Claiming that life is bad, life is bad, life is bad etc etc is not rational. Nor is it accurate. Life is a mix of good and bad, and the rational act is to focus on maximizing the good while minimizing the bad.

then he is manifestly shallow and narrow. And unless he is actually that ignorant and stupid — tim wood

Please stop clogging threads with this kind of junk. Thank you.

Which was the main argument for the invasion btw. And now thoroughly shown not to be true: the last remnants of Saddam Hussein's WMD project were destroyed during Clinton's strike Operation Desert Fox — ssu

I already agreed with this. And, as usual, you completely ignored that if Saddam (or his sons) were still in power today they would most likely be engaged in a nuclear arms race with the Iranians, which would in turn then expand to include a number of other countries in the region.

I also agree the American occupation was incompetent and led to a great deal of suffering. But there are outcomes worse than that which were, so far at least, avoided by the invasion.

your presentation here is an inch wide and not very deep, — tim wood

Your ego agendas are becoming tiresome. Please stop trying to turn every thread in to a food fight. Thank you.

how can you fight the deterministic and pessimistic nature of existence? — Augustusea

I don't fight it, I just don't accept your premise that this is so. I do accept that some degree of suffering is inevitable and that this is regrettable, and sometimes tragic in some situations. But that is not the "nature of existence" but only one aspect of existence.

what can you do to stop that or even change it in the slightest when looking at the big picture? — Augustusea

Well, each of us has the rational option to stop looking at the big picture, which we know nothing about, and can do nothing about. We have the rational option to instead focus on managing that which we can manage. Which, as it turns out, is actually quite a bit.

But I find it interesting that we are always in a position to "ameliorate" this or that in the first place. Why is it, that we we weren't "being" to begin with, but are always tinkering, dealing with, needing to fix? — schopenhauer1

I agree that's interesting. But it's not rational to focus on that question INSTEAD of taking concrete practical action to relieve suffering. Considering such interesting questions along with practical action can be reasonable, so long as we keep in mind that...

Thought itself is the source of the problem.

We have to think to survive so some degree of suffering is inevitable, can agree with that. I'm not proposing any permanent solution to all problems, only that reason can assist us in improving our management skills.

I think he has not realized there isn't anything to do actually, — Augustusea

No offense, but there's plenty to do, so please try not to peddle bad advice to troubled folks.

Whether the OP wishes to do anything is another matter, his or her choice, none of our business. But it's simply not accurate to state that there aren't any constructive steps one can take.

always becoming, never being — schopenhauer1

This seems the most concise summary of the situation, refreshingly free of big words too.

This description does however contain a serious error. It's not inevitable that we are AlWAYS becoming and NEVER being. In fact, the experience of being and becoming both happen naturally all the time on their own. And, we have some measure of control over the balance between the two.

So the rational response is not to read a bunch of fancy talk philosophy from grouchy old dead men which tells us how inevitably depressing life is etc etc blah blah blah. The rational response is to learn how to manage the balance between being and becoming.

Becoming and suffering are made of thought. Thought is an electro-chemical information management medium, that is, just another mechanical process of the body.

To the degree one lowers the volume of thought becoming and suffering fade and are replaced by being. It's a mechanical problem which can be addressed by mechanical means.

failure doesn't actually exist in some sense, its purely subjective. — Augustusea

Wise words.

seeing how everything makes one pessimistic, as there is not any single light/ray of hope anymore; everything is/seems hopeless, futile, meaningless, pointless, & depressing. — niki wonoto

Have you considered that this experience may not be philosophical in nature, but biological?

So, when should we (not) expect proof? — jorndoe

We shouldn't be requesting or expecting proof until such time as human reason is proven relevant to and binding upon the question at hand.

Likely we understand this stuff as much as an ant crossing a football field understands a false start (that's American football). — EricH

Yes. And so what is the rational response to this place of ignorance (on questions of such enormous scale as gods) that we find ourselves in?

If time-travel or inter-dimensional travel is possible, then interstellar travel is practically guaranteed. — RogueAI

Ok, fair enough. But why would a species who can travel the galaxy be interested in primitive pond scum such as ourselves? However, future humans would obviously be interested.

my pessimistic outlook were perhaps mostly & originally also caused by what I've considered myself & my life to be a failure. — niki wonoto

Sorry, I know this won't help, and I apologize for that, but, um...

It's literally not possible to be a failure at age 38. You aren't an old man being wheeled in to the nursing home just yet. You may feel old because being young is all you have as a basis for comparison, which is understandable. But from my seat at age 68, you've just barely left the young punk stage of life.

A little story... You've probably heard of Kentucky Fried Chicken. The guy who created that company failed at one business after another after another his entire life. Until he was in his sixties and hit upon the Kentucky Fried Chicken idea. He then lived another twenty five years as a very rich man.

Life isn't over until it's over.

And then, who knows what? Don't assume you know, cause nobody does. Nobody.

And constantly reading about pessimism philosophy even reinforces how depressing this existence really is. — niki wonoto

Um, here's a place to start. Please consider junking this pointless hobby.

Here's wishing you well!

Will any history paint the 2003 invasion on those lines? — ssu

Ok, I'll give that one a go. :-)

Saddam invaded two neighboring countries resulting in the deaths of over a million people, not to mention decades of a ruthlessly murderous assault on the Iraqi people. If Saddam and/or his sons had remained in power it seems certain that, one way or another, such psychopathic behavior would have continued, perhaps for additional decades.

Cynical critics of the American invasion are almost always guilty of the sloppiest of reasoning. They correctly and accurately point to the incompetent American occupation and the resulting suffering of the Iraqi people. So far so good. But then they stop. They almost never compare that tragic outcome to the alternative of allowing Saddam to remain in power.

It's certainly true that Saddam didn't have WMD, and that such reports may have been blatant lies, or at least manipulative bendings of the known facts. This is a reasonable claim which the critics are justified in making.

But then the critics almost never go on to consider what the WMD situation would be today if Saddam had remained in power. It seems impossible that Saddam would not have earnestly sought to develop nuclear weapons, given that the Iranians are right on the edge of having them. And who can doubt that the Iranians would have correctly perceived the existential WMD threat from Saddam, and raced towards building their own arsenal. And so without the American invasion what we'd likely being seeing today is yet another nuclear arms race, this time between two ruthless psychopathic regimes.

And then of course multiple other countries in the region would have joined this arm race. Do the Saudis or Kuwaitis wish to face a nuclear armed Saddam with only conventional weapons? No way, for they've seen with their own eyes what Saddam was capable of.

Western critics of the 2003 invasion are also typically guilty of the most blatant forms of moral hypocrisy. They so often claim to care SO MUCH about the Iraqi people. But the actual fact is that they had pretty much NOTHING to say about the Iraqi people while Saddam was raping them, and once the American military involvement in Iraq wound down to it's current low level, and could no longer be used as a partisan political football, the critics again lost all interest in the Iraqi people. Point being, the critics of the American invasion NEVER cared about the Iraqi people, either before, during or after the invasion. They cared only about internal American politics, and their own fantasy moral superiority poses.

There you go. That should be enough to get me in to a ton of trouble. :-)

How about this? Instead of using the God debate as a proxy for our emotional male ego head butting agendas, we could be intellectually honest and just yell at each other in a random manner. Here, I'll go first...

You guys! ARGGHH!! Total phoney baloney bull dookey! Fake news! Your mama is a dog!!!!

See how efficient this is? We can apply such proclamations to any argument by any person on any subject, a simple copy/paste operation which could be scripted to achieve full automation.

Now THAT's rational! :-)

Quite an extraordinarily asinine post — Judaka

Agreed.

Could you clarify here space's properties of non-existence? — tim wood

Ok, sure. No mass or weight, no shape or form, no color or taste, invisible etc. That is, not complying with our usual definition of "exists". Nor does space comply with our usual definition of "not exists".

A key problem of the god debate is that it attempts to map simplistic dualistic concepts like "exists vs. not exists" which make perfect useful sense within the extremely limited realm of our daily human experience on to the very largest most fundamental questions about everything everywhere, the scope of most god claims.

The example of space should be teaching us that we can stretch the "exists vs. not exist" paradigm only so far before it starts to fall apart and become irrelevant. And once that happens, the God debate collapses in on itself, because that debate is typically totally dependent upon the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm.

In my view, the above is good news for real philosophers, but bad news for committed ideologues on all sides. Internet discussions are typically dominated by committed ideologues of various flavors, so such inconvenient reasoning is typically swept under the rug so that the food fight may continue.

Which is ok with me.

The following scientific diagram explains the details. :-)

Unfortunately or fortunately its not pointless — 3017amen

I would agree that the debate has value in teaching us how ignorant we are. Well, in teaching those who are actually doing philosophy, and not just arguing to be arguing.

And then, having discovered our ignorance, we would have the option to explore how to benefit from it. But such a reality based investigation will be difficult to impossible so long as we are stuck inside a notion that we possess an answer.

One side or the other almost certainly is correct. — Frank Apisa

Oh dear, sorry, can't vote for that one. Seems much more likely to me that nobody has the question right, let alone any answer.

The question posed by theists and atheist in their debate is, does a god exist? The question assumes, typically without any questioning at all, that the only possible answers to the god question are yes or no, exists or not.

It seems neither side has bothered to examine the real world, which overwhelmingly consists of space at every scale. Does space exist? This question is impossible to answer in a yes/no manner because space has properties of both existence and non-existence. Any fair observer who has no dog in the god debate fight can see that the simplistic dualistic yes/no question being argued over in threads like this bears little resemblance to the vast majority of reality.

And, such a person can also see that very few passionate debaters seem to know this, or care about it at all. Observe for yourself. Now that this fatal conflict in the question itself is made known, watch how nothing will change. The male ego head butting contests on the subject of god will continue without interruption.

And not just here on this forum. Some of the greatest minds among us have been sucked in to this pointless dance for centuries. You are in good company. :-)

It seems wise to keep in mind that human logic is a very very very very small thing in comparison to a god, which is typically proposed to be the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, which is quite a large area. :-)

You dog can sit in front of your computer and see and hear the Internet. But even the smartest dog in the world could sit there for 10,000 years and never grasp what the Internet really is, because dogs simply aren't capable of the required level of abstraction.

When it comes to any phenomena the scale of gods, that's probably pretty much the situation we are in.

Sorry, my bad, you said who you were in the very first post. I got confused and thought you were a new person entering the thread. Thanks for setting me straight, will read more carefully.

Ok then, so until Iraq can retake control of it's destiny, who do you prefer? Americans or Iranians?

If you don't want Iraq to become more of a proxy war battle field between the two, it seems the solution would be to pick one and throw the other one out. Your thoughts?

well you aren't americans if you don't fight constantly :lol:
for us its not constant — Augustusea

Who are you referring to by "us"? What's your tribe?

even those that do want to do something are doomed to do it wrongly and fail — Augustusea

Every country does it wrong over and over and over again until they finally die or succeed.

Thomas Jefferson declared that "all men are created equal". Except for those who don't own land, the native peoples we were busy exterminating, the millions we enslaved, and of course, don't be silly, women aren't men!

those same people right now are infighting over trivial issues — Augustusea

We would never do that in America. Except every day for our entire history. Other than that, NEVER! :-)

well the problem is, the people are generally ignorant — Augustusea

Well, to be fair, large numbers of both Iraqis and Iranians have put their lives on the line repeatedly in demonstrating against governments willing to shoot them down in the streets. Few people in America or Europe have those kind of balls, so maybe we should give credit where it is due.

Lebanon offers the rest of us an important lesson.

If I understand correctly, the recent tragic super explosion was caused by highly explosive materials which were shoved in to a warehouse and then largely forgotten. These materials were just sitting there patiently, waiting for somebody to screw up. And then somebody did.

The whole world is in that exact same situation, on a vastly larger scale.

When one finds oneself between two imperfect choices all one can do is choose the lesser of two evils. The solution to the endless situation is to make the choice and act on it.

Ideally Iraq would control it's own destiny and not be under the influence of any outside power. Regrettably, the last time it had that power it used it to invade it's neighbors, resulting in a response which now leaves it relatively powerless.

All across the Middle East, and the rest of the world too, the only real solution is for citizens to take responsibility for their own country. This will typically require the spilling of blood to overthrow those who would steal their freedom. I've been encouraged to see brave Iraqis protesting against their government when it doesn't serve their interests. Brave Iranians are doing the same.

In both cases, nobody else can really win the war against the despots for you.

To wider the lens to the larger global picture....

The next century will be defined by a struggle between the world's oldest democracy and the largest dictatorship in world history. The vast majority of Americans would be proud to have Iraqis as allies in that struggle. But it's your choice.

And if one recognizes they are the product of guesswork...of no particular harm. — Frank Apisa

Of no particular harm if one's goal is debating, which is probably usually the case here.

Going endlessly round and round on guess work claims that can never be proven or disproven might be labeled a kind of distraction harm if one's goal is to conduct an investigation.

You raise a good point, the allegory was a means of conveying wisdom amongst uneducated (relatively) populations. — Punshhh

What interests me is that the wisdom shared in the Adam and Eve story is credibly claimed to be of high quality. It depends of course on how one interprets that story, and there are many different interpretations, and no way to know for sure what meaning the original authors intended. That disclaimed, we can explore further.

PERSONAL: On the personal level of every day experience we can see that most of the time we are focused not on reality, but on our thoughts about reality. From the perspective of the story, we have eaten the apple of knowledge and are then banished from the real world Eden and confined to a significant degree to a much smaller arena of our own invention, the conceptual realm. We rule like gods over this conceptual realm between our ears, but it is a very small realm in comparison to "God's kingdom" ie. the real world.

SOCIAL: It's not hard to see that our relationship with knowledge is causing the modern world to careen towards some kind of coming Biblical scale calamity. From the perspective of the Genesis story, we have eaten the apple of knowledge and are about to expel ourselves from the Garden of Eden.

If one is willing to entertain such an interpretation of the Genesis story, we can ask how ancient authors could so accurately predict the future of humanity. I don't think we need god claims to explain this.

My theory is that the ancient authors had a profound understanding of the fundamental human condition, perhaps because they lived out in the desert in a tent and there was nothing else to do?
Point being, human beings haven't really changed much in 3,000 years so if one understands the human condition it should be possible to generally predict where that path will lead, even if one is unable to predict details such as climate change, nuclear weapons etc.

So, one can reasonably decline the fairy tale container the story comes in, but it might be a mistake to throw the insight baby out with the fairy tale bath water.

Instead of tossing the teachings of our Judeo-Christian heritage aside with a lazy sweep of the hand, it might be more rational to work on translating the teachings out of fairy tale stories in to other forms which are more accessible to modern audiences.

Again, the paradigm here is art, not science. A novel can be interpreted in many different ways, and there is no way to definitely settle the question of which interpretation is best. That doesn't automatically equal the novel being crap.

A good philosophy professor will not tell you what to think, but will instead feed you questions that cause you to do your own thinking. Art, and religion, can be like that.

Allow me an AMEN! — Frank Apisa

Your application has been approved. :-)

No, I don't feel the fear of slaughtered animals — Gnomon

Your body feels their fear is what I meant. Their fear generates hormones and other chemicals which you then consume. I'm not referring to empathy, but chemistry. Not making a moral point, just a biological one.

Well done! :) We need more deep thinkers.. — A Seagull

You are a very nice person! But that's all the payment I can deliver to you now considering how little detail you went in to regarding my deep thinking. :-)

I don't think you're trying to convert me, but I don't get why you think the scale of the claims somehow makes them more plausible? — Pfhorrest

My point is not that the scale of religious claims makes them more credible. It is instead that the scale of your claims makes them less credible.

However, the scale of your claims could be useful. By examining your claim to know something you couldn't possibly know you can learn something about the religious experience (of some people) through the lens of your own behavior. Or not, as you prefer. Again, not an evangelist here, just a wannabe philosopher. You say potato, I say potawto. You know the drill. :-)

As to what to define nice as is difficult — Benj96

Is it? I type on the forum to persuade myself I am a deep thinker. That's my story about myself that I am telling myself.

You come along and support my story by praising my comments. To reward you, and encourage you to continue supporting my story, I label you "nice", bestowing upon you a label which has some social benefits.

It's just a business transaction.

To wit, I eat the flesh of innocent animals that have been harmed without their consent. But their protein eventually becomes an integral component of my own body. — Gnomon

As does the fear they experienced, the chemicals pumped in to them by industrial farming and so on. Not trying to lecture you about what you eat, but just a reminder, the protein comes with a price tag.

If people treated religion as just illustrative fictional stories and not as though it was conveying objective facts, I wouldn’t object to that at all. — Pfhorrest

Well, it's surely true that many people take the stories literally, as a form of science. Why bother objecting? And, if we're going to object, we might be intellectually honest and recognize that some of the stories seem remarkably close to what science is telling us. "And then God said, let there be light." Kinda sounds more than a bit like the Big Bang, eh?

Perhaps the best example is the Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Was there a guy, a gal, and a talking snake? Probably not. That part is probably just a fable which tries to explain something profound to uneducated peasants of 3,000 years ago, much as we might try to explain sex to a five year old.

But is our relationship with knowledge a central fact of our personal human experience? Is that relationship causing us to race towards ejection from the garden of eden of the biosphere in our own time? Does the Adam and Eve story reference something which could be profoundly true? Maybe it does.

My guess is that there were some quite wise people in ancient times, and they tried to share what they saw in the cultural medium of their time. That cultural medium is now very out of date, but that doesn't automatically equal their insights being useless.

But when people talk like God is a real being who actually does stuff that makes a difference in the world, rather than as an ideal to aspire to or a comforting thing to imagine or a metaphor or something, then they’ve lost track of the difference between fact and fiction. — Pfhorrest

Ok, please understand that I'm not trying to convert you to anything, and if you prefer to believe you know what is fact and fiction on issues the scale addressed by god concepts, ok, go for it. Personally, I don't see that as being much different from the religious claims, but that's just somebody's opinion.

Every something is overwhelmingly nothing. Trying to draw a boundary line between something and nothing gets pretty iffy.

Basically to me, God was like Santa Claus. Believed as a little kid, then realized he was just a fictional character, but didn’t feel like I was lied to or something, just that I had grown up and learned the difference between fact and fiction. — Pfhorrest

A key problem on philosophy forums is that religion is a kind of art, whereas philosophers tend to want to treat it as a form of science.

As example, an entirely fictional play upon the stage can share deep truths about the human condition. An atheist philosopher may be inclined to jump in the middle of the play and yell, "Hey! These people are just actors, and the story is totally made up!" In other words, it's bad science. Which is true, plays are bad science. And so the philosopher may walk away convinced they've made a devastating rebuttal, when really they've just missed the point.

On issues of such enormous scale as addressed by the God concept, if you're persuaded you know the difference between fact and fiction, you haven't fully grown up yet. Instead, you've just migrated from one fantasy knowing story to another.