The idea itself does make sense. However, in the sentence wherein it was used, I believe that the definition that I had in mind is befitting. "Breach of trust of madness" wouldn't sound particularly coherent, I think! — DA671

:lol: Did I win my bet?

How about ,"However, from what I think I understand about the madness of the betrayal of trust that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other."

Ah, I would still have to say that the usage does not capture the full spectrum of what I intended to write. This appears to suggest that I was primarily emphasising the breach of trust that occurred between communities (and perhaps the faith in the ideals of religions) that occurred by calling it madness. However, my original point was that there was a commingling of madness—a deluge of derangement that included a failure to realise how severe the impact of the partition would be, an inability to let even an iota of reason or empathy take root in one's mind, and the British essentially leaving people to their own devices (which wasn't really a betrayal, since everyone expected them to leave). Much of this was not totally unanticipated. Yet, the scale and the scope was. 1947 was more than just a breach of trust. Madness, when I used it here, was a reference to the ever-growing chaos.

Ok, thanks for improving the clarity of your point. Overall, I will declare my bet safe and I will not have to cut down on all my favourites this month, due to having to donate a months pension to a charity of your choice.

I would agree with the suggestion that the idea of a breach of trust makes sense in the sentence. Although, I would also feel compelled to mention that in order to do so, the structure of the sentence has to be altered.

I am sure you're already doing plenty of good deeds, sir!

You have fully explained your intended emphasis with

an inability to let even an iota of reason or empathy take root in one's mind, — DA671

I am sure you're already doing plenty of good deeds — DA671

The small contributions I make are not and never will be enough but I do claim that I help more than I hurt and I just hope my claim is a valid one.

An ocean is made by countless precious drops!

Good one! I also like 'out of little acorns, big oak trees grow.'

:up:

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of 'untouchability' within the Hindu caste system.
I am sure the excuse you mention is used but only as a misrepresentation of the true intention of untouchability, which is to label people that certain religious or social dogma portray as being inferior.

Untouchability is believed to have been first mentioned in Dharmashastra, according to the religious Hindu text, untouchables were not considered a part of the varna system. Therefore, they were not treated like the savarnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).

There are many examples of such nonsense in the bible as well. For example, a menstruating woman may not enter the tabernacle as she is unclean! — universeness

I have bolded the statement I want to reply to. I think there are examples of untouchables in many cultures however, not every culture would have institutionalized this common human behavior in the same way. I have read some ancient yoga practices are extremely concerned with cleanliness, Hebrews were also concerned with cleanliness but I don't think to the same extent. When the US had outhouses there were people who were paid to tend to outhouses. The owner of an estate surely would not want his daughter associating with such a person, especially if this person looked different, or if outhouses were associated with disease. The US has had some very prejudiced laws!

Hebrews for sure saw themselves as different from others and they institutionalized that aspect of being Hebrew. Kind of like, all people have engaged in war, but not all of them created an economic and social organization around their military, such as Prussia was organized around its military. These human behaviors being common, but more or less, formal and defining. The point is, knowing what I know about human behavior and organizations, I think it is silly to point a figure at India for having different social classes. and untouchables. In the US a young man of color could be killed just for speaking with a White woman. We had a huge segregation problem! We just call it racism instead of Hinduism. :lol: Bad behavior isn't funny but on the other hand it can be pretty ridiculous, especially when we point fingers at others as though we don't think and act just as badly or worse.

That means we judge all gods by the Christian understanding of a god. Our bias has prevented learning of the gods. You can't google for infomation because Christianity floods the internet making it very difficult to find information about primative people and the gods.
— Athena

I don't think this is true, certainly not for any secular person or atheist. The internet has a great deal of inaccurate information on it and it can be quite time consuming to validate and confirm the truth of all documentation on it but you can find out as much as is known about an earlier civilisation. — universeness

I want to address this separately because I don't want my point lost in too much verbiage. Have you spent much time arguing whether there is or is not a "God"? I don't care how rabid the atheist is, the atheist is using the same concept of God as the Christians hold to be true. Most people are reacting emotionally to the word "God" and they are incapable of being rational about "god". Atheists can not tolerate the word "god" so they can not get to reasoning the possibility of a universal force and being okay with calling it "god" just for the sake of argument. Does gravity exist? What causes it? If God is the cause of gravity what else in nature could be a universal truth? Thus, getting away from some of the hair-brain notions about a God who has favorite people. Athiest are their own worst enemy because they are reacting emotionally just like the believers are reacting emotionally. They are both like boxers in a ring ready to jump when the bell rings.

Secondly, the US and Christians do dominate the internet. The problem could be I use google and evidently, google ranks things according to popularity, so the one person who has a better argument of truth becomes almost impossible, if not completely impossible, to find because the 5 million idiots crowd out the one good argument.

Greeks held a notion of universals and the philosophy that questioned the universals became science. I think addressing the God issue from the point of view of universals could lead to more meaningful discussions than the ones we can have with Christians or atheists.

I don't think there is a great deal of difference between our social or political viewpoints.
There have been many 'separators' that have been used to distinguish between people. Indicators such as level of cleanliness, what your job is, your gender, your age, your skin colour, your economic status are all poor ways to make distinctions between people. I don't think we would disagree on this.

The chosen people concept is a very old BS claim as well. This happens in every neighbourhood to a lesser or similar degree. 'The cool kids', The alpha's, A-list celebs etc, its all total BS.

I think it is silly to point a figure at India for having different social classes. and untouchables. — Athena

I exemplified the Hindu caste system as it seemed to me that you were claiming earlier that polytheism was less problematic than monotheism and I don't think that's true.

I think we differ in that I think you wish to progress from the position of finding value in theism and finding common ground with theists. I think this is honourable but Its not a position I prioritise but it may well be a wise route to take.

The chosen people concept is a very old BS claim as well. This happens in every neighbourhood to a lesser or similar degree. 'The cool kids', The alpha's, A-list celebs etc, its all total BS. — universeness

:cheer: :cheer: :grin: You might be the people but we are the real people. I am referring to the tribal notion that "my tribe is the best and most deserving" which is no different from opposing chimpanzee troops crossing paths in the forest except humans can come up with more arguments than the chimps. :lol:

This is perhaps the best reason to argue against a God creating humans from the mud on the banks of a river that flowed threw Sumer. If we are going to be rational and have arguments about humans that can progress to better understanding and therefore better reasoning, we need to go with the science of evolution and drop the mythology. And we need to stop pointing fingers and being blind to our own blindness.

Yes, I believe polytheism is less problematic because believing in many gods is more apt to lead to believing the other guy also has a god even though his god is not the same as yours. Now you may both go to war and test which one of you has the strongest god, or we might sit down and argue in favor of our gods without the blindness of believing there is only one god and this god favors you. :lol:
in an effort to know truth.

MORE IMPORTANT, if a god is being a complete jerk like Hades was when he took Demeter's daughter, there are gods who can put restrictions on Hades. If there is only one god there is no correction of errors. This is the democratic issue! Are we powerless under the tyranny of a god, or can we appeal to other gods? The Greeks asked a lot of important questions of the gods and in so doing had arguments with many different points of view. Each god had a different point of view, and a different way of handling things, and in dealing with all of them, the Greeks expanded their consciousness. Conscience is "con"-coming out of, "science".

"How do the gods resolve their differences?" They argue until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. This thinking did not come with the first storytelling of the gods, but wherever people had many gods, every time they realized a new concept, they created a god, like we now name new atomic particles every time we have to explain a new observation of atomic particles. Apollo was a late comer coming a of time chaos and reasoning was essential, so whala! there is a god of reason. This learning of new gods, forced many to search for truth and limit the number of gods they had. Egypt, for a time, turned to the one and only god Ra. The point is gods organize our thinking and advance our understanding of life and the universe. If you have only one god you learn His truth and may discover new technology, butthat is not equal to science and advancing higher-level knowledge.

Here is a great Hindu example of what I mean by the gods advancing our higher-level knowledge.

A deeply religious Hindu, Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity, and said the mathematical knowledge he displayed was revealed to him by his family goddess Namagiri Thayar. — wikipedia

We do not get knowledge of mathematics and a higher morality from the tribal God of Abraham.

Have you spent much time arguing whether there is or is not a "God"? — Athena

Yes I have.

the atheist is using the same concept of God as the Christians hold to be true. Most people are reacting emotionally to the word "God" and they are incapable of being rational about "god". Atheists can not tolerate the word "god" so they can not get to reasoning the possibility of a universal force and being okay with calling "god" just for the sake of argument — Athena

I can only respond as an atheist. I cannot type for all atheists as they are a varied group. Can you give me an example of an atheistic statement you consider irrational?
Atheists will consider the 'universal force' concept in its many varieties, from the type exemplified in sci-fi Star Wars movie presentations to the panpsychist or cosmopsychist posits and even to some of the posits which don't involve gods such as Buddhism or theosophical posits such as those of Aleister Crowley or Hubbards Scientology. I agree that most atheists I know will reject most or all of these but their rejection is based on rational thinking imo.

Does gravity exist? What causes it? If God is the cause of gravity what else in nature could be a universal truth? — Athena

The effects of gravity are observable and measurable but gravity may not be a separate force which is quantisable and has gravitons as its 'messenger' particle. It may be an effect caused by the presence of mass/energy. So gravity may be caused by the presence of mass/energy and if you assign credence to posits such as the cyclical universe then there is no need for a first cause such as a god and if you insist there has to be a first cause then I personally satisfy my own thoughts by labelling such, a mindless spark, which no longer exists. As an atheist, my reason convinces me there is no god or gods. I cannot prove I am correct but my simple offer remains to any that do in fact exist. Show me and if it cant or wont then it does not exist.

what else in nature could be a universal truth? — Athena

There have been a few threads on whether or not universal truths exist.
I have my own examples of how far I can get with the concept of universals. The speed of light in a vacuum for example.

Athiest are their own worst enemy because they are reacting emotionally just like the believers are reacting emotionally. They are both like boxers in a ring ready to jump when the bell rings. — Athena

That may well be how you interpret it when you watch atheist debate theists or you read their on-line exchanges but it's not my interpretation. I find the atheist logic to be far more rational and compelling than the logic and woo woo employed by theists. But as I am an atheist, you will not find my viewpoint surprising.

Greeks held a notion of universals and the philosophy that questioned the universals became science. I think addressing the God issue from the point of view of universals could lead to more meaningful discussions than the ones we can have with Christians or atheists. — Athena

The fact that physics used to be called natural philosophy just means that modern labels are far better than ancient ones and perhaps we should stop being so attracted to the very limited knowledge of the ancient Greeks and their like. We do stand on the shoulders of those who went before and that's why we can see further but it is us who know the most or at least have access to more and more accurate data/information/knowledge that they ever did.
We don't need to keep scent marking new knowledge and new progress with the smells of the ancients.

MORE IMPORTANT, if a god is being a complete jerk like Hades was when he took Demeter's daughter, there are gods who can put restrictions on Hades. — Athena

I just don't see any great value in how you wish to roleplay with theism.
You seem to want to give the god posits a chair at the table of discussion on the future of the human race or in the 'how to make humans a better sentient lifeform,' discussions.
I don't even want to let the god posits in the building or even in the city the meetings are held in.
They deserve no place as they are inventions of our primal fears and as such, should be terminated for good. There is nothing to fear in the dark except that which we bring with us. We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species.

We do not get knowledge of mathematics and a higher morality from the tribal God of Abraham. — Athena

From wiki:
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first to theorize that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He first derived "Hubble's law", now called the Hubble–Lemaître law by the IAU, and published the first estimation of the Hubble constant in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, calling it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom", and later calling it "the beginning of the world".

so whala! — Athena

:rofl: What a brilliant new spelling and name for a supernatural god character in a fable for entertainment purposes only. WHALA! (VOILÀ !).

For me it comes down to something simple - choice. The living can choose to go on living or they can choose to die (suicide). The dead cannot choose to live (as far as we know). There is no power to change circumstances from a place of non-existing. Existence is where everything and anything - including death - can and does occur.

This for me means living trumps being dead.
A second more minor reason is that if it is the case that ones life is unique, non-reproducible/ irreplaceable and extremely brief in the duration of the entire timespan of the universe, then living your life is the rarest thing ones matter and energy will ever have the opportunity to be. If I had to choose between never having existed, never even having an awareness of being something, never experiencing consciousness or on the other hand having a short lifespan of feelings and emotions both good and bad, I would live out the 80 odd years before I return to oblivion forever. Even if those 80 years didn’t go by particularly well or come to much at all.

What else would you be doing anyways?

You should live because you can and less based on whether you should or not or whether you deserve it or not. It’s unlikely you are the least deserving person to ever live and we all already won the great race of conception - the first and only competition that really matters - the life lotto. 15 million to one odds - very much against you being here and yet here you (we) are.

There is comfort in knowing we have an escape (albeit extreme) if it were to ever become too much. Whether we really acknowledge it or not, every moment you breathe, every day you wake up and persist against the natural tendency of the universe to destroy you in thousands of potential ways is a testament to you being a survivor, to you upholding the will to live, to be seen, heard and known.

In law, commingling is a breach of trust in which a fiduciary mixes funds held in care for a client with his own funds, making it difficult to determine which funds belong to the fiduciary and which belong to the client. — DA671

:rofl: Cuckoo bird?

:clap: and there is the legacy you will leave behind which may affect nobody, somebody, a few people, many people, most people in the world!

I can only respond as an atheist. I cannot type for all atheists as they are a varied group. Can you give me an example of an atheistic statement you consider irrational? — universeness

:heart: Your post makes me wonder if I died and went to heaven. I am home sick with covid and you make me very glad I am here with you, instead of distracted by mundane life.

Yes, I can give you a statement. "There is no god". To be absolutely sure there is no god, one has to define what a god is, and boy, oh boy, is that irritating to me when someone is working with a definition of god and has become completely closed-minded and therefore makes a discussion of god impossible.

I was banned from a science forum simply because I used the word "god". I was saying we could consider universal law as god, and my goal was to open discussion as good as the ancient Greeks and do all the blending you have said I am trying to do. :grin:

I was explaining if we deny the existence of God we prove to the Christians the truth of the Bible. Those bad people will deny the existence of God. On the other hand, if we remain open-minded and work with the notion of a God, that weakens the Christian argument and if we are lucky we get to ideas that are more reasonable. Did God create all plants and animals with mud or just humans? Let us ask "how does God do that", instead of ending the discussion with "there is no god". Now you are moving into science and away from superstition. We are moving in the direction of reason instead of emotionalism. We walk people over the bridge to our side, instead of standing with our swords drawn and preventing anyone from crossing the bridge. That behavior is emotional. It is not the way of reason.

Let's try this. We determine if a person does or does not have covid with a chemical test that produces one line if a person is negative or two lines if a person is positive. With science, we know what we are looking for and we can prove the virus does or does not exist in that sample. So how can we know God does not exist without knowing what that God is, and if you know what God is, where did you get that information and how do you prove God does not exist? On the other hand, what reasonable person can believe through the powers of reason that God created man like a child creates mud pies? Back in the day of Sumer that may have seemed reasonable, but we laugh at other people's creation stories because they seem so silly to us, so how can know what we know today and believe we were made of clay? Human- moist soil.

I know they will reject most or all of these but their rejection is based on rational thinking imo. — universeness

Reason, what must we have for good reasoning? How much time do you believe you are being rational? I think this video can change the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQutgSwY88

there is no need for a first cause such as a god — universeness

Why reject the concept of a god here? How are you defining god? Back to the test for covid, you seem to know what you have to look for. What does god look like? Are you sure your notion of god was not defined by Christians who insist the only god is one that is impossible to believe?

quote="universeness;732295"]There have been a few threads on whether or not universal truths exist.
I have my own examples of how far I can get with the concept of universals. The speed of light in a vacuum for example.[/quote]

You are being delightfully rational and you did not conclude new evidence means what we believed about the speed of light is false, and that is that, and we will never again speak of it except to repeat over and over again what we have believed is false; ending any further discussion. Instead, you said It is in question. :lol: That is putting it lightly. I think new evidence has put our most obvious understanding of our 3 dimensional reality, in question.. What the heck is the reality of 12 dimensions?
The point being it is one thing to say something is in question and quite another to insist it does not exist and to make all discussion of it impossible.

The fact that physics used to be called natural philosophy just means that modern labels are far better than ancient ones and perhaps we should stop being so attracted to the very limited knowledge of the ancient Greeks and their like. — universeness

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I am not attracted to the limited knowledge of ancient Greeks, but rather fascinated by the uniqueness of thinking that came out of Athens. Aristotle was not 100% correct and there was a huge backlash against him after the Church through Scholasticism raised awareness of logical thinking, but who else gave us something equivalent to his explanation of logical thinking? His understanding of logical thinking was problematic and that hindered the advancement of science, with Bacon correcting the problem and pole vaulting us into the modern age. :heart: But where else in the world did a civilization advance the reasoning of Athens, the reasoning of the gods? Gods had powers, but the power of reason? Does not the power of reason create a whole new universe? Well, that could be an exaggeration but it could be fun to talk about it. :wink:

I just don't see any great value in how you wish to roleplay with theism.
You seem to want to give the god posits a chair at the table of discussion on the future of the human race or in the 'how to make humans a better sentient lifeform,' discussions.
I don't even want to let the god posits in the building or even in the city the meetings are held in.
They deserve no place as they are inventions of our primal fears and as such, should be terminated for good. There is nothing to fear in the dark except that which we bring with us. We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species. — universeness

Oh dear, crash and burn. Your ignorance and intolerance has ended the fun. And that was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I said, not the rational reply I had come to expect from you. I am very disappointed and also reassured that my opinion of atheists being more emotional than rational was correct. Just like the rest of them, you sank to attacks and insults when the discussion did not go in the direction you wanted.

It looks like a beautiful day outside. I think I will go enjoy it.

Eerie similarities!

Your post makes me wonder if I died and went to heaven. I am home sick with covid and you make me very glad I am here with you, instead of distracted by mundane life. — Athena

Thank you for your kind words. I am also enjoying exchanging viewpoints with you. I recently had covid too and it is a miserable experience. I still (two months later) have some residual weaknesses.

Yes, I can give you a statement. "There is no god". — Athena

Most atheists will not state this without 'I believe,' or 'I am convinced that,' this is a rational statement as it simply refers to a conclusion based on the preponderance of available evidence.

boy, oh boy, is that irritating to me when someone is working with a definition of god and has become completely closed-minded and therefore makes a discussion of god impossible. — Athena

I don't see why your suggestion that god personified as a group of unidentified universals such as a notion of universal law would assist the dialogue between atheists and theists.

I was explaining if we deny the existence of God we prove to the Christians the truth of the Bible. — Athena

Sure, if you tell someone they are preaching total BS then you might make them dig their trench even deeper but after calling the normal theistic evangelising BS and utter nonsense, the atheists will ask the theists question by question and take them step by step through their delusional thinking in an attempt to lift their fog. Have you watched any of the youtube offerings such as 'the atheist experience' with Matt Dillahunty? or the many athiest phone-in shows or the more academic offerings from offerings such as mythvision etc?

With science, we know what we are looking for and we can prove the virus does or does not exist in that sample. — Athena

Unless the test is corrupted and you get a false positive!

So how can we know God does not exist without knowing what that God is, and if you know what God is, where did you get that information and how do you prove God does not exist? — Athena

It is not possible to PROVE gods do not exist but think how easy it would be for them to PROVE THEY DO. The fact they don't and imo never will is the best rational proof I am going to get that the have always been non-existent and all past god stories are fables.

What does god look like? Are you sure your notion of god was not defined by Christians who insist the only god is one that is impossible to believe? — Athena

The burden of proof lies with gods and theists not me. Why would I have to personify that which I believe is non-existent. If god is as powerful as is suggested it should have no problem convincing me it exists.

The speed of light in a vacuum can always be made more accurate but we may never find its absolute value, but we can always asymptotically get closer to it.

What the heck is the reality of 12 dimensions? — Athena

Any dimensions posited greater that 3 are dimensions of the very small. Have a look at a pipeline from above, it looks 2D, you don't see the 3rd curled dimension from that 'above' position. In our 3D perspective we don't see the other spatial dimensions which curve around every point in 3D space.

fascinated by the uniqueness of thinking that came out of Athens. — Athena

But where else in the world did a civilization advance the reasoning of Athens — Athena

Consider the following from wiki:
Several of the ancient Greek philosophers regarded Egypt as a place of wisdom and philosophy. Isocrates (b. 436 BCE) states in Busiris that "all men agree the Egyptians are the healthiest and most long of life among men; and then for the soul they introduced philosophy’s training…" He declares that Greek writers traveled to Egypt to seek knowledge. One of them was Pythagoras of Samos who "was first to bring to the Greeks all philosophy," according to Isocrates.

Plato states in Phaedrus that the Egyptian Thoth "invented numbers and arithmetic… and, most important of all, letters.” In Plato’s Timaeus, Socrates quotes the ancient Egyptian wise men when the law-giver Solon travels to Egypt to learn: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children." Aristotle attests to Egypt being the original land of wisdom, as when he states in Politics that "Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system."

Oh dear, crash and burn. Your ignorance and intolerance has ended the fun. And that was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to what I said, not the rational reply I had come to expect from you. I am very disappointed and also reassured that my opinion of atheists being more emotional than rational was correct. Just like the rest of them, you sank to attacks and insults when the discussion did not go in the direction you wanted. — Athena

I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange.

I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange. — universeness

I think your battle is with your own fickle approach.
I am also disappointed but more bemused by your rather childish response quoted above.
Nothing I typed was insulting or was an attack and I had no interest in directing you anywhere.
Thanks anyway for the exchange. — universeness

You may not have intended to attack or insult but those gods are the foundation of democracy and western civilization. They are the substance of liberal education and our laws. As you found fault in what I said, I find fault in you appear to not know.

I don't see why your suggestion that god personified as a group of unidentified universals such as a notion of universal law would assist the dialogue between atheists and theists. — universeness

I can not imagine anything of importance that we would know without the effort to understand cause and effect and universal truths. If we don't ask the right questions, can not possibly get the right answers.

Eerie similarities! — DA671

You can say that again!

Quite true.

Quite true. — DA671

:up: If antintalism is false does that mean natalism is true?

If it's not necessary to cease doing something, then it's at least permissible to keep doing it. However, I wouldn't say that people should be pressurised. Natalism, to me, is simply acknowledging that procreation can be justifiable and good in at least some cases. The idea that either universal AN or absolute natalism can be beneficial does seem false to me.