I think you didn’t understand the quote. This is not about believe or not in the hell, heaven, God, etc… and another kind of subterfuge. Christianity (as much as other religious masses) has always been a threat to those people different from them. Back in the day, being an atheist was punished by the law. Saying strong language against Christ was forbidden. The crusades, an army of Christ, killed all the members of a society with different thought or beliefs, etc…
As you see, Christianity could be a threat to free speech or democracy

How is law objective? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Law is objective because it tends to rule all the possible circumstances and actions of the citizens on the state. It doesn’t matter (most of the cases) what was the purpose or thoughts of the citizen not respecting the law.
You cannot plead ignorance for not understanding or knowing the law… this is why is objective.
And yes I am agree that is not necessarily related to ethics

If some people have regrets about showing their bodies on the internet, does that then mean all people have regrets? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I still defend my point of view. It is true that probably not all teenagers would regret show their bodies. But let’s be honest… how can we know if they will regret it or not in the future? This is why I cared about the issue in my arguments of previous comments. A teenager doesn’t care about their circumstances, doesn’t see the effect and cause of their actions and it is not responsible enough.
Maybe they are not regretting showing their body right now but how can we know what would happen in the next 5 years?
There are a big number of people that when they become more older they delete their social media and then they ask if it is possible to erase all their data… conclusion, they end up regretting their past actions as teenagers.
(I know this sounds again so general and there would be someone who wouldn’t care at all. I don’t know what say in this context. Good for him or her)

That young people have restrictions is consistent with my view. It certainly doesn’t mean that all members of a whole set must share a characteristic of the members of its subset. That was my point. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yes, I understood your point. But whether you like it or not, we as members are treated by general terms. You believe that there could be some teenagers with maturity enough to take and understand their own responsibilities and it is unfair being treated as a whole just to being in a specific set.
Well this issue happens for practical purposes. Most of the teenagers (I put them as an example because they are what we are debating about) share some similar circumstances or characteristics of “ adolescence” as well as: A period of Rapid Physical/Biological Changes, has Psychological Repercussions Too, Career-Consciousness, Emotional Conditions, Flight on Imagination, Hobbies and Other Details. These are the facts which defines a teenager as an overall and this is why we put general basic rules on them

Interesting concept. I am trying to find out an example inreal life (if it does exists) but I can't remember anyone.
Anyway, your example gives me nostalgia because gives me the memory of learning basic philosophy at school. I guess we studied a similar example as yours on Aristotle's act and potency: in the context of the physical explanation of movement and, more widely, the metaphysical explanation of becoming.

NOS, I would like to put an example of when a society fails on laissez-faire or laissez-faire fails on society's hopes.

The 1990's were less good for Japan, whose prosperity turned out to be a little too much of a speculative bubble, with a great deal of capital based on inflated real estate values and fraudulent loans. Since almost nobody really believes in laissez-faire anymore, it always takes a long time for the economy to shake stuff like that off.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that 1990's were an economical traumatic event for Japan, they still be the 4th economy of the world... (Quarterly GDP improves in Japan in forth quarter) Is this country an example of social effort no matter the circumstances?

Check into ethical realism / anti-realism, cognitivism /non-cognitivism, etc… — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I will do so. Thanks for the recommendation :up:

whether or not ethical values are objective or subjective, are real or constructed, and even if they can even be true or false in any meaningful sense at all. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

They are both objective and subjective. We make objective laws trying to reinforce the ethical behaviour in a society. Nevertheless, it is also upon the subjectivity of each person on applying and respecting such laws

I see it is difficult to convince you about my arguments. But this is why this forum is interesting and what philosophy stands for.
I understand that using generic examples as youth (as overall) could be weak. But aren't the youth being limited by general restrictions? For example: alcohol, tobacco, drive licence, getting married, etc... all of those example are sent to general citizens with a specific age (thus, teenagers).
According to the restrictions we put on young people we can say that the reason is their lack of "maturity". For this reason, I personally think that we should connect it with other examples or real life issues as the use of internet. I still think it could be a problem to them doesn't matter the circumstances or arguments because the law and the State as public orders should protect the citizens in a weak position.
Whenever a young boy or girl shows so much data of him/her than needed it is causing a big problem that authorities should take part of.
Furthermore, if it is unethical or not as we both are debating, I guess it even breaks the law in some countries.

If you say I should not treat (in general terms) the youth with such limitations. Should you be able to make an enterprise or agreements with them? In this examples we can see if they are mature enough.

Is that the conclusion or would you like to change it? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yes I would like to change it.
I gave another try trying to be more specific in the comment of above.

This is just cleaned up. I could condense it further or omit some unnecessary information. Something like this:

P1) If people regret showing their bodies on the internet when they were young, then people showing their bodies on the internet is unethical.

P2) People regret showing their bodies on the internet.

C) Therefore, people showing their bodies on the internet is unethical. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Those premises are clearly better than mines. I just did my best to put some arguments of why I was seeing (and I still see) unethical show the bodies or so much data around the internet.
Whatever how we are debating I guess we are getting to the same point here: showing our body is unethical.
Nevertheless, I see you are complaining that my premise of "Youth" is not good enough because is a very general term and I was not very concise. Let me try it again:

P1) Teenagers which ages are between 14 and 18 tend to show their bodies through internet without responsibility being unethical in their actions.

P2) Then, due to their lack of consideration they commit actions that, furthermore of being unethical, would regret in the future because they are innocent right now.

Conclusion: Therefore, showing bodies by Teenagers between 14 and 18 years old are both unethical and dangerous to them.

It is not necessarily to find answers to your existence. I guess the issue is more simplistic than you really think. We do exist and we have awareness. These facts follow us in uncertainty we belong to. You are free to find some answers on God but I do not want to find anyone. I guess I am simplistic

You asked me why I was hiding from something... Then I answered you. If you do not like my answers or arguments it is fine but typing random messages it is quite weird...

If you don't fear the gods (you absolutely don't have to fear them) then why you still hide from them? — Hillary

Again, I don’t need to hide from anything. God is not my concern neither my answers to my problems.

You are the one taking subterfuge. — Hillary

I don’t need any subterfuge because I don’t fear neither concern anything. I just assumed the suffering of this life we walk through. I have other view of the traditional Western values. You can call me a pessimistic or a hyper-dramatic romanticized
:death: :flower:
And what I envied most about him was that he managed to reach the end of his life without the slightest conscience of being burdened with a special individuality or sense of individual mission like mine. This sense of individuality robbed my life of its symbolism, that is to say, or its power to serve, like Tsurukawa’s, as a metaphor for something outside itself; accordingly it deprived me of the feelings of life’s extensity and solidarity, and it became the source of that sense of solitude which pursued me indefinitely. It was strange. I did not even have any feeling of solidarity with nothingness. - Yukio Mishima.

Why he is an atheist? He likes fooling himself?

I am fool too
1. Please respect others who don't follow your religious path
2. Fooling because he doesn't need an infantile subterfuge to hideaway on?

Isn't it? — frank

Absolutely.

What's that mean? — frank

It means that they are not agree on how European Union works. They see the institution as pure capitalists defending the interests of a few. So, they question if European Union really stands for human rights and class workers. Their euroscepticism is just a criticism of the modern era and I don't think it is big as much as Brexit

I think it depends on each country's circumstances. At least where I live extreme left represents or stands for avoiding monarchy, banks, riches and catholic church. In an economical way they want to increase the taxes on the wealthiest companies and make a fairer distribution. In an educational program, they stand for public schools instead private. They also defend the rights of LGTBIQ and feminism.
Interesting to point out that some of them feel kind of euroskeptic.

I'm told that consciousness is the key player in the whole process.

Definitely, it is! :up:

Of course you clarified me your misunderstandings. I understood you since the beginning when we started debating each other. You tried to give another vision of internet issues and affairs.

I was originally curious about your initial statement (which was a conclusion in terms of argument) that it is bad to expose our bodies on the internet (or more precisely, that a girl showing her body on the internet is a bad thing)

Well, I think showing our body through internet is bad from an ethical point of view. Sometimes it looks like some apps act as a marketplace. When you are Young you would not probably care at all because you are to peppy to see the danger. But whenever you become an adult you would see it with different eyes and regret your past actions. Nevertheless, it is late (according to internet times) because your data is flowing around over there...
Then, to clarify my argument:

Premise 1: Show our bodies in internet is unethical and it provokes some consequences.
Premise 2: The youngest do not see the consequences of the future so, they show their bodies on internet.
Conclusion: Youth tend to be ignorant showing so much data about them and whenever they want to care it is too late to do so

How would you anatomize and define "existence"?
What constitutes existence and to what it applies? — SpaceDweller

Existence is related to awareness. Furthermore the importance of being alive, thus, have all our organs working and so on, it would be meaningless debating about my own existence if I am not aware of that. I even think that consciousness could be one of the few good examples of proving our existence.
I think, therefore I am. - Descartes.
He [Descartes] decides that he cannot be deceived about his own existence, because if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be around to worry about it. If he didn't exist, he wouldn't be thinking; so if he is thinking, he must exist. This is usually stated in Latin: Cogito ergo sum,

First of all, thank you for responding me with such technical arguments. But I did not wanted to search for valid or correct arguments. I just wanted to share my opinion that Internet could be a dangerous place. You complained that my arguments were so simplistic. I only can say that yes it is true, because my main goal was just to express all the negative sides of the web. I wanted tl be simplistic since the beginning.
When I put youth in the previous text, It wasn't a premise but just an example of what I do consider as ignorant. This is why we start gaining knowledge through the years. We need to be mature and thanks to the experience we can take the right choices whenever we act. But, a 15 or 16 years old tend to not do the right choices. Even, when we see a young person being responsable of their own acts, we quickly think: wow he/she is so mature. It looks like older than he or she is!

Furthermore if it is good or bad exposing ourselves in internet, I think that is even unnecessary unless we are public figures. I do not think my life is so interesting to exposing it. But... If I do so, probably in the future I would have some negative issues. I pretend to defend in my side that sometimes is better to be unknown.

As you thought previously I would see it ALWAYS that bad because my perspective of the world is pessimistic. According to own circumstances we would see it in one side or the other.

Im not saying its false either but rather I would just need to see evidence before accepting your premise. This also depends upon what exactly you mean by “know”.

It could be an evidence the age of the users. It is scary how young are the users around internet. Being young is related to childish situations. This context provokes toxic or cyber-bully actions. Why this situation happens? Because these kids do not know how to act properly through the web.
In the other hand, sure older people is guilty too. A fake news or a poisonous comment flow through internet as quickly as a twister. Instead of stopping it, many people take part of it just for business interests.
I do not want to sound that boring or populist but I think it was a disgrace the act of Elon Musk buying Twitter for $ 43000 Millions. We have a lot of troubles in the world but the richest in the world knows that the real power of manipulation is on internet and that's why they want to be there. Cleaning up their image.

Visionary on what? The atheist scientist being blind for what?

Kappa by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa (芥川 龍之介)

Surely it has the capacity for both, wouldn’t you say? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Absolutely. I wasn't referring to all internet itself. I was wondering about how fake news or hate speech spread so easily through social media. We can be agree that Internet has brought us some "facilities" but at the same time, it is a tool which most of the people do not know how to use.
You have put some cute examples but what about the boy receiving cyberbullying or a girl sharing her naked body? Internet can be a dangerous place too.
Furthermore, it is clearly that Twitter as a big social media is used just to persuade their users through fake arguments and stupidities.
We should put some limits to internet

Everybody is wrong but they are not aware of it.

No, because the conclusion does not follow since your use of "god" and "God" are different.

According to you, what's the main difference? I guess "god" and "God" are just grammatical differences. You have to write God in capital letters because it is how language works.

if we put in a leader who is interested in the prosperity of the population, then everyone will be able to have a good residence. — Vincent

Probably we do not need a leader at all and trust more in ourselves. It is better to look into basic community relationships rather than complex hierarchical schemes as Governments or International organisations

Anarchy is what man was made for, not order.

Anarchism is an old political tendency for university students. When you become maturer and start working and paying taxes you ask for an order. This order can be provided by laws to ensure a comfortable place to stay in

I think both are correct because they are agree in one principle: God and the belief on it is meaningless or at least when they ask for proofs, are not sufficient

Check this out: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism

I think Agnosticism is not related to "I don't know what a god is - and neither do you." as you said wrote previously, but in a neutral state of expression. An agnostic would not wonder if a particular God does exists because he respects all forms of divinities. I guess it is all about of not taking part in any religious dogma and respecting every representation of it.
I quickly did a research and I found the following trick which is so interesting:

Suppose you are to answer the following two questions:

• Does the sentence “God exists” express a proposition?
• If so, then is that proposition true or false?

If you say no to the first question, then you may be classified as a noncognitivist with regard to God-talk. If you say yes to it, thereby allowing that the given sentence does express a proposition, then you are a cognitivist with regard to God-talk. All theists, atheists, and agnostics are cognitivists, so the second question applies to them: is the proposition that God exists true or false? You are a theist if and only if you say that the proposition is true or probably true, you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false, and you are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, “The evidence is insufficient”

I will do so. Protect yourself too.

I wish we can get rid of it but I do not know how can I help to avoid people to join Twitter.

I think it depends on the country. Where I live, Twitter is controlled by leftist accounts. Whenever you are disagree with them, they quickly answer with the same word: "fascist" or "bourgeois"
I remember a debate about the monarchy and the the next (I wish) Queen of Spain. The tweets were about insulting her and a reference of guillotine. It was disgusting as hell.

Exactly, it is a work of art and it has changed the world. But, sadly, most of the people are using a poisonous use of it

If you're referring to aesthetics, I personally think that Internet is far away of being beautiful. It could help us to be connected and make stronger relationships. Nevertheless it is a place where most of the people involved don't know how to behave in. I miss, sometimes, more moderators flowing around in the webs.
For example: in this forum, if the mods consider that we are respecting the rules we are in the risk of being kinked out and I think it is fair. But, in big social media users we do not see the same control. Most of the people spread disinformation and hate without control. It is one of the most dangerous concerns we should care about.
Oh, another thing, inside Twitter, if the users are not agree with you, they quickly call you "fascist"
The fascist word is overused in Twitter

I think it depends on the branch of knowledge that bases your criteria. One some is called a "Kantian" means that, at least, he or she is agree with most of Kant's works. Then, their arguments tend to flow around on Kantian perspectives.
We can put the same example as empiricism. If some says "I am an empiricist", he would tend to spread his arguments according to British empiricism: John Locke, Hume, Berkeley, etc...

It is understandable that all of your premises make contradictions. You keep trying to put some titanic characteristics just to confirm God's existence: Tangible, physical, detectable or undetectable, etc... As much as I remember if I am not wrong, theists tend to defend that God is omnipotent. Inside this "virtue" it is said that God is and is not at all times and in every place. The failure of developing a grandiose image of God ends up of having a lot of contradictions. This is why, as I said previously, you would need a lot of faith to believe in something that you never "seen" neither spoken to.

Kant's statement, "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith," is one of the most famous things he wrote. However, as we will see in the text, neither he nor Jakob Fries meant by Glaube, "faith".

Kant: The Jewish faith was, in its original form, a collection of mere statutory laws upon which was established a political organization; for whatever moral additions were then or later appended to it in no way whatever belong to Judaism as such. Judaism is really not a religion at all but merely a union of a number of people who, since they belonged to a particular stock, formed themselves into a commonwealth under purely political laws, and not into a church; nay, it was intended to be merely an earthly state...

The Kant-Friesian Theory of Religion and Religious Value

The proof of God's existence is not correlated to metaphysics. You made an impressive effort to show us some axioms or syllogisms to demonstrate the existence of God using words as physical and detectable. But I think that all of these doesn't work because God as a subterfuge depends a lot on faith.
Theists and religious tend to believe in the unknown and that's why they are devotees. Their faith make them seem blind towards God's mercy. They do not care if you can demonstrate the existence of a divinity. They just believe on it.
Christianity is a religion that sees itself as a promise of life, hope, comfort, and love. "Gospel" in English is from Old English gôd, "good," and spell, "tale." This translates Greek Euangélion, "good news" -- whence the term "evangelism."

Many people, however, see the promise of Christianity as a threat, not as good news. If you don't join this religion, you are going to Hell, no matter how good a person you may otherwise be. Outside the Church is damnation. Jesus said (John 14:6), "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Faith, Works, and Knowledge.