What do 'believers' 'theists' 'idealists' et al mean when they chastise atheists and/or materialists, etc by saying, in effect, that atheism / materialism entails "life has no meaning"? And do tell why that is an objection (bug) rather than an affirmation (feature). — 180 Proof

I think they believe that it's impossible to find meaning for yourself and that it must be spoon-fed to us by some robed authority figure. This nihilism, lacking a moral foundation, will make Johnny a bad person. :sad: But truth be told, Johnny is free to develop his virtue and not suffer the moral stagnation of religious tribalism, where it's all about the tribe and not so much anything else.

Nihilism is a phase, I think, and can be outgrown, and outgrown using the same elements as religion.

What is the secret to being happy in a foxhole? — Baker

We have a built-in narrative generator that is actually rather difficult to turn off. We can find social groups and movements that can help us feel part of something greater than ourselves. We can find purposes that align with our skills or talents. We can have spiritual (in the sense of transcendence) practices such as meditation that can ease existential anxiety and perhaps feel a sublime oneness, even in a foxhole, etc...

One imagines that the theist - for all his inventions of sky daddies and karmic mysteries - has a lack of imagination so severe that he has to invent a whole 'mythos' to cover over their total inability to recognize 'meaning' seeping through every pore of the universe without all that trash. — StreetlightX

Well said. :fire:

What is important about religion is finding the source of what Christians call agapé, unconditional compassion, and what Buddhists call bodhicitta, buried behind all the ruins of the ancient faiths. It is both the easiest and most elusive thing in the world. To turn your back on that because of religion is the cruelest irony. — Wayfarer

Not the least bit ironic because religion is not about agapé. That is not and never has been the core of it. Religion is about binding a community in shared values, norms, narratives, telos, etc.

What’s important in religion is knowing who’s holding the reins, and keeping in mind that power corrupts.

In American, StreetlightXO translates to Streetlight Hugs & Kisses. I guess you’re much warmer in person.

Wow, counting the days. :broken:

This is all I'm trying to say. — BitconnectCarlos

You're speaking in riddles. I started by asking if you were serious. Jokes on me I guess.

Because their commitment to saving lives at all costs ("cutting off the leg to save the body") led them to collaborate and actively assist in the deportation (death) of one part of the community to save the other parts.

Does this make sense to you? — BitconnectCarlos

And if they did not collaborate and actively assist their moral reasoning would have remained intact?

Whatever. Still not clear how their moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed, and how learning of these events may lead one to theism. I understand that the Judenrat were all but literally destroyed, if not completely destroyed, or did they sacrifice others to save themselves?

Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum writes: "In the final analysis, the Judenräte had no influence on the frightful outcome of the Holocaust; the Nazi extermination machine was alone responsible for the tragedy, and the Jews in the occupied territories, most especially Poland, were far too powerless to prevent it."

Assuming that was the case, and assuming I'm following your claims correctly, how was the Judenrätes' moral reasoning absolutely destroyed? And whatever the case, it's not clear how this may be conducive to theism.

... Judaism isn't primarily a religious faith. It's really not a faith at all. — BitconnectCarlos

Making even less sense... I give up.

That makes even less sense to me as I thought you were focusing on Eichmann who didn't appear to be religious or a theist, the banality of evil and all that jazz.

The Jewish leaders in Nazi ghettos were theists, were they not?

It would be interesting to hear an explanation, of any sort, if you feel like it at all. I can't begin to wrap my head around how this works out.

Seriously?

I read that as Tantric books :razz: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That could work too, although then it might have to be a love story.

I simply mean that being only in the grocery store, I will refrain from telling the farmer his business. — tim wood

In a botched robbery attempt two people, a produce buyer and a farmer, are held hostage in a grocery store. Both in existential terror, they conspire on a plan to escape, but having a captive audience the produce buyer can’t help telling the farmer his business. The planning goes haywire and general whackyness ensues. It could be a comedy. Think Tarantino/Brooks.

I shan't participate and accordingly abstain from voting. — tim wood

Meaning that you have no interest in reading them as well? There are some good writers on the forum, at least good enough to be entertaining.

We Americans have an inflated sense of power and privilege.

If words were able to form concepts in the minds of people we would understand a foreign language simply by reading or hearing it. — NOS4A2

Unless it's learning by brail or olfactorily, we do learn a foreign language by reading and/or hearing.

In a sense, the mind shapes the language, not the other way about. — NOS4A2

Our neural pathways are constantly being rewired or reinforced, and our memory is auto-associative.

Well yes, a young child who associates McDonalds Happy Meals with tasty food and toys will no doubt see an advertisement and remind himself of the association. But one who cannot associate it, perhaps because he does not know what McDonalds is or how their Happy Meals taste, will be unable to make that association. In each case the cause of these different effects is the child, not the words. — NOS4A2

If McDonalds did no branding/advertising then in both cases no association would be made. It's highly unlikely that a billboard plainly displaying "Food next exit" would inspire much enthusiasm from a young child.

I’ve seen forums that employ suspensions and it doesn’t appear to be very effective. The suspendee typically never comes back and if they do the suspension only serves to further aggravate them, causing more grief and no benefit for all parties.

The only effective solution I’ve seen is to screen the posts of troublesome members before they are published. I doubt the moderators here would want to take on that workload however, even if it were a good solution.

A 2000 study* examined data on tobacco consumption from 22 member countries of the Organization for Economic Development and Development (OECD) from 1970 to 1992. The research confirmed that tobacco advertising increases consumption, comprehensive advertising bans reduce consumption, and that partial bans have little or no effect. OECD countries with comprehensive advertising and promotion bans experienced a 7.4 percent reduction in smoking and a 5.4 percent reduction in overall tobacco consumption.

* Saffer, H. Tobacco Advertising and Promotion. In: Jha P, Chaploupka F, editors. Tobacco Control in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2000. p. 215-236.

His faith must empower his extraordinary shamelessness.

In that respect, since there is obvious mystery, paradox and contradiction in life, how does the typical Atheist reconcile their belief system, logically? — 3017amen

It could be said that everyone has a 'belief system' or more or less coherent set of beliefs that work together to form a framework of the world, but there is a significant difference between a secular belief system and a religious belief system. The purpose of the latter is to bind a community, via common values and telos. It employs rituals, narratives, moral norms, a hierarchy of authority, etc. It is necessarily social and requires an ultimate authority figure and necessarily requires faith in that ultimate authority.

Atheists don't need their beliefs validated by a higher authority.

It is better to have something to philosophize about than to have nothing. — Apollodorus

I'd rather philosophize about nothing than philosophize about sky father.

first there was theism and then a-theism, which suggests the primacy of theism over a-theism. — Apollodorus

Ah, the my beliefs came before your beliefs argument. By this logic flat earth theory has primacy over science.

Only one person has ever been unbanned and it wasn’t him. — Pfhorrest

The fellow I was thinking of has been banned at least twice.

Banned Foghorn — Baden

I'm guessing not for the first time.

When a man sees an advertisement that is the end of the interaction. Everything after that—whether he decides to buy the product or forgets about it—is caused by the man. — NOS4A2

Man is persuaded by an advertisement to purchase a product or service that has particular attributes for what he judges to be a reasonable price, but, further along the interactive buying process he finds that the deal wasn’t as advertised. Every touch point between a business and customer is an interaction, in other words, hence the importance of consistency in branding/advertising.

It was on account of you and other posters like Trinidad being targeted on account of speaking to me. — skyblack

Honestly, it’s kind of creepy to watch you three talk to each other.

@Foghorn and @Trinidad

… i have be careful who i speak with. — skyblack

Ouch, public disassociation. That’s gotta hurt coming from one of the cool kids.

The price tag for hearing what I would propose is… — Foghorn

Anselm's "proof," — tim wood

I was thinking about this and found that it’s actually difficult to not imagine something greater than God, because for there to be something definable as God there must be some kind of delineation or boundary, so we’re always (infinitely) forced to imagine what’s beyond that boundary.

Both players have to agree on a draw, otherwise it’s a resignation, all kidding aside.

Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate. — DingoJones

I guess he only needs to fool himself.

180 calls 3017 a limp dick, finally getting some good insults. :clap:

Here's the classic ontological argument based upon the same logico-deductive reasoning:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality. — 3017

This seems very odd reasoning because no one can even begin to imagine God. It’s like saying that someone can imagine the entire universe, but no more than the entire universe. There is more to the universe than any human being could begin to imagine.

Unfortunately, Mystic was banned so you're down a rising star (conformist), skyblack. Sorry to be the bear-er of bad news.

I drifted off to dreamland a few times while reading 3017’s opening post but from the bits I picked up he is accusing 180 of possessing an “Einsteinian grudge” against the color red.

Why did Einstein hate red?

He exposes the bear necessities that will put our minds at ease. What’s not to like?!

Seriously though, there are guru-wannabe members like skyblack who are in no danger of being banned for low quality.