting little snippets of the article that you found most captivating or relevant to whatever point you desire?

Obviously for them, it did. At least their understanding of it and the "realities" and resulting problems it presented in their own lives at least.

Good for them. Why just hurt yourself when you can hurt others first. :lol:

I'm kidding! That's sarcasm, folks. See, a little humor can go a long way. I turned a factual tragedy into an opportunity for laughter. Now, I'd have much rather preferred to prevent such tragedies if I had the ability to do so, but seeing as I do not, at least some positivity was spawned from negativity. Which proves life is indeed what you make of it. You listen and believe depressing philosophy, and internalize it rather, it becomes your reality. No people still die, people still starve, etc., but unless your doing something about it, rather especially if you're doing something about it, you can at least know your elevated mood during your work is both derived from suffering while it also alleviates it. Even if not on a small scale.

Like, just one or a few or their own? There's two levels to attraction, physical and mental. You can't really help either. For example on other sites I'll make the fact that many modern Americans are nothing like their older generations were when they were younger known. But obviously neither were they like those before them at that age.. etc. It's the inevitable moral degradation and what it spells out in the long run that concerns me.

As far as being attracted to your own race it's more than likely just a matter of familiarity- you know who you were raised by and grew up around, etc. I can't find the original video, the only ones are those that give their own "take" on the research, but allegedly some institution produced a video about "babies being racist" that talks more about it. It makes sense, the first people you see are your parents, followed by family. Some.. stranger is obviously going to be just a tad strange at that age! lol.

It's important to differentiate between physical and mental attraction. I don't like people who are sh*tty, warranted or not. Sure if you caused the sh*ttiness in question (or circumstances that weren't likely to produce anything else) it's worth realizing that. But people are free to be or not to be in relationships with whomever they like.

For example I don't like "ghetto" attitudes. And neither do most older males of any color. It's the urban form of being a caveman. Having no hesitation to break a bone, rupture an eye socket, or spill blood because of "something you heard" or "for my hood". It's a poison. A literal poison that ensnares both oppressed and non-oppressed peoples equally in invisible chains (which often soon result in physical ones btw) placing the only key the only place they'd now never find it, which is forgiveness and humility. Or otherwise just not being a petty tool that tries so hard not to be a "b*tch" they literally do what other people say quicker and more consistently then if they were paid to do it and actually wanted to! They throw away their freedom, local economies, and even lives all in the pursuit of each. Just like some people want. So tragic. Reverse psychology I guess.

Still, it's bad form. Either version of "I'm interested in X (yet not excluding Y)" or "I'm not interested in X". A simple "I'm not interested, sorry" is sufficient. Or you know how nice chicks like to try and seem. "Uh I just got out of a really bad breakup recently and uh.. I'm just not ready for it sorry. Your really cute.". That or they just say they have an STD. :lol:

I'm a theist myself mind you, but it's often done in the following ways.

People form groups for survival. The purpose of a society or group of people is burden sharing, ie. if someone experiences a tragedy, the rest of the group can fulfill his or her role(s) either temporarily or indefinitely, with little to no or at least minimal negative impact on the overall survival of the group as a whole. The more burdens we remove from a group or society (the criminal minded, murderers, thieves) the less resulting pain, anguish, and just wasted time there is, thus benefiting the society and moving it forward if not for the simple reason there's more times to focus on work or leisure without worrying about/being weighed down by the negative emotions that result from said burdens.

Furthermore, the days of world wars have largely ended. So the lifeblood of the modern day economy is now trade, resources, services, etc. Say you have two lands, Pretoria and Esotropia. Pretoria has stricter laws, safer streets, and much less crime than Esotropia. Why would I want to live and work in Esotropia when I can do so in Pretoria? Show me a neighborhood or region whose streets are riddled with crime that people actually want to move in to that has a vibrant economy, and I'll show you a purple horse.

Nah, you're just going through the hedonic treadmill or cycle as I like to call it. I mean, you only need to do a simple Google search to see how fortunate you truly are, and another to see those who manage to prosper in spite of even what you will see there. Eh. best hang in there. If not for the little lady eh?

Have you tried weed?

Edit: If she's a diamond in the rough, at least get decent life insurance first.

I'm thinking of moving to Discourse — jamalrob

Ew, no. I revoke my suggestion. Wholeheartedly.

Lol. No not like that just perhaps a small consensus vote of "key argument" etc. perhaps including counter-arguments and sub-arguments, etc... basically where the posts (ideas or assertions rather) that the as I claimed "endless posts" come from are derived from in the thread, is all.

I don't think anything other than they're all the same at this point with exception of the following statistics: Greece: 90% Christian. Turkey: 99% Islam. The only real difference is the "people who inhabit what was Greece" (you couldn't torture me enough for me to call them Greeks), will turn the other cheek. Only upside is with the endless wars the other side calls for hopefully they'll clear each other out and the original inhabitants can return someday. Unlikely though.

I shouldn't complain however, nor choose sides. The original Europeans they cleared from their lands accepted and proudly owned their execution of Jesus (those that didn't were summarily executed by their own, save for the few that got away). That divine curse will follow and leave them disadvantaged wherever they run to or no matter whose land they try to take next. Only hope is to try and save the children and hope one day they can grow up free and one day be forgiven. Then again so are the Muslims. And most of "the rest". Everything is cursed basically, and what little that aren't are persecuted because of it. Which only strengthens the severity of the curse. Why do you think our teeth rot, yet we're told cavemen (who didn't have knowledge of oral hygiene) ate nuts and meat off the bone throughout their life? It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't have to- because people don't think. Beyond what is needed to get the next shiny object or thing someone else has.

So you'll have an interesting enough topic, one that's essentially answered several times over in the first page or two- then someone finds an off-example that just ever so barely meets the standard of technically being on topic (I've done this many times myself), and two or more (usually just two) people will debate on that point endlessly, leading to an 800+ post nearly 30 page topic, which isn't bad in and of itself. But eventually.. the OP is just ignored and people reading it for the first time are just bamboozled, if not from simply the offshoot argument (that is still technically on topic mind you) being nowhere to be found.

There should be a "linear" or "simplified" view of topics that link ONLY to A.) answers to the original OP and B.) off-shoot arguments brought up that cast doubt on the majority of answers that seem sufficient and C.) reasonable arguments to those resulting off-shoot answers/sub-questions/resulting topics..... that would be great :grin:

but part of the process is the destruction and recycling of the original body. — Aoife Jones

The interesting part is there's no reason that would be required.. realizing that, I'd say no, I'm me.. now in your scenario assuming the memory and brain configuration (it's so much more complicated.. I'd hope lol but let's just assign "consciousness" as that) is the exact same.. there wouldn't be anybody to claim to be you at that point so.. you know it really depends if you view a human being as anything more than a blob of sentient meat or not.

Edit: This question seems oddly familiar to another one about a hypothetical planet-to-planet transporter system. It was suggested that an atom (or group of atoms) being truly transported from one place in spacetime to another is different from a new atom (or group of atoms) being created with 100% of the same properties and configuration. One is true teleportation, whereas the other is essentially a glorified fax machine.

As an atheist myself since the age of about 7, I simply do not understand how theists can trust in a God given this argument. It would be much appreciated if someone would clarify a general religious stand point for me, however I just do not see that whatever I am told could disprove this argument without contradicting religious beliefs in itself. — scientia de summis

Well the statements quoted present secondary logic derived from I'm not really sure where, human understanding and belief I assume? Who said God was morally perfect? It is said that God has many human emotions as well including rage, jealously, compassion, etc. That aside, even taking all logical assertions both root and derivative at face value, we're still not actually painted into a logical corner yet- not by a long shot.

The answer lies in free will and "letting one go one's own way". Say you have a teenager who's clearly in an unhealthy relationship. You can talk and talk, and even use what little waning authority you have over the individual's life- or you can let them learn for themselves. Kind of like "letting the slaves go" knowing they'll be back after they see for themselves the grass really isn't all that much greener- assuming they survive or aren't captured by other less enlightened forces. Which is rare.

Panspermia is actually a widely-accepted theory. The possibility at least.

I recently spoke to some people who are certain life on earth was manufactured by aliens. — Tom Storm

But how did their life evolve? Earth is just a circumstantial prop in this debate of the origin of life (organism from the non-organic).

:grin:

I guess I would instead say philosophy has done what science has yet to do. That something being giving meaning, purpose, and direction into an otherwise meaningless, purposeless, and chaotic existence. I mean, sure science lets us better arrange and understand the chaos and create/discover new chaotic systems to reign in however the more we uncover and master the less human and in control we feel. Philosophy offers a modest yet effective solution for the human condition.

So the question is: Would you rather feel at home or live in a place you know is scientifically "better" than where you did last?

It was a poor one, I agree. Still, two states of being, allegedly. The first I described (cavemen-esque days) and today (microchips, spaceships, and everything in between). Eventually.. the idea that someone didn't have to start thinking, and critically becomes essentially on par with anything else that today is a "commitable" offense ie. violence, threats of violence, etc.

The only counter-argument is that I'm incorrectly equating "basic thinking" with advanced philosophy. Which is defensible.

Your missing the point. We didn't go from cavemen bashing each other over the head for food, shelter, love, and even just for fun to interconnected societies, microchips and thermonuclear fusion.

Life is like a boulder perched over the edge. Philosophy is kind of like gravity and science is like the person who pushes the rock over the edge and claims all the credit.

If it's not race or religion or income, people will find something else to fight over. Those are the most popular however, mind, soul, and body, respectively. It's a primal urge to find peace in war and fleeting security in perpetual conflict.

See everybody thinks they're right and has the best philosophy per se, and anyone who doesn't agree with their view is at best confused or at worse deficient, anyone who adamantly opposes their view is at best wrong or at worse a living cancer and plague on humanity that if not neutralized will spell doom for the human race. Lol. Once you realize that, you're able to debate with anyone and things begin to start making a whole lot more sense.

basically, just Tolkien's Christian background talking, and how much of it is relevant outside of that context? — baker

How much of this OP is just baker's atheist background talking, and how much of it is relevant outside of that context. OH. All of it. :lol: