By the way this is the actual primary Google definition of religion:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Which atheists don't have. And there's no way to reasonably gerrymander that into claiming they do. But maybe you can approach whatever point you want to make from a more plausible angle. I'm struggling to understand what you want to get across here re atheism.

A complaint is an expression of disapproval or disappointment regarding a state of affairs and may or may not be directed at an agent. A criticism is an expression of disapproval and/or an identification of a fault/deficit specifically directed at an agent, or a system designed and controlled by agents, or the creative work of an agent. That's the basic distinction I'd make.

But you've just agreed that my sexual harassment example is an example of a bona fide complaint. Clearly this is justified in relation to normative rules regarding employee interactions, right?

But, they surely aren't the same. One can imply the other, and be logically sound in such an assertion, depending on how you view things; but, both are distinct, in my opinion. — Posty McPostface

Well, I only made the claim that one implied the other in the case of a complaint regarding an agent. But, examples aside, what is the specific semantic distinction you want to highlight?

Venting, ranting, and trolling would be a case or form of complaining. — Posty McPostface

It could be both. Complaining implies criticism when the complaint concerns an agent (rather than, for example, venting about the weather).

Righting a wrong would be a case of criticism (Without going into intentionality, let's assume it's constructive criticism here). — Posty McPostface

It could be, but the example I gave concerned an official complaint regarding sexual harassment. Are we agreed that that case is also a case of complaining?

(There is some overlap between the two terms).

Which example of mine do you think would be better classed as criticism than complaint? And I'll try to justify my definition in that case.

I'm not sure. Are you saying you think I'm confusing "complaining" with "criticism".

I don't have anything against you that I know of or remember or care about and if you take offence at such mild criticism then you're being over-sensitive imho. Anyway, no, humans did not always have religion. The fact that ritual is very old and embedded in human history doesn't refute that simple fact. The earliest evidence of religion comes after the earliest evidence of humans, so there's no evidential basis for your claim. Besides, your contention that because atheists have beliefs they must have 'religious' beliefs is obviously false because it results in a classing of all belief as religious. It would be a much more justifiable and interesting angle to take to argue that many atheists' beliefs are influenced by religion. But again, as things stand, no better than claiming God is a Panda.

Bit much to pin this on atheists. But it is a very poor OP that was saved by there being a few decent replies by the time I saw it.

So everyone who existed before the advent of religion was... dead. Bit of a miracle there are any of us here at all, isn't it? Anyway, it's not so much of an analysis as an attempt at word play taking advantage of the inherent vagueness of dictionary definitions. We could probably prove God is a Panda using similar methods.

I would say if it results in or at least aims at a positive outcome and is undertaken for good reason. So, a positive or justified complaint to me would be one the motivation for which is a wrong, and the goal of which is to right that wrong. A negative complaint is one that involves simply venting with regard to a wrong (perceived or otherwise). For example, complaining to the appropriate authorities about being sexually harassed at work would generally fall in the former category while venting on the internet about how shit your life is in the latter.

I suppose we could do a more comprehensive taxonomy of complaining by distinguishing between positive v negative and justified v unjustified complaints (for example, a complaint being justified (motivated by a wrong) doesn't necessarily make it positive (if one just vents with no hope of redressing that wrong)) but it's not necessary to do so to make the basic point that complaining is not always the wrong thing to do.

It means that there's nothing inherently wrong in complaining. It's the context in which we do it that counts.

Yeah; but, what good has complaining ever resulted in? — Posty McPostface

Can you really not think of any situation whereby a complaint could result in a positive outcome?

That is worth bringing up. There's certainly a large amount of religious influence "baked-in" to western culture (along with a lot of other stuff) and even deeper than that is our hardwiring for altruism and cooperation. One level builds on another. And fully disentangling all that in order to discover "the" cause of our ethical orientations isn't possible. So, what I'd take from your point is more confirmation that the theist/atheist distinction with regard to morality is fairly hopeless in reflecting anything apart from a personal narrative.

Second, the internet is full of complaints. I don't think there ever existed a person that never complained. Yet, why do we complain so much? See, I'm doing it too. I suppose it's a matter of maturity. — Posty McPostface

What matters with regard to maturity is whether the complaint is justified/necessary as well as how it's presented, not that it's a complaint per se.

(I should add to my comment that extreme ideologies can obviously also dramatically affect the moral sense. Fundamentalist religions, cults, and political movements at their most successful essentially substitute their "morality" for yours. But then that's no morality at all or none worth having.)

Grammatically, pronouns are a closed class and very resistant to change. It's explained quite well here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3daf1k/why_custom_personal_pronouns_dont_work_a/

You can go against the grain on this one, of course, but you'll sound awkward and it won't catch on. New pronouns are not something people in general are going to start using for political reasons.

Your sense of morality is more likely to be dramatically affected by a physical change in the brain than by religious belief. Whether the man in the article below was a theist or not is irrelevant. And being a theist hasn't stopped thousands of priests from similar immoral acts.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/a-40-year-old-developed-an-obsession-with-child-pornography-then-doctors-discovered-why-a6893756.html

The fact is what what you tell yourself about what you believe with regard to God probably has little effect on your sense of morality, which runs much deeper, and is likely to be largely settled when you are too young to even appreciate the meaning of religious belief. That goes for whether you are a theist or not. We are moral because we want to be.

Yes, no sockpuppets, but if someone wants to change their screen name, you can PM me or jamalrob.

The more the exam is worth, the more I'll study for it. — Hanover

And with an attitude as positive as that, you'll eventually graduate high school, I'm sure. :strong:

I disagree, since I've noticed many really smart people that were in terrible physical condition. It's not like nerds are usually jocks. — Hanover

I've noticed plenty of dumb people in pretty poor condition too. In any case, there's plenty of evidence for it: E.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/scientists-discover-why-exercise-makes-you-smarter

Exactly. Glad to hear we haven’t driven you to donuts dunked in whiskey! — 0 thru 9

Is that a thing? :halo: :) Anyway, not to worry, my wounds tend to be self-inflicted. The gut biome is a fruitful line of inquiry, of course. My hunch is that for the majority of people, a relatively conventional diet plus regular exercise is more healthy than a special diet without it, which is my reason for giving that primacy. Similarly with regard to stress, chronic amounts can be crippling in a way a poor diet may not be. And all this relates to immune system functioning in different ways for different people. So... it's complicated and my sample of one may not mean much. I defer to the experts.

I've never been too concerned with food. As long as I've eaten enough, got my calories in, it's seemed a side issue. And I've never been on a diet of any sort that I can recall (apart from a vague recollection of trying high-protein for a while).

Did you have coffee this morning? — 0 thru 9

Not this morning, but I often do.

Notice anything? — 0 thru 9

Actually, no...

Since this is far from a scientific survey, I don’t quite know where to classify a feeling of low or high physical energy or tiredness that is attributable to diet. Is that brain functioning, body metabolism, or both? — 0 thru 9

Both. Any chemical changes in the brain caused by a change in diet are covered under metabolism. And maybe I'm just not very in touch with my metabolism. But if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Physical exercise—which I'm not doing enough of at the moment. Plus being creative and having positive social interactions (though I personally will never be a "mathlete" of the calibre of some of our posters here no matter what. :) ) Pretty much the same stuff that offsets stress then. Skeptical of the diet-related stuff as having a direct a relation to optimal mental functioning as just being generally fit and happy does.

If it serves to end the conversation, it might be worth it.

In which case, it's not insensible for them to continue to trade among themselves. As in, to the extent that the linguistic currency forming the belief systems of the religious functions within their communicative sphere, their exchanges are sensible within that sphere. Ergo, this category being defined as such a sphere lends its contents immunity from the sweeping nature of your criticism, no?

There is nothing sensible to be said here. — Banno

Proof by demonstration?

If you don't trade in the currency in which someone has invested their identity, positive communication isn't possible, sure.

But it takes more to demonstrate their money is worthless.

Is it any more of a positive provocation to imply the religious are merely delusional than it is to suggest trans people are?

More like a provocativist, methinks.

The category Philosophy of Religion ought be empty. — Banno

You're not helping.

If I tell you there was a fire in a department store downtown, and the news tells you there was a fire in the department store downtown, and there was a fire in a department store downtown, and neither of us gets overtly political about it, but reports basic facts such as when and where, we are doing essentially the same thing, and in this case worries about "bias" and talk of "narratives" sounds overheated. At other levels though, these issues become very important because the media both reflects and constructs social reality and being aware of how they do that is important in interpreting events.

identity is only conferred if the intention is to return to something. But at the same time, this means there are confirmation and generalization. That which is identified is transferred into a schema or associated with a familiar schema — Number2018

Presuming the "something being returned to/familiar schema" is a recognizable narrative, theme or background presumption like "fires are dangerous/bad", sure. I don't disagree with that. What I do find disagreeable is on discovering this sort of analysis of media, some people come to the conclusion that everything is "fake news" or loaded with some important political bias. It's not.

If you looked at her writing next to mine you would conclude that I'm the better philosopher. If you looked at her life next to mine you would come to the opposite conclusion. :smile: — Jake

:grin:

Being Al Yankovic being John Malkovich

John Malkovich gets cucked by Al Yankovic for the part of John Malkovich in a movie about the inside of Malkovich's head.

Unfortunately it is not unusual for folks to be clever dicks; mere intelligence is not enough. — unenlightened

Some of us can't help ourselves sometimes. Anyhow, imagination is key, I think. How exactly that relates to "intelligence" is anyone's guess.

I think part of the problem is the way the OP is phrased, which seems to presume that there is some particular hidden meaning to each sentence whereas it seems obvious to me that they are exercises for the imagination. But, yes, accusations of pretentiousness do seem to miss the point.

Language doesn't always do what it says on the tin, but you can't live on can-openers either.

Talking about death can be cathartic, I think, and seeing as we have only a finite amount of emotion in us with regard to any topic, once you've exhausted that, you can probably equally take it or leave it. And I don't think there's a particular taboo surrounding death any more than any other depressing topic, more so than just confusion about what to meaningfully say. Like, what do you say about it beyond platitude in the context of the way we live now? Maybe the way we live now just is on the basis that nothing can be said of death beyond platitude. As long as we keep that going, all's well. Just thinking aloud, but that's what occurs to me.

After all, are her views really any worse than the gibberish from the likes of Kant, Marx, — LD Saunders

Do you really think Kant and Marx predominantly wrote "gibberish"?

Are we of above Average intelligence?

Yes. And no.

Do you have to be of above average intelligence to engage seriously with philosophy? — Andrew4Handel

No. Unless, yes, in which case, yes.

Does philosophy improve based on the philosophers hypothetical IQ? — Andrew4Handel

Only when it does.

Should philosophy and philosophical debate be made more accessible (without diluting it)? — Andrew4Handel

Yes. Where appropriate.

Or should it be a highly qualified domain — Andrew4Handel

Yes. Where appropriate.

I'm not being facetious by the way. The questions are vague, your purpose in asking them unclear, and your own opinion as a guide to where to take all this, absent. Help us out a bit, please. What is the point?

Do I win yet, or do I have to do more of this shit?

The biography of a frustrated philosophy forum admin*.

* Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental**.

**That may be a lie***

***Do I win yet?

Malcolm Y

A snow leopard ponders the meaning of existence but gets poached before he can figure it out.