Since death exists I can't find any other worth full meaning in life except from trying to live a happy life.
And since happiness is just an abstract concept. I define happiness as living as much time (seconds from your whole life) with pleasant feelings. If not pleasant then peaceful- calm feelings .If neither calm then with "neutral" feelings.
In general by trying to minimize the time of your life that you will spend with unpleasant feelings.

It's the only purpose I have found worthy fighting for.

I mean, do you really think it is that futile? — ToothyMaw

Well in fact yes cause I think that theists explain the unjust issue of God via their belief that "God knows better". It's not that they don't admit that there are unjust situations all over societies. They just "excuse" it via the same way of thinking that they "excuse" God's existence on the very beginning.
And based on that, logical arguments against it don't have much luck.

But at the end who am I to decide that. It might end up into a fruitful discussion thread.

The purpose of the argument contained in the problem of evil and my argument is to show that god cannot be what they think he is; their very idea of god is contradictory. — ToothyMaw

Existence or not of God says nothing about good on evil. Good and evil are just what religions added to "God's concept".
People who believe in God in all these arguments against them, just say "it's God's plan" and end of story.
So if your goal is to prove them wrong you won't achieve much. If on the other hand, your goal is to connect God with evil then your false premise doesn't leave much to talk about.
That's the point, imo at least.

It is only a false premise if you can verify that it is not true — ToothyMaw

Same it is a true premise if only you can verify it's true. And you can't. So it is unknown what God would be ("good" or "bad") if he exists.

You wouldn't claim that every thought experiment or counterargument is false merely because it assumes certain premises - which are often derived from another's arguments - would you? — ToothyMaw

Well I might did. It depends in each case of course.
But if the thought experiment is based on a total false premise I would just expect normally its "conclusion" to be false also

That's just human beings projecting, like they have a habit of doing. It could very well be that God just has a different sense of humor and laughs every time a so-called "injustice" befalls someone — James Riley

Maybe some bacteria needs something to eat and it can't chow down so long as those pesky anti-bodies are standing in the way. Thus, God is omnibenevolent and allows that car accident or cancer or murder to occur so that bacteria can eat, unmolested. God is, after all, a God of bacteria; not humans. Bacteria are the center of the universe. Bacteria are the measure of all things. — James Riley

Exactly.

1) If god existed he would not allow injustices to occur — ToothyMaw

Says who? If there is God why he should be a "good" one? It's a false premise where you built your argument on. Same Bartricks did at his own thread.

1. If God (an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person) exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world — Bartricks

If God exists why he should be "good"?
And I think you built your case based on that false premise. Imo, existence or not of God says nothing about good or evil. Good and evil are just what religions added to " God's concept".

I should add that the mental asylums in my country cannot permanently keep people there, they can only keep them there about a month or 20 days, as I said before. — Amalac

Which country is that If you wanna share it of course? Really seems extremely weird to me that there aren't places as to keep permanently people with mental illnesses. Are they spread all over the streets everywhere?? Are there only private mental hospitals that you have to pay for and your family can't afford it?

Your problem is really serious and I really wish strength for you and your family. And I hope things to work out at the end.

As for your question, imo, the moral thing to do, is whatever is the best for your sister.And that's clearly to go to a mental hospital where she could get proper help.
If there isn't indeed any mental hospital (even private) in your country, then you should try to send her to another country's private hospital. I know that it won't be easy. Especially if money is an issue for your family. But try everything as to gather it.

Make a serious discussion with all the family members (even distant members), ask for their financial help (it is not a shame at all, you are family after all and they probably know already your situation). Send emails everywhere to each one hospital in your country or other countries too describing your situation.
At a desperate effort, even ask for donation as to raise money for that. Go for it via Internet etc. Remember the goal is one :"Get your sister in a place where she could get help" so chaise it till the end.

I know of course that things won't be easy as I describe it but I hope you get my point. The moral thing is clear here. She needs help from experts. End.

And don't you ever feel guilty for locking up your sister to a " crazy house"! Or that you " abandoned " her. Always remember that when that thoughts cross your mind.
Your sister suffers clearly. She needs help clearly. If you suffer also by having to live with her it won't change anything at all. It will just make suffering persons 2, and that's all.
Maybe it will be even worse cause your suffering would cause more conflicts with her and that's worse for both of you. Just try to be supportive to her in all that long way. Just be there for her. That's your "moral duty" imo.

Good luck my friend.

I think the answer is very simple to your question. Similar to knives, it's the use of it which could be bad indeed for someone.
Social Media on their own are just fine.

But yes, since most people in general make bad use of it then yes I think mental illnesses have been seriously increased at the Social Media Era. And I m afraid that it will get much much worse at the near future.

Love exists but it's an Egoist thing indeed.Its final root is Ego. And that's totally fine!

The problem is that folks find that a bad thing, since Ego has been demonized. Ego throughout philosophical history was mostly connected and considered as a "bad thing" that people should avoid and depress. And that belief is wide spread till nowadays among folks. For example almost all religions have been built in Love as a total unselfish thing. One of the many religion's fairy tales.

So it's normal people to find it outrageous to connect love with Ego. Especially love which is a very "sensitive" issue for most people.
But Ego is not at all necessarily a bad thing. In fact a "healthy Ego" is much much better than a "depressed Ego".

Do we know whether the observer is impacted by reality? — Hanover

Hmm. Could he not be? First comes "reality" and then follows the "observer". Reality gives birth to the observer.
I really can't see how the observer can escape from the impact of it.

Reality yes. Cause it presupposes already an observer. And everytime it's the different "reality" depending on whom that "observer" is. It's just "observer's reality".

On the contrary Existance no. It is independent. "Something" exists that's for sure. How exactly though, that existance is approachable and in what way the "observer" perceives it, that's reality. And it's subjective.

the other profound to the point of incomprehensibility. — Banno

Still exists though.Being incomprehensive for humanity (yet at least) doesn't make it disappear.
There are two games indeed.

Probably not. But still it should have its own "way".

I'm beginning to have second thoughts about the truth. I no longer believe such a thing exists. Still the myth persists - I wonder why? — TheMadFool

I would suggest moving on to "third thoughts" also, as to get back to your first thoughts!
Why to doubt about that? That an Absolute Truth actually exists? Isn't there a perfect explanation about how universe works? Its purpose(if of course there is any)?? And the explanation of the way that everything there "works" in such harmony?

Why to doubt about that? The thing that we humans are still very far away from discovering it, discovering "universe's way", doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.

Everything we discover about universe eventually "makes sense" at the end, when our limited human knowledge gets expanded .
At the Eureka moment we yell "But of course! That's how it is!".
So yes there must be an "Absolute Truth" or as you call it "the Truth" indeed!

I did that from the beginning. But still isn't,to me at least.
Only if you somehow mean that "the truth" that Mad talks about doesn't exist at all. Anyway.

Then with imaginary you mean that "the truth" doesn't exist? Cause I don't see how the meaning is different otherwise.

Well, "the truth" is imaginary, thereby a denial (E.Becker) or distraction from (L. Feuerbach) the real — 180 Proof

If "truth" is imaginary, then "real" is imaginary too.

Go to the heart of any religion and you will find philosophy. What we have come to know as religion is simply an exoteric representation of a philosophy, because the nature of philosophy is such that it cannot necessarily understood by everyone. — Tzeentch

Exactly.

I guess it just depends from "who" that person is.
For example Nietzsche's "personal gnosis" was much more than just "legitimate" wisdom.

What is the void, is it an absence of belief, or something else? — Jack Cummins

For me it is the absence of answers to our existential questions. Most probably death is the ultimate root of it.The inevitable end.

So some try to fill that void with belief (religion), others just try to learn how not to be intimated looking down the abyssus (i find philosophy as a great help for that mission).

The void is even beautiful in its way, a vast open space — hanaH

Scary but also beautiful indeed.

You just moved me to laugh internally. If people actually have an "a priori transcendental need" they are generally astonishlingly piss-poor at satisfying it, and that truly is a shame. — praxis

Pfff

"Metaphysical need?" "Existential void?" These are problems to be addressed and endured (like being embodied), not solved or "cure". There simply is no viable escape from existence. — 180 Proof

What you miss to understand is that as to "endure" all these a priori questions we have and "embody" them, as you say, we humans NEED a personal cosmotheory!
Surely not the right one, surely not with all answers included, surely limited, surely "naive". BUT our own one!

Our personal one that will help us endure and embody all these questions we have inside us and follow us till we die!To "use" it as to pacify ourselves at the moments when this Existential Void becomes like a volcano. And we all face that moments in our lives.
We can't escape existence! Exactly as you wrote but we have to learn to handle it!

This personal cosmotheory is in every single one of us. And it's different, unique. Even among religious persons themselves! And much more in atheists!

So people use philosophy and religion to draw that theory! And that's exactly the common ground of both.
Philosophy though has the advantage of evolving following science and that is what makes it better way for getting us closer to the truth.

Philosophy replaces religion inasmuch as you decide it does. If there is a philosophy which has a spiritual or mystical aspect which is appealing, then you could use than instead of religion. — Manuel

Exactly.

I’m not at all religious, btw, but still feel moved in the midst of religious rituals. — praxis

That's cause it triggers our a priori transcedental need. And the feeling coming from that is indeed overwhelming. Happens to me also.

I always preferred to believe that the derivation from ‘re-ligare’, ‘to bind or unite’ was superior to the derivation ‘religio’ as ‘peity with respect to the gods.’ It says something about two aspects or facets of religion, the first being usually overlooked on the grounds that the second is what religion ‘really means’. — Wayfarer

So true.

And that's an insignificant difference for you? I — praxis

Of course it isn't. And that's why I never mentioned that philosophy and religion serve exact the same purpose.Nor that philosophy can replace religion. I am careful with my wording.

More prejudiced? Why so defensive? — 180 Proof

It isn't defense. It was just observation since it was obvious the reason for you asking that kind of thing.

it's your conceptions of what we are doing (or trying to do) when we practice "religion" or "philosophy" which make no sense in the light of the historicities / genealogies of their respective roles in 'the life of the mind — 180 Proof

I still can't understand why you say that. And why you find it so weird that people through philosophy also try to feed their existential curiosity.
Not that philosophy is a substitute for religion as I agreed earlier but of course they have common field in some issues. And it is just a matter of logic and crystal clear to my eyes.

You can also identify it in the work of many great philosophers who dealt with religion morals and God. It really amazes me that you can't acknowledge such an obvious thing.

Okay, don't answer; or rather, your nonanswers, dimo9, persuade me my suspicions are correct. — 180 Proof

I would answer it anyway, just wanted to clarify the reasons for such an irrelevant question of the topic.
Since when is age an argument validity measurement?? Interesting.
As I see from your characterization on myself (naive, ignorant etc) I was right for being suspicious.

I m 34.And philosophical questions bother me since I remember myself. In a compulsive way. Since teenager I read philosophical and psychological books since they interest me the most.
If your question though is about academic philosophical education. Then none. I studied economic university but I m just a receptionist.

I'm curious why you're so intent on drawing a parallel between philosophy and religion. :chin: — praxis

Cause imo there is one. In fact not parallel but many crossovers between them. But surely aren't the same.

I agree that religion tries to give answers from divine authority. Unquestionable ones.Philosophy's work is mostly questions. But that doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't also attempt to give some answers in specific existential matters also. "Possible answers" though and not "definite answers" as religion does.

Apparently, I misinterpreted what you were asking. Maybe if I read the previous content it would have been clearer with that context. — praxis

It's Ok.

There is indeed.

Not necessarily, some are raised within a religion and belong to it their entire lives — praxis

Some aren't though.

They may of course privately question it, but to publicly question doctrine is to risk — praxis

I care about the personal part in that case only. The private inner questions they make to themselves.

Whether or not that's beneficial to the individual it's not beneficial to the religion because it loses support. — praxis

It does indeed. But I didn't mention that religion urges people go question themselves. Just that many people try to answer these existential questions via religions.

It isn't really available in religion because to belong is to not question the dogma, and it's all about belonging. The function of philosophy is not to bind communities with shared values, norms, and narratives. — praxis

I don't get your point. First people have the questions on their own a priory and after they seek the answers. Some turn in religions for answers.
Religion don't also deal with after death issue? So how can it not be available?

Is it somehow relevant to our discussion?Will it make any difference? You think it would help or you will get more prejudiced?
Answer me that first.

And I disagree that those "religious questions" which you mention also belong to philosophy — 180 Proof

I mentioned questions, not religion questions. Existential questions. And I can't understand how you can disagree with that.
Isn't the question "what happens after death?" available both in philosophy and religion? Aren't there philosophers who dealt with this matter?

And I will go it even further. At the end isn't religion itself just a philosophy theory and nothing more?? Well different theories in fact since there are many religions!

Bible for example, was written by human (or humans) being(s).
Well he wasn't nothing more but an excellent philosopher.If not excellent for sure a great influential one!

Why, you think moral questions are easy and self-evident? Or that what you or I think are obviously the correct answers? Or just you?

Ok.

So an easy universal issue is that killing other people is wrong. Huge agreement with that, when we say it like that. But how about self-defense? When is it morally right to use lethal force for self defense?
Is it right or wrong to kill other animals? Is it harmful that human society has advance from the hunter gatherers to what we are today? A lot of species have died and there's global warming, yet for "human ecology" our way to mold this planet to serve us has been a great success story. Or how about issues with sex? Or substance use? Abortion?

All those issues that we now see as 'political' and where we see 'cultural divides' emerging on how people answer them. — ssu

Excellent.

should not be confused with religion as (the) "alternative" to confessional, or spiritual, practice. — 180 Proof

I don't have anything to disagree about your post except maybe only that.

For me, of course we can't consider that philosophy can be an absolute substitute for religion. But I think that in some crucial aspects-issues both try to give to each person individually some answers.

For example questions like "what happens after death?", "what is the purpose of life? "," how should I live my life as to be happy? "etc exc, I think you agree that both Religion and Philosophy share as a common base.Right?

In conclusion, yes it is wrong to consider philosophy as" antidote " to religion. But I also find it wrong as to consider that philosophy has nothing to do with religion! They are connected in many things. Their routes get crossed in crucial issues of human life,in many corners.

That's why I mentioned at my first posts here on this thread that I see philosophy as a refugee for atheists. A Shelter.

At least that's how it works for me.

Like I said, immortality is a fairytale. — GraveItty

It's only your opinion. After thousands of years you can never be sure of what humanity will achieve.

I ended up to that conclusion because of your language (as I explained implicitely): "atheists will be radically reduced". — GraveItty

In fact i said "theists would be radically reduced" and it is only my opinion of what would happen if humanity reach to immortality.
Not that I have a passion as to start a "crusade for vanishing theists". I have no problem with theists as long as they are not fanatics. I have a problem though with fanatics atheists also!