The only solution is to accommodate as many tastes as possible without compromising individual autonomy. — universeness

Not to be argumentative, but saying something is a matter of taste is not the same as saying it is a matter of opinion. Be that as it may, in either case I agree with your sentiment.

I like to listen to someone passionately talk about a book or song or movie that had a big influence in their life and I like to contemplate their reasoning as they present it. — universeness

To be honest, and I'm not trying to be provocative, I gave my daughter a copy of "The God Delusion" as an example of a really bad book.

So, could be a useful read then for those who are not already aware of the difference. — universeness

I certainly have no objection. Many people disagree with me on this. On the other hand, would you suggest someone watching "Plan 9 From Outer Space," or "Biodome" with Pauly Shore in order to learn what a good movie is like.

I kind of skipped classic Hollywood westerns (there are two or three that I like) and went straight for Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. — SophistiCat

I've watched dozens, scores, hundreds of westerns at the movies and on TV since I was a kid. Back then, when I thought of actors, it was always John Wayne. "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" was a big favorite of mine. But in terms of westerns that really stand out after all this time, Sergio Leone's are the ones I remember best.

I don't know much about Taoism. Have you read Capra's Tao of physics?
If you have, was it worth reading? — universeness

As I've said many times before, one of the biggest causes of disagreement on the forum, and in philosophy in general, is people mistaking physics for metaphysics and visa versa. The tenets of Taoism are metaphysical principles. The tenets of quantum mechanics are physical, scientific principles. Reading "The Tao of Physics" many years ago was one of the first times I became aware of the difference.

I was responding to your more general point that it's more important to discuss the substantive issues involved than focus on, and probably get bogged down, in debate over what the label 'metaphysics' might or might not encompass. — universeness

As I see it, one of the main causes of pointless discussions here on the forum is the failure to define terms at the beginning. If you want talk about what "consciousness" means, that's fine. But if you want to talk about specific issues related to consciousness and the discussion gets bogged down in arguments about definitions, it's frustrating. When I start a discussion involving metaphysics, I try to be very explicit about what I mean. Even when I do that, I have to struggle to keep the discussion on topic.

I was merely stating that heated debate about what the term encompasses IS substantive imo, and I have not yet got 'fed up talking about it. — universeness

As I noted in my previous post and above, people who are interested in discussing the meaning of "metaphysics" or any other term should do so. I have no issue with that.

I think the wise passage you quote is better understood with more context ... — 180 Proof

I tend to default to the Stephen Mitchell translation. That was the one I got started on. I like the Gia-fu Feng and Jane English version too.

I've been thinking about this and I've changed my mind. I have no problem with taking organs without active approval as long as the policy is well publicized and families are given a chance to change their minds if that's possible. I don't think that should be true of a gestational donation. I'm leaning in the direction of banning those altogether. When I die, take whatever you want and burn the rest. But the idea of my body sitting there for nine months with pumps and feeding tubes gives me an upset stomach. Yes, I know it couldn't happen to me, notwithstanding the paper's author's science fictional male pregnancy fantasy.

That started me thinking. Keeping a body alive for nine months would very expensive. If it weren't covered by insurance, only rich people could do it. Probably very rich people. In my state, Massachusetts, it is a requirement that insurance plans cover fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization, but surrogacy is not covered. I certainly wouldn't want insurance plans to be required to pay for this type of "treatment."

A religious dogma is a fossilized form of the original organic worldview. — Gnomon

This from the Tao Te Ching, Verse 38, Stephen Mitchell translation:

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos. — Lao Tzu

I broadly agree, but 'what the word means,' IS a very substantive issue imo. God, science, universe, metaphysics, transcendent, sophist, liar are all words whose contextual meanings are crucial. Depending on what meaning people take from such words, it often cascades into what actions they take in their lives. — universeness

I was talking specifically about the word "metaphysics." It's a subject that is important to me. I'm interested in metaphysics and want to talk about it. I'm not that interested in "metaphysics" and I'm tired of talking about it. That doesn't mean others shouldn't.

I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem? — Jack Cummins

I would add identity, ego, psyche, and perhaps heart to your list.

For me, these words are synonyms, although many would disagree. Some of that disagreement comes from the fact that, as you noted, each word arose in a different context from people with a different understanding of human nature. I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that all of these phenomena are illusions which humans create so we can talk about ourselves in an objective way. As I say, I'm sympathetic to that view, but it's not how I think in my daily life.

As with all synonyms, the words have different connotations and can be used in different situations. I have a very strong sense of self and "self" is the word that feels most personal to me. It's the word for how it feels here inside. "Soul" and "heart" are words I use when I'm talking about the human capacity for empathy, sincerity, and positive human values. "Mind" I tend to use when I'm talking about human intellect. ""Identity, "psyche," and "ego" I use when talking about myself and others in a more objective way. I see them as psychological terms. Of course, my usage is not always the way others use the words and even I don't follow the usages I describe always.

any resemblances between that ancient philosophy and Enformationism is primarily in its non-theist*1 explanation for the ups & downs of the world. However, the "dialectical monism" description does fit the opposite/complement notion of how Energy & Entropy work together to produce a dynamic world of myriad forms. — Gnomon

You find philosophical approaches which parallel Taoist principles in many places, including western philosophies. Kant's noumena are a good example.

Taoism is practised as a religion in various Asian communities. Its theology is not theist (even though some communities do worship Laozi as the attributed founder of the religious doctrine), and has more affinities with pantheistic traditions given its philosophical emphasis on the formlessness of the Tao. — Gnomon

I disagree with this, although many others, including many with more expertise than I, do agree with it. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, the two primary sources for Taoist thought, mention God, but almost in passing. For me, Taoist thought is a philosophy, not a religion. It is true that later interpretations did become, as you note, a polytheistic religion with some magical beliefs.

Have at it! — fdrake

This is a great discussion. I don't have strong feelings either way. Not to go on a tangent, but one thing bothered me. This from the article you linked:

Whole body gestational donation offers an alternative means of gestation for prospective parents who wish to have children but cannot, or prefer not to, gestate.

In a similar vein, would you feel differently about this if the organs were used for cosmetic surgery rather than surgery that is medically necessary.

Fine, I can live with that, although I think the term metaphysics is more overburdened than is suggested by the quote above. This was raised in a very well structured thread by T Clark in The Metaphysics of Materialism. I stand by the posts I made in that thread, on the topic of metaphysics. — universeness

Thank you. You're right about metaphysics being overburdened. Most discussions end up spending most of their time arguing about what the word means rather than discussing substantive issues.

Great post. Am I wrong, you seem to be participating more in the actual discussions here on the forum rather than just thinking up new ways to torture us. You've had some really interesting things to say.

A while later, I noticed that they were drifting apart until they parted their ways. I've reached a dead end, what went wrong? Why did it not sustain? For both me and anyone else who knew them, it was ideal. — RBS

In my experience, people want and expect different things from their friends than they do from their romantic partners and different things from their romantic partners than they do from their spouses. They are often usually not even aware of those differences. Because of that, lots of things can go wrong at the transition points between levels of attachment. If there are significant conflicts, it would take a really strong friendship to hold things together.

It all gave me the impression that this wasnt a discussion for you. It seemed like you were annoyed and sorta fucking with the source of your annoyance. If you were actually interested in a good discussion you would have listened better, or so I imagined. — DingoJones

I feel strongly about my points because I am angered by the level of disrespect that religious beliefs are shown here on the forum. As I tried to show in my posts, I think it is not justified. At the same time, I think my arguments were reasonable and civil. I intended that they be responsive to your points. I'll try a bit harder next time.

Didn't impress me, but it was a long time ago. — Jamal

But once I've read it I'll be able to toss off an authoritative "Didn't impress me" during conversations about detective novels.

I haven’t read any detective novels except for Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, Conan Doyle, and Georges Simenon. — Jamal

I think I'll try Hammett.

I think Farewell, My Lovely, The High Window, and The Little Sister were great. — Jamal

I read "The Little Sister" and I did like it better. Less wordy and less psychological. Less chess. But still overwritten and over-complex for my taste. I like Elmore Leonard's simplicity more.

Speaking of detective novels, have you read Tana French's Dublin Murder Squad books, e.g. "In the Woods" and "The Secret Place?" She's such a good writer but I can't read her anymore. She's ruthless. She hurts children.

If there were more artful cat feeding and less showy gun fights, cinema might redeem itself. — Tom Storm

I just rewatched that scene with Marlowe trying to fake his cat out about Coury Brand Cat Food. It reminded me why I like the movie so much. About 4 minutes.



Ok, ok. Back to books.

You're obviously deeply invested in equating theism and atheism, have at it. — DingoJones

Im beginning to understand this isnt a discussion for you, but rather some adversarial trolling. — DingoJones

If my recent experience with you is representative, your response to posts you don't like is to question the motives and good will of those you disagree with.

But what is a naturally good person? Nature doesn't create good and bad people; it creates biological strategies, which are then moulded by social contexts and judged through ideological lenses. — Baden

Good question and I agree. I was responding to claims that "theism can be the basis for a bad act by a good person." Of course it's much more complex than that, but I was working with what I was given.

No. Im saying theists as a group do more bad things based on their theism than atheists do bad things based on their atheism, and that theism can be the basis for a bad act by a good person.
You keep leaving out the “based of on their theism/atheism” part in service of your false equivalence. — DingoJones

I'm not "leaving it out." It's not relevant.

Once you broaden the scope by talking about groups in that way theism and atheism become a false dichotomy, for we know that they are far from the only moral factors/basis. — DingoJones

Another reason it's irrelevant.

I don't have that problem anymore: my children are in their middle, most powerful years, among the decision-makers. And they have - to my way of antiquated thinking, made many of the wrong ones. Now, I can fear for their children, who are in their teens and who will inherit... the wind? — Vera Mont

My children are in their 30s and early 40s. They are what is important in my ife. I have no grandchildren and probably won't. I want them to have safe happy lives.

Personally, I don't think it matters very much what's done with genetics, because I don't believe the future of our kind of society is long enough to affect the world more than we already have. — Vera Mont

I hope you're wrong.

As in the example in bigotry towards gays above, you can reference any instance where someone who is otherwise good, commits some immoral thing based solely on their theism. Have you seriously never seen evidence of that? — DingoJones

Are you saying that theists as a group do more bad things than atheists? I'm skeptical. Can you provide any evidence for that? Individual instances of bad behavior by theists is not legitimate evidence.

I don’t see it. Atheists and theists are people, people can be good or bad. The same is true for vegans and non-vegans, farmers and not farmers, etc. people being people.
The difference is that the atheist is not referencing his religious belief system for instruction, the theist is. — DingoJones

If atheists and theists are both naturally equally good people, and if, in addition to that natural proclivity, theists can be corrupted by their religion, then more theists should behave badly than atheists. I don't see any evidence of that.

What do you think about tinkering with genes? How do you feel about it? Are the thoughts and feelings reconciled? — Vera Mont

It seems to me humanity has entered a new technological phase which I think will be more far reaching than the industrial revolution. More or less suddenly we find ourselves capable of modifying the very grounds of our existence. We can destroy the world we live in with nuclear weapons. More and more countries are obtaining those weapons. We can change the foundation of our biological and genetic identity, creating diseases either unintentionally or as weapons, perhaps even creating artificial life. Our transportation system has created a world where we are in closer and closer touch with every other part of the world so that diseases that start in one area can rapidly spread all over the world. More than a million people have died of covid here in the US. We are building machines that may be able to gain wills and intellects of their own. We have overtaxed our environment to the point it is uncertain whether or not it will be able to support our current populations.

It's a dangerous time. Humanity has shown over and over it is not capable of controlling the effects of technological progress. Time after time the scientific and political establishment has lied and obfuscated for short term gain at the expense of long term well-being. Being fearful, or at least skeptical, of genetic technological progress is a reasonable response. Be that as it may, I am skeptical that attempts to reign in our scientific and technological institutions is even possible. I am afraid for my children.

good people will be good and bad people will be bas but for a good person to be bad you need religion. — DingoJones

In order for this to be true, one of two things must also be true.

1) Atheists must do bad less than religious people do. I see no evidence of this.

2) Religious people must be better people than atheists are.

T Clark watches and nods approvingly. — Baden

It’s part of a particular tribe of theism if it is “religious”. — praxis

Different people interpret it in different ways, which is not unusual.

Not all of them I imagine, he did show a lot of skin. :lol: — praxis

It could only be a religious feeling if whatever is experienced is inline with a religion, otherwise it’s just an experience, perhaps a spiritual experience. — praxis

Call it what you will, but it is part of what it means to be a theist.

The part with Arnold was just weird and definitely not his best work. — praxis

That's one of my favorite scenes, but you're right, Arnold's role would be a disappointment to his fans.

But naturally we want to lump people into categories that allow for a good ol' scrap. — Baden

Good posts. If people would just follow your advice, I would shut up. Or maybe not.

Of course. I think that the most significant difference is that the ‘religious system’ relies on absolute authority. — praxis

I don't find that a convincing argument. As I've said many times before, I think religious feeling ultimately comes from personal experience of God. As you note, it's true that many religious believers lean heavily on the Bible and similar religious documents.

...I'd like to address is the reasons for the intensity of what strikes me as a futile debate. — Ciceronianus

I agree. Although to be fair, many of the arguments we have on the forum are futile. I respond with intensity because of the self-righteous intellectual dishonesty of many anti-religious people. As I said, I am not a theist. I can understand skepticism. doubt, and even strong disbelief in the existence of God or gods. If I paint all atheists with two wide a brush when I get in these paint slinging fights, chalk it up to rhetorical overexcitement.

But if one goes around proclaiming there is no God, proselytizing as it were, I wonder why they bother to do so. — Ciceronianus

I agree. If they would shut up, so would I, at least about this. Seems like that should be sufficient incentive to get them to stop. Alas.

Atheists don't form clubs because there is not much to discuss about atheism. "Are you an atheist, too?" "Yes, I am." "Me too." And that's where the conversation ends.
— god must be atheist

This is absurd. — T Clark

It could be that. But this is what it is. I put to you that you never attended a meeting of atheists. They don't talk about what they believe is non-existent. They talk about how others talk about and what they say about what the atheists think is non-existent.

I really don't know why you said "This is absurd." It was not. It was a plain fact. — god must be atheist

Atheist groups:

• American Atheists
• Freedom From Religion Foundation
• Atheists United
• Atheist Alliance International
• Wikipedia list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_irreligious_organizations
• Reddit subreddits
• Brights.net

And there are dozens more. Hundreds.

In a historical perspective: the persecution of Jews and Muslims after the "reconquista" in Spain had religious causes. — javi2541997

One war I'm not sure about is the conquest of southern Europe by the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was certainly strongly religious, but I'm not sure if that was a major driver for the wars.