Yeah, sure. If I owned this site I'd do things differently. I mean. Not by much. Not really. Just add more. I am no esteemed philosopher or scientist and I would be denying myself knowledge, experience, and discovery by not allowing them to post in an environment that is suitable to them that I'm allowed to observe.

Perhaps... and this is an idea worthy of it's own thread.

There should be a section on this site somewhat independent of the forums yet connected. Somehow. Like the Articles page.

People submit questions and if either they are rated enough or answered not to the satisfaction of the Inquirer they are at the top. Sounds like a bit too much work when people could just check the Lounge more often. I don't like saying (believe me I'm up in the middle of the night checking this place) but this isn't the most active site on the internet. And I for one would like to change that.

Warning: The discussion unfolding needs its own thread.

Philosophy of Religion can encompass fields that atheists may enjoy and even support, essentially it's positive (or negative) effects on society, psychology, sense of purpose, value where there is observably little, etc. Religion as has been said varies greatly. It (generally) states there is an intelligent Creator God. The details and anything further is subjective of a specific religion. Or sometimes that there "was" as Deism states. I think.

While eager and genuinely encouraging to see. It may not always be so simple. Nor should it be. When there is no room for doubt there is no room for faith. All that remains is fact.

You obey the law because you have to. You praise and worship because you are grateful.

If doing good things automatically rewarded you equally where is the "goodness"? The utility and necessity is there but none of the qualities that make someone a good and kind person.

The only way to be truly happy is to get what you want — Gitonga

Right. And Buddhism instills contentness with only the essential. Food, water, shelter, etc.

I am skeptical of Buddhism as some define it but there are philosophies of it that ring true.

What was that zombie movie where the guy led all the remaining zombies into a room and detonated a grenade? He died truly happy, because he placed the happiness of others, humanity itself even, above his own petty understanding of his own. Was he or was he not a hero?

How many philosophers were content with their lives and the world before pursuing the art?

How many athiest-leaning philosophers would unwarrantedly shun or discriminate against theologic-leaning philosophers who are on par with the art itself?

Statistics are useful. They can sometimes however paint an incomplete picture.

I'd like to add maybe either there can be two or more types of accounts with varying restrictions.

No not everyone you will come across here will be a rocket scientist or without their own unchecked logical fallacies. Last I checked life was a journey not a destination. You don't arrest or remove someone because they argue poorly. Perhaps you can. But it shouldn't take nearly 3,000 iterations to realize it. If you had a problem with their logic it should have come up then not "coincidentally" after a concept you reject.

So yeah. Maybe brand new accounts or posters "not quite up to par" or whatever can have somewhat of a restricted account. One discussion a day or every few days or week or whatever, available to all, selectively or not. Perhaps after some form of open voting or "accepted answers" it can be upgraded/restored. Maybe a higher account level needs at least one accepted answer a week or month or something to keep it, I dunno.

Thoughts?

These people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being black, female or LGBQT, poor, (a)religious or uneducated. — Benkei

Being black? They should. I'd be hard pressed to run into someone who doesn't know about slavery.

Female? Depends I guess. Personally I'd always hire female when it comes to customer service or frontend jobs. The data is there. Besides, most actual cases of qualified female applicants being denied a position are due to pettiness.

LGBTQ is complicated. What you do in the bedroom is nobody's business. Sexual conversation and displays of affection are generally disallowed in the workplace. Homosexuality is an orientation. At no point does it need to be known at work. Mannerism is mannerism and dressing like a clown or otherwise absurdly is a preference and choice independent to that. You cannot just "be unprofessional" or unqualified and get ahead over someone who is solely due to who you want to.. get down with. Something an employer does not ask and should never know. A straight man doesn't just blurt out "I have sex with women" at his job in front of his co workers for no reason. It's inappropriate.

I've yet to see a job that demands bank records. Naturally if you dress poorly you might not get a job someone better dressed does.

Religion is the same. Employers don't ask and religion is generally not part of a diverse workplace.

Uneducated... kind of goes without saying. Hey I mean if there's two doctors one who went to medical school for several years and one who read a few books and had a few successes, I'd take the first guy thank you.

You cannot compare racial discrimination with not hiring someone who's broke or unqualified. Really not hard to see why that's kinda harmful.

I mentioned how it should. What hurts you and why? Empathy is the cure for the cancer that is indifference.

The "others" are anyone not part of the aforementioned group that was described.

That's nice. It's a direct reference to a fictional yet plausible example where the title of the OP is proven to have merit. The argument or parts of it may be flawed and meritless but it is not without ideas that aren't.

We are born enslaved. To helplessness and ignorance. Which dissipates some, usually. Beyond that there is hunger, thirst, exposure, injury, disease, and insanity.

You take care of these for me I'll take care of you. Not much more to it.

There is a point the OP makes that should not be ignored.

We know what we know because we think what we think.

Slaves (which were as diverse as the day is long) were often from civilizations, nation states, or groups essentially that were "defeated" by neighboring groups. Often of the same geography. You have people who hate you and will never listen to you and will try to kill you. So what do you do? Two options. Space and resources were limited then as they are now. You make the sale or you make space. Think of an animal shelter. Needless to say those who purchased slaves, especially by those from a society that valued morality knew the fate they spared them from and logically felt no guilt. I mean, would you rather be slaughtered by people who destroyed everything you know or live with others who did and do nothing but take care of you in exchange for labor?

Group A and Group B separately trekked from parts unknown to uninhabited yet nearby forests. Each group, through their blood, sweat, and tears manage to make each area a tolerable and sometimes even pleasant home. Shortly after the two groups make contact and after some time one starts to gradually steal, kill, and destroy the other in a subtle, insidious way until they are handicapped militarily. If the victim topples the other group in spite of that, is that bad? What if they do so but you found out I was lying and the victims were really the oppressors who already had control of their educational system and knowledge of history basically.

It's a real pickle.

So essentially, ignorance is bliss? No squirrels for example don't have to worry about being bullied in school or struggling to pay rent. They have to worry about not getting shot or horribly eaten and killed slowly and painfully. Obviously this could happen to a man as well but by all statistical iterations this happens much more in the animal kingdom then in a modern human society.

Worship thread. Be like me posting about how God is real and wonderful on a religious forum.

What are you asking? An opposing argument or debate? Sure. No. Because, gawd. Lol.

Really ok. So. Imagine you when you were six years old. Or younger or older or even now it really doesn't matter.

Answer the following questions for me please.

Would you prefer me to...

Starve you or feed you?
Let you feel like you're dying of thirst or give you something to drink?
Allow you to be exposed to dangerous heat and cold or ensure you're comfortable?
Stab you in the neck or rub it?
Insult you for no reason or compliment you?
Deprive you of education or teach you?
Take something you care about from you or give you something wonderful?

...you can say whatever and act however you please now. But at a young age, you would either cry or frown or instead smile and be delighted.

You can call this intrinsic and ingrained sense raw biologic mechanics with no purpose beyond petty survival and primal pleasure. Or. You could call it morality.

What does anything require to exist. I don't know or ever personally witnessed 7 billion people. Doesn't mean they don't.

Perhaps this is a non answer (I always dislike those) but I suppose having the state or property of existence. Lol. It either does or it doesn't. No observation or reference will change that. A question as a literal object ie. a verbal or written inquiry or a concept? Concepts are more interesting. What if there were no humans here. The question of why are they not exists. Even here and now why aren't there giant firebreathing dragons here for example is a question. Maybe the answer is "because they don't exist", an answered question still "exists" .. or does it?

Perhaps. If "my" kid was switched at birth.. well, you can see from that as I wouldn't know it's psychological more than anything. Yes?

Physiological, perhaps. Characteristics of both without being exclusively one or the other

It's hard to see how you would solve this though, I don't see people voluntarily choosing not to try to give their kids a head start in life.... — ChatteringMonkey

People and their freaking kids. There should be, simply because there is, nothing special about their own child compared to a neighbors or even some kid halfway across the world for that matter. It's the cancerous, parasitic atheist mindset that when you die you cease to exist in any and all forms. So they desperately try to prolong any idea of themselves through reproduction. They push not only all their failed dreams, pursuits, and expectations on them but all their regrets, fears, and mental complexes on them as well. It is abuse in its purest form. Those who seek to be first, shall be last. And even that is only because I don't have a proper say yet.

They're people. Some are horrible. Yet we don't condemn all people as a result. Regardless the sentiment and fact the incident behind it is open and available is just as strong a rallying cry for free speech, independent media, and related values in general including law and order. And the goal should not be against one specific place but rather the world itself.

Maybe there is a problem. Cops are authority and it is a fact that weakness, true weakness, no matter how big or strong an individual is, naturally seeks power. Inadequacy seeks adequacy. The purposeless seeks the purposeful. A larger problem would be authority in a system that denies all of these things including accountability. Maybe it's not. We wouldn't know!

Any theory stated exists. Sufficiently conforms with scientific law enough at least to the person asked, well, we await the answer.

So anything experienced is an experience. The self is an experience and does not exist. So experiences do not exist independent of subjective observation. Solipsism, basically.

I think a better question is does systemic racism exist in countries or systems with a racial majority? I'd say probably. People are people they just look different. I'd say it's a universal biological inclination toward the familiar or aversion to the unfamiliar that plays a major role. Experience. A majority in a country that has been oppressed before is likely to be oppressed again. In a connected and diverse world this may be done more subtly. Targeting a groups weaknesses or inclinations in order to groom them to essentially destroy themselves. Violent rap music, for example. It sounds good. It's exciting. It's cool and as a minority youth it's a powerful and sometimes even wise father figure I can look up to and respect, especially if I lack one.

Again, everyone is a minority somewhere. The world was a tough place not that long ago. You can see it even today.

Do you believe your own judgement? Then you believe in your understanding of logic.

Aw, man. He was just saying your argument was bad and making a joke about how any evidence to the contrary to that is cheap. You didn't have to go and call him a homosexual now.

Jeez man now anyone who disagrees with someone is now not only wrong but scientifically should no longer reproduce? Can't imagine what people like that would do without cops or diversity frankly.

Scary. Makes you wonder about the intents of some who "support" gay rights.

Unique risks. Using available logic it may be hard to rationalize why I'd rather be able to be killed by a knife or bullet or my heart otherwise stopping than by a solar storm or EMP blast but I believe the reasons are there.

For someone to turn the world I live in beyond my own upside down, he has to surpass all mankind. For one to turn a virtual world upside down he only need bypass a few 1s and 0s.

You made four bizarre claims. Prove each of them.

What is the value of your service if only you can perform it and I need it? Well, it depends how badly I need it. What is the value if everyone in the world can do it? Surely much less. Supply and demand they say.

As it relates to currency. It is little more than a promissory note. The value is created by the perception of the individual who receives it, backed up and assured by the legitimacy and might of the issuer.

Why is it important? Why don't we just barter? One of the most obvious practical reasons being sometimes items of value are substantial in size. You wouldn't want to enter a market lugging a marble sculpture just to purchase a diamond ring would you? From this realization comes the idea of deeds or contracts ie. written and signed papers that mandate what is who's and for what or why. These documents can be forged, lost, stolen, and much more. It also prevents compartmentalization of value for security. Example, you can put a few thousand in the market, a few thousand in land, a few thousand in material goods, a few thousand buried here, buried there, etc.

There are plenty of downsides but most that can be redeemed. One if not the most important thing about currency in general is that it makes savagery and brutality unnecessary to get and keep what one wants. You need a home, food, stuff, you just rob someone and they will more than likely give you the pieces of paper you need for all that. You no longer have to bash someone over the head for shelter or something to eat or wear. Not to say this stops some cash thieves. It's just after you get what you want you can spend it anywhere as opposed to having to kill a person to stop them from taking the shelter or item back. Again, assuming you get away with the cash robbery. It's just paper. Very different from someone wondering why you suddenly have 50 prime cattle in your yard after hearing about a dozen monks were found slaughtered nearby with their cattle stolen.

Elaborate.

No but they have a list. Of all of them. Make sure you find the "list" page. And it should, being unique and memorable enough to you, be familiar. And if you're certain that name was in a title of a book written by the author you're searching for, it'd be exponentially more easy to find with a few adequately tailored search phrases.

I mean hey who knows maybe someone knows exactly who you're talking about and will post in a few minutes or hours. If not, yeah, better than nothing.

So. I dunno maybe you could web search Greek goddesses on Wikipedia and if you recall the name, either go from there or post it here and shoot I'd give it a go.

OP, hi. Could you maybe simplify all that for us simple or otherwise "tired" folk.

The whole idea of the universe beyond planets, humans, or life itself but rather stars, galaxies, or simply the vastness that is "everything" ie. anything that can be hypothetically or theoretically explored had to have been "made". As in there was a point when "everything" (here) didn't exist or even that is.. just always did eternally. It is a pretty intimidating concept to really think about deeply. The idea of... everything and anything itself. Not much more that can be thought about I suppose. I mean really thinking about it.

So. Timelessness. Is this "outside of the universe" as in there are other "realms" that cannot ever be reached, normally, from this one? Powerful stuff. Truly.

Every event had a cause, essentially. So the Big Bang that "created" the Universe had to have been due or otherwise set into motion by... God? Timelessness? Is God more of a concept to you as in a non entity? What's up.

It's a larger concept, guy. Religion and evolution are just the circumstantial parameters of the thread. What can be or rather has been proven (because you're told so. No one can possibly witness a theoretical change that takes place over a span longer than any natural life) vs. what has not been being untrue simply due to that fact. Many other factors. Are you a biologist? Scientist? Archeologist? No? Then your reasoning is valid primarily due to your trust of authority. Things can be faked. Staged. They are all the time. Something tells me religion has disappointed you some. For reasons beyond what you make known here. I will see what can be done.

Again, it's all a larger concept. One inherently secular.

Hm. Again the name of the divine figure you said was in one of the titles? Do you remember that? Was she Roman, Greek.. what? If you know that you can Wiki a list and find that name at least by familiarity.

Try books.google.com the more specific and most importantly unique words you remember the better. It was a physical book? Do you remember how it looked? The color I guess? If it was popular enough that could be helpful.

Alright alright. We'll put a pin in this for later. Though, I can reject ones specific definition of law and order without rejecting law and order. Again we should come back to this.

What are the claims being made? God of the gaps, essentially?

Perhaps someone may know it off the top of their head.

Do you recall the name of the diety? From which period they were from at least? If it's important I'd find the name and do a book search under philosophy with it in the search parameters.

In a modern microscale it can be proven. Genetic variance. Perhaps a particular variance makes you smarter, stronger, or just more attractive. It gives you an edge. And so, you're more likely to reproduce. Perhaps another makes you any of the inverse of the aforementioned. It gives you a burden, that can be turned into a motivation to improve yourself. Whereas, someone who has no need to improve may become complacent, docile, and ignorant. It's a real catch 22.

However tiny changes between characteristics of modern humans do not prove you evolved from some slimy fish frog that was essentially a retarded mutant that was born with freak appendages that allowed it to crawl on land. Does it? How so. Why aren't people born with extra hands or legs today. For example.

Is it even possible to insure ordinary joes from being blown up by the system — Enrique

If they seem to be doing something that would warrant an accountable? "system" from "blowing them up" .. I'd question your understanding of the word "average".

Stuff like this post is what I mean as far as "don't you think it all fits together a little too well?"

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/415955

Anyhow as far as debates I think it should be where there are two ideas, or one and naturally the proving or disproving of it. Naturally and this was my point some "ideas" are not speaking of irrefutability... if that's a word. Rather that, depending on the confidence of the speaker you have the three following ideas: The existence of X cannot be disproved, X is just as likely as Y, or even as I think the OP claims X is more likely than Y.

Also for debates I think it should be like tag team wrestling. Two or more people who use relatable enough logic and ideas on each "side" .. one gets stuck or tired he can "tap out" :grin:

I think the argument in the OP needs to be defined more precisely or simply.

It's something alone the lines of "God more than likely exists because XYZ". Right? I'm glad I learned, thanks to you, about the "god of the gaps" ideology as in some ways more or less most if not many of my attempts to logically rationalize my own belief may fall into that category. I always understood it and its flaws and counterpoints but, it is nice to know. That followed by what the OP has said in several forms essentially how and this is a poor argument as is but how everything seems so perfect in such a chaotic system. No not humanly perfect as in happiness just how every living and non living thing seems to come together and have a purpose. There is nothing that just "exists for no reason". Even things we despise like mosquitos and creepy crawlers play a part.

My fallback rationalization as I'm sure you've read from me before are things like "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Things, ideas, theories rather that got people laughed at, ridiculed, mocked, and sometimes even killed are now things every person uses, has used, or wants to use, etc. I got plenty.

I sincerely hope you're kidding.