They are angry, because their LOGICAL arguments, which they find infallible, fall on deaf ears by the religious. If god can't be good and all seeing and all powerful, why do the religious insist god is, is what angers atheists — god must be atheist

Which then falls full circle with the Epicurean Paradox. Huh. It seems we've been angered by our religious counterparts for quite some time now.

Oh really? I guess I'll just have to try again then.

Yeah I don't know where I was going with this. I was drunk at the time I wrote it, sorry.

In a vacuum, yes, they would hit the ground at the same time.

Anthropomorphic features are on an arbitrary continuum. If you put a hat on some slime mold, it's more human eh? — Nils Loc

Exactly. It's all about finding that delicate balance of almost unacceptable, but acceptable.

If you dress an animal up to give it anthropomorphic features before you exercise sexual gratification with said animal, it's still bestiality. Veggestiality is far more common. Melons are quite popular. — Nils Loc

I find that Pygmalion is a wonderful rendition of our modern dilemma. Did he fall in love with a statue, or a human? If the latter, it comes of parallel consequence that we accept modern humanistic bestiality as "human" with cute, incomprehensibly cute parentheses.

Sometimes I act in a way that isn't "real" to myself. In reality, nothing has changed about "me", at least not physically, but I carry a sentiment that i'm not true to my character. I would then suggest that when we perceive a realer reality, its not the reality thats changing, it's us.

I mean I'm low income, but I don't think i'm screwed. I wonder why.

What about (AB)xC ?

Would that be considered two or three things?

Forgive me if i'm wrong but I think you're talking more about the application of expression in freedom of speech, and how certain notions of thought are generally frowned upon, therefore not equalizing all forms of expression, and hence not a "freedom" of speech. Yeah, I think you would be correct on that, but is that especially bad? In my opinion there's just some things that should be considered "wrong" and deserve a lack of respect, because it has no merit to society to fuel those kind of thoughts.

As I've already pointed out here ↪180 Proof, Epicurus' Riddle does not concern whether or not "God exists". — 180 Proof

Yeah that was my bad. I caught it with an edit but alas I was too late.

No, that's not my reading. The Riddle is "based on what god" does not do, and addressed to us and not god, prompts us to "think" about what god does not do. — 180 Proof

Hm, well it seems a little complicated but i'll take your word for it, seeing as I have never read Epicurus before.

They both conform to the principle equally.

Well if He needed human validation to be worthy of worship, he wouldn't be much of a god anyways.
Edit: Also, isn't the Epicurean paradox based on what god thinks?

(a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

(b) Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

(c) Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

(d) Is he neither able nor willing? — 180 Proof

Yes that is true.

Yes that is true.

However, you are not wrong. It would be not a true average had we not incorporated any extremity at all. Therefore, velocity and acceleration would be included into the calculation of the true average, but only on an individualistic level. It would be mainly to adhere to the average differences there are between objects.

Because they are reliant on the individual, and therefore not similar to other averages.

Basically. Although in this case the average of similarities between the averages wouldn't be velocity and acceleration, those are much too personal. Instead, the similarities would be gravitational acceleration, weight, and your finalized "true average" would be a formula to calculate the free fall. The final average would be something that ties all of its subjects together, a unifying similarity. That is what it is to be average after all. A solution that works for most of its subjects.

That is in part correct. In fact, had you only performed the free fall experiment with only one set of average material, that experiment would then itself become unique and therefore not pertain to an average. Then, in order to move it back into an assessment of the average, you would have to extract its similarities and apply this to another average set. Do that for some time and eventually you would finally have a true average.

In my opinion to be average is to be similar. You could use any material you would like, so long as the material is relevant to its other examples. If it is not, then in my belief it would simply not be average.

No, because that would be a comparison of extremities. A comparison of averages would be taking 50-55cm in width rocks, that are all made up of the same thing. There can be no stellar example, neither a series of stellar examples, if one wishes to use the average as a measurement.

Edit: One can use stellar examples, but must use them on average.

I just realized that this discussion sounds a lot weirder than I thought. It didn't sound that weird in my head, I promise.

:up:

:up:

I would say the main thing I've learned about 2021 is that oysters are actually surprisingly good, and it is in fact, very hard to say no. Sometimes.

"Covid-19 started as a simple virus, and then successfully mutated into an IQ test." — god must be atheist

That actually made me laugh pretty hard.

Mm, well in my belief these paradoxes aren't ridiculous. It helps flesh out His behaviour in a context that gives certain people hope and thats most definitely not bad.

Although I would agree with you that this isn't the best way to assess gods existence. The existence of God after all, is a choice. The main reason people are atheists is that they don't want the premise of heaven to influence their positive actions. They would rather enjoy life because life in their opinion is limited. In this case, they wouldn't be attacking whether god exists, but see no use.

Maybe he sees evil as not evil, but just a lesser good? Then in His non-interference he would be considered omni-benevolent, because He would not suppress "good" actions.

I'm flattered.

I also feel the need to ask you: do you want to remain “average”? Are you happy being mediocre? Maybe you are, but philosophy is not a mediocre discipline... — Leghorn

I would have to confess that yes, I am terribly infatuated with mediocrity. It has consumed me, by a large margin.

...in fine, let me ask you: should we judge something by its common ordinary examples, or by its rare and extraordinary ones? — Leghorn

In my opinion (partly due to my mediocre position), we should undoubtedly perceive something on its average, rather than its substantial outliers.

Well, we tend to look at ourselves by looking at others who themselves are external. I don't see why it would pose a problem in that regard.

I read Solaris by Stanislaw Lem a while back, it was pretty decent.

Definitely it would give evidence to a something, in which we could place our selfhood with high hopes. However, the amount of wisdom needed to make this a practical thought is astounding; I don't think I would be ever able to attain it, and hence, its lack of reality in correlation to me.

How could I go about grounding this idea? How can I make this applicable to my average self?

I would like to add, that even though you CAN get infected if you are vaccinated, its entire principle has to do with the probability of infection. It's meant to slow covid down, and it works.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e5.htm#F1_down

Edit: Plus, the symptoms between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated vary immensely:

https://uihc.org/news/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-how-sick-can-you-get

Well obviously the ending has its own merit, but when all things are said and done the end of the road only really serves to look back on the journey.

You may.

Damn.

So this is what a popular phase feels like...

Yeah this is what I was basically tryna' say.

Democracy, on the other hand, feeds on the conviction that different humans will hold the same innate importance despite their differences. — javra

Sorry, i'm a little slow sometimes :groan:

As far as how to return the world to a democratic state, I think we just need to be more kind to one another. Pretty simple, but I think a lot of problems could be solved if we were just nice, tolerant, dudes to begin with.

Hm... Well I did say we are of different value, but I never said we are of different importance. Are they correlated?

I guess my main concern is that I don't necessarily see it the same way. I would say that one should treat a janitor and a president with the same amount of respect, even if the real world doesn't work that way.

Well no, we are not all of equal value, but that shouldn't be a basis of equalizing rights.