Retardation is about incorrect wiring of the brain. You could rewire the brain like you do a car to improve its performance but it would be simplifying life to just do that. We must improve slowly for a reason

"Thought as we know it is the prime tool a philosopher uses to find the higher truths of our existence. I am aware of the many methodologies that are in place for thinking. But, I am wondering if there are ways to perhaps accelerate or sharpen the thoughts themselves in order to almost physically comprehend more in a given moment without the use of psychoactive drugs."

You don't need to sharpen or accelerate the thoughts. If we were able to accelerate everything then the whole point of learning from experience would be lost. Best to broaden the mind, surely, than to quicken or sharpen. We do seem to be quickening everything we do at the moment and that isn't necessarily to our benefit. And, yes , I haven't answered your question. Maybe I would have done had I accelerated or sharpened my thoughts.

"God did create humans with free will but free will is not inherently good or bad. And since Evil does exist, free will is definitely not inherently good. But no human can be fully good or evil because of free will."

Free will is free will. The use of the free will results in the categories of good and evil but not in any simplistic way. Is the free will to escape social sin or to resist it? For human life to be meaningful it has to contribute to the eschatological reality that Jesus called "The Kingdom of God" .Evil has no meaningful contribution to the end game and therefore whenever it appears it is a nothingness, merely an absence of good. Once good, free will to do God's will, appears then meaning happens and the world moves forward towards the "Kingdom of God".

"You are allowed to believe what ever you want"

Thank you, Sir.

I can see you are stuck on this proof definition of yours. The proof is there but you need to "see" it first with your senses and that is a weakness. God exists and the proof is there but until you see Him with your eyes then He is not there. What if your eyes deceive you and what if you don't exist? This proof you need is akin to "the blind are not sinners". There is no proof just theories if you wish to be pedantic.


"Once again, what the hell has Aleppo got to do with the price of jellybeans?"

Perspective.

" skip the BS."

As you see it presumably, Sir.

"No one mentioned truth,"

I did............

"if you do not know the difference between a definition and truth"

I do but you clearly don't. You need to see beyond mere definitions, norms etc in order to see the subliminal happening.

"How or in what way do you think that it would remove the cobwebs from my mind?"
You won't understand until you get there, I guess. Most of us live sheltered lives unaware of the realities of life's underbelly and in Aleppo your priorities will be nothing as you will spend all your time avoiding death. All very depressing.

"Presumably if we met I would have to call him Sir.
— david plumb

"Manners makyeth man" - William of Wykeham.
— david plumb"

Ha, ha , touche...........................................SIR!

"You are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Show us anywhere there is an acceptable definition that your use of "superheroes" fits into."

This is where you are going wrong, in my humble opinion. The behaviour of those "worshipping" ( feel free to misunderstand this vital phrase) is similar to those who worship gods or God. They see good v evil, they see a saviour when all else fails, they are educated in the rights and wrongs of life, they understand the existentialism of the scenes played out to them and they are excited at the drama and wonder of it all. Just like a religious person is about God and Jesus Christ.

"But those definitions exist because they are the accepted uses of the words by the society that uses them."

Pass me the smelling salts- I agree with you at last.

"So if I call the thing that my backside is resting upon a "chair" then surely it would be expected to fit into one of these definitions"

Obviously we can't all go wandering around pondering about definitions otherwise nothing would get done. The word God is not something that you can just define in the simplistic fashion you are attempting. I do bow to the musing that these super heroes are more Norse god types than God himself but, as you are intimating, the problem lies with the interpretations. Personally I still believe that kids and even adults are able to see these super heroes as gods or even God if they have little belief or understanding. Everyone probably needs a greater being that allows them to make sense of the world but it's probably not useful for that to be a religious version, as in God.

"Seriously, there are several definitions of what a god is. If you look in several dictionaries you will probably be able to find most of those definition. The dictionaries help us to define the properties of a god, so that we can decide whether something would fit into that category."

A dictionary definition doesn't make it the truth and that is the whole point.

"If it was just (1) we were after, we could simply nuke all the slave states."

That isn't going to help you achieve goal no 2, is it?


" If it was just (2) we were after, we could have inaction"

That isn't going to help you with goal no 1, is it?


"But the combination of these 2 goals requires a hell of a lot of thought to devise a cunning plan for world liberation."

Might I suggest a good start would be to get rid of goals 1 and 2? But then what would be the point of any of this?

"He's religious, is somewhat concerning to others, and has some grammar skillz.

Let's hope your summation helps Sir2u. Presumably if we met I would have to call him Sir.

"He does not have one, the only way that he could explain it is by saying that the word god has a new definition and that unless you believe him you are closed minded. He does not even have the new definition of god to give us"

Interesting that you talk about a new definition of God as though your knowledge is the correct one. From what I can see so far your definition is a simple one, one that sits well with those that need the conclusions to fit in with their closed mind perceptions. Clear your mind of pre-conditioned bias and open your mind to the possibilities.

"This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What does that tell us about him?"

This worries you? That seems a tad primitive. A day in Aleppo would sort the cobwebs out for you, nay make that an hour.

When you ask "what does that tell us about him" I am surprised that you need to ask. I will now wander the corridors asking myself if Australia exists as I have never been there.

"Or are you wishing for a return to Kant's transcendent logic and categorical imperatives?"
No, just pondering why we all go through the thoughts process and arrive at different conclusions. Eventually, in the predestination arena, this free will will result in the same conclusions so why go through the pain and anguish that we are going through. Free will seems a pointless gift or is it?

"Maybe your bugaboo is to be made by a parallel of social justice aspect of superheros and this somehow translates to a "dangerous" or misguided activism of a social justice movement now. Superheros might satisfy a power fantasy of those who have little agency. Though one could just as well be anesthetized by the consumer products of television (or any media art) in which the fantasy of superheros (or Fred and Barney) is just escapist entertainment.

Even the North Koreans risk watching Western media via thumb drives. Not sure any amount of superhero movies is gonna make them risk their lives for social change"

That makes a lot of sense. In an Orwellian way it seems control is easy to achieve without the need to be violent. The intelligentsia need to mask this intelligence as controlling them is difficult.

TheMadFool

I understand the processes by which we eventually conclude but anyone who created us obviously had the ability to ensure that these processes led to the same conclusion. This is not the case which causes huge problems. Giving us the ability to reach different conclusions causes more problems than it solves. Is the final way to the same thought conclusions via this messy thought differences that plague the world right now?

"So your whole argument comes down to the fact that you have changed the meaning of god"

You do like to dumb it all down to the smallest common denominator. Your interpretation of God is your interpretation of God, nothing more and nothing less. Equally you are what I say you are, you are what someone else says you are but you would, naturally due to the subjective manner of your thought processes, say you are what you say you are. There is no getting away with the fact that you are what I say you are. Take for example that someone thinks I am a simpleton but I think I am a genius-in their world I am a simpleton and thus it remains, definition closed with me the simpleton.

"So then to make it easier on you, provide some evidence that others are using your definition of god instead of most common, standard, sited in every dictionary definition that everyone else uses"

Therein lies the problem. You are in a cul de sac of swarming confusion. On the one hand you accept the propaganda with regards to commercials, the subliminal way in which they tell you how glamorous it is to smoke without telling you how bad smoking is for your health. The propaganda is so entrenched that smoking adverts were banned and the government have used all kinds of ways to prevent the active participation of smoking. .

"If you can do nothing more about proving any of the statements you have made by showing some examples of just how people consider the movies super heroes as gods when they sit down to watch a Superman movie after church on Sunday then I have nothing more to discuss."

"I have nothing more to discuss"- best to continue the subjective ,as I see it/ objective as you see it way of thinking. A closed mind is a trapped mind. Proof that God exists is there for all to see unless you rely solely on your senses. Proof is not a simple process of scientific data.

"Wasn’t it uneducated righties that helped to put a celebrity in the Oval Office in 2016?"

Sadly that was simply a reaction to the reactionary left. The left are still a long way from achieving their aims but, to be fair to them, they seem to be in it for the long term and short term hiccoughs seem to spur them on. Super heroes alone won't achieve their aims and they know that.

"Sorry, what could I add if you tell me that, in your life and environment, living the unconditional lawless love (no rule can impose it) towards all others, as revealed and lived by Jesus, has to be seen as an evil act? (By the way, I didn't know you believe in the existence of Satan as formal Christians are supposed to do... because I don't).

{Matthew 5:45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Do you see any law or justice here :)

As a side note only, my God, I perceive, is not only my Father in Heaven (Heaven denotes the realm which is beyond this temporary realm, limited by time/space). As I said, it is just a side note, not directed to anyone... because it is just me, a realistic spiritual man :)"

Matthew 5:45 is about love, unlimited love. When it rains we all get wet, rain falls on everyone. There is no marking out of some but not all. God loves everyone as we should too.
How often do you hear of Christians forgiving the person who has murdered their son, for example.
Lawless is Satan who obeys no-one other than himself and he is the lawless one.
Vengeance is mine saith the Lord.
You're confusing the human laws to right a wrong, which would not be needed were we all to love each other as God commands, with God urging us to be righteous and love each other regardless.

"It happens that Jesus only revealed clearly (on the today’s Gospel) that God is 'lawless'. This truth had to be cleverly deformed in ALL Christian doctrines; let us say, for practical reasons."

Where did Jesus reveal that God is lawless? Are you talking about Satan?

"But no one counts Fred or Barney as gods"

Rather absurd argument. Fred is hardly a super hero. He constantly tries to outwit his wife and usually gets caught out. Maybe he's a hero to Barney Rubble but not a super hero to anyone. There are subtle nuances in the God like super hero arguments but this is not one of them.

"Now, aside from these 'codes', exactly how is Man to discern 'God's Will'? Is it revealed individually, or in a mass revelation? Consider: Person A believes God has revealed to him that he should build a church on a specific piece of ground- but Person B believes God has revealed to him to make sure no structure is ever built on that same piece of ground. Which is the correct 'Will' to be followed? More importantly, how far is each Person supposed to go to insure that his revelation is carried out- to point of murdering the other person? "God Wills It!" has been used to justify all sorts of bloody endeavors, so why not this one?"

God is constantly hijacked to further causes that are simply human abominations. God's will is all about good not evil, a moral code that helps us all to exist with each other. It doesn't surely include building a church etc. I hope not anyway.

"Even if we assume the existence of God (and I'm guessing you're referring to the Abrahamic one) we're also faced with three very distinct moral codes to live by: the Jewish, the Christian, and the Islamic. Is one of them the 'correct' one, or are they all equally acceptable?"

Unfortunately the human interpretation makes the answer a difficult one. All religions seem to add stuff to the basic concept of God's will and sometimes to simply benefit themselves.

"An Eastern version of Freewill within Natural Constraints is found in Taoism. "Tao" is often translated as "the Way", or "the paved Path", and is essentially a moral code of adherence to "the natural order", as contrasted with the laws of men . In modern terminology, The Tao is equivalent to "Natural Law". And in Western thought, God's Will is often supposed to be encoded in the Laws of Nature. That's what we mean by calling a natural event "an act of God". So, if there is no human to blame, we can always hold God responsible for negative consequences.

It's obvious that humans are not free to violate the laws of Nature, or Nature's God. Yet human laws are inconsistently enforced, so we have some leeway to do bad things. But, the only true freedom we have is to act both morally and naturally, by following "the path of righteousness". In other words, we can choose to follow either the "strait and narrow path", or the broad way" that leadeth to destruction". The only problem with that notion, is how to predict the consequences of minor actions that are not obviously good or bad. That's why most ancient sages, such as Lao Tse and Confucius, advised the development of moral character in children, so "righteous" behavior comes naturally, or instinctively."

That makes quite a bit of sense, Gnomon.The God bit seems to be perceived as not having free will by many as, strictly, speaking it is not unadulterated free will.

"I've gone down the Captain Planet rabbit hole because of this thread. Damn 90s cartoons. They got me!"

Varrry eenterezting.................It is usual for someone to reduce an important discussion as this thread affords to that of derision and comedic delusion .I concur that you have lost the argument?

"What freaking god like characteristic does the kartrashian clan have?
What godlike quality does does David Beckham have?"

There is such confusion. Add to the mix a lack of objectivity and philosophical understanding. Let me try to set you on the right track:
You have the colour blue. It is blue to you but to the colour blind it is not. There are also different shades of blue but to most of us blue is blue. Pedantically you may argue that the blue you are looking at is a light blue but to most people blue is a good enough description.
Transfer that to the God/super heroes question. To you God has x.y and z as you see it but to others the definition of God may not necessarily have the x,y and z as you see it but to them it is God per se.
You have anchored yourself to the constraints of an unphilosophical argument , one that has subjectively already been set in stone and are not seeing it from an alternative person's point of view. Thus you fall into the trap of being easily led to believing there is no threat to belief in God.This is the fundamentalism of the Frankfurt School.

[quote="BBZ;465534"

"It's show business!"

And show business is the wolf in a sheep's clothing. On the surface it appears like it is just good fun but in reality the subliminal message is hard to avoid and very cleverly uses the propaganda that reaches out to children's accepting, unquestioning minds.

"Any church/government/culture (what/which?) could have outlawed television, radio and internet. Why didn't they. The Amish still don't use these things...(?)"

Even the Amish have problems keeping their flock in order. The Church realise the problems of being religious in a secular, commercially driven world and the apologists out there do a very poor job of defending the faith. Their reaction seems to now be one of victimhood and one day the rest of the world will understood the mess they have got themselves in.

"I don't have a problem recognizing subliminal reasoning that does not exist."

You do state the unusual quite a bit. You recognise something that doesn't exist. That is surprising. I have a real problem recognising anything that doesn't exist, for some reason I only recognise things that exist.

"You would point to a new temple being built to house the Spiderman cult, or the secret sect of Hulk worshipers"

The religious club syndrome is exactly the kind of system that needs to be abolished. Everyone can have their "god" in their own privacy where it does little harm to society. The connection between the "new gods" and the old is evident. The worship of the old God and thus the authoritarian hold over the people is waning and the new era of the super hero gods where they sit nicely in the back of peoples' minds has arrived. The hold over the masses as Orwell predicted has begun and this ignorance about the super heroes sits well with the Frankfurt School plan, I would suggest.

"Superheroes do not, have never, and never will take the place of gods because the do not serve the same purpose in any society."

Beware the intellectual lefties as they understand the value of dumbing down society and attacking those remaining that have the intelligence to challenge the new dawn. Look at it philosophically, i.e objectively for a moment, and notice the rise of the god like celebrities, action heroes, sporting icons etc.


.

"Christians judge all the time. Instead of judging Jesus as not existing, they judge the atheists for being non-believers. Their faith is one out of thousands. It's not special, but they treat it as if it's unique"

True, Christians do judge. Not sure you can judge Jesus exists or not as judgement is more about decisions than believing truth or untruth. Christianity is unique- Jesus was crucified, He also died and rose to Heaven, He was a Jew and never founded the Christianity movement and he understood existentialism extremely well.

"I guess you are talking about the ruling god; a notion adopted by the men in charge in any religious sect around the world.

The true God has no reason to impose any rules on humans. God's instructions are embedded in their living body already; usually called instincts. This also applies on all other non-human living things.

Therefore, in reality, humans may, I said 'may', have, at best, just one free-will (because, as you will see, not all humans are supposed or interested in having this free-will, in the first place, because of the nature of which they are made).

Some humans can decide, in every situation, to follow their pre-programmed instincts (it is their right, we like it or not) or to live the unconditional love towards the other side, no matter who he is. Obviously, this love contradicts one’s instincts of survival and the essence of any man-made Law, said religious or else."

1.What do you mean by a ruling god? I only recognise the term God.
2.Hardly adopted as He either exists or He doesn't
3.One free will? Free will is free will, it is surely not sub-divided.
4.It hardly matters whether they have any interest or not but just turning your head is an effect of your free will to turn your head. Are you talking about consequences? For a consequence of your free will to happen you need your free will to create an action, surely?
5.Pre-programmed instincts? Your free will is outside of everything, it is simply your ability to choose for yourself at the moment of decision. The decision may well be as a consequence of other factors.

"In a word: A life that is not guided by the question: "What will God think of this?", is an unfulfilled life."

That's an interesting comment to make. It's more than a word though.
Equally there are so many in this world who would say : " A life that is guided by the question: "What will God think of this?" is an unfulfilled life. Hence the problems that "we" get ourselves into due to selfish needs and behaviours.

"I remember going to see that, we laughed so much they actually asked us to leave. That was one hell of funny film."

You laughed? Each to his own.

"This is why I asked you to provide some sort of evidence. What are your reasons for thinking this? If they do not perform the cultural and psychological roles that I listed, what do they do?"

After laughing in the Christ film I now understand why you have such a problem recognising the subliminal reasoning behind the super heroes.

"What God movies have you been watching? I remember watching one where this guy was literally crucified and asking God for help. He didn’t help."

That's a crucial part of the Jesus story. It answers why God appears to allow bad things to happen when he could easily not.

"Is it wrong to ask you whether or not you believe in an afterlife given the statements you made in this thread and further that you'd characterize yourself as a man/woman of Christian faith?"

It's irrelevant, quite frankly. Wrong seems the wrong (oops!) word to use in this instance as I am not offended by your asking.

"Christianity totally sets us up to judge people as though we were mini gods given this gift of judgment"

On the contrary Christianity is judged but clearly states that we should not judge others. Judge not others lest ye be judged yourself, look at the log in your own eye before inspecting the dust in someone else's eye are two examples of commands not to judge.
We all have to understand the existential problems of judging. Your discussion title is a judgement and continues to judge throughout your argument.
Perhaps your title should be that we all judge and usually we are unaware of it.

" no one did it because it was very clear to all that the baby, I was, didn't have yet any sort of free-will :)"

You had free will as a baby but it wasn't of much use to you at the time. A baby has the free will to cry as
they do.
What puzzles me is this almost resentful feeling you have about not being asked beforehand about whether you wanted to be born. As if your human right not to be born was abused.
Surely there is a difference between resentment about not having a choice about being born which is simply your hurt feelings on the matter ( never come across anyone wishing they had been asked before being conceived or straight after the birth but ) and stating that you had no free will on the subject. Free will is not being able to control events outside yourself but about the freedom to do whatever you like. Existentially free will must be difficult to activate.

"As I recall well, no one asked me if I liked to exist or not. In other words, I had no free-will, at all, concerning my birth in this world."

"As I recall well".............you did? Stranger and stranger.
"No-one asked me"..........that would be a tad difficult before you existed?
"I had no free will, at all, concerning my birth in this world".............not surprising considering you weren't born.