I call upon all high-minded folks to pressure their governments to confiscate the yachts, the money made from the porn movies, the money of the speculators, and all other resources invested in somethinig harmful or useless, and put that money to something useful instead like saving good people's lives or making this wonderful planet of ours a better place for our descendents. — Tristan L

Or we could insist that all medical care is free from cradle to grave for everyone in every country.

I would add to your questions with others such as:
Why does the Vatican not help Ulyana and her like? They are one of or perhaps even thee richest organisation in the world and they profess to care about people. Could they not sell one of their useless paintings to help her and her like?

Why don't the churches, chapels, cathedrals, mosques, temples not open their doors every night to the homeless? Many theist groups do a great deal to help the poor and probably do more that many secular authorities do but they all need to do so much more. Many religious and theosophist organisations (such as Scientology) are very rich.
The word hypocrites is a fair accusation I think.

If you are a billionaire in assets of any kind then YOU ARE an abomination imo. Anyone ever saw a Camel trying to get through the eye of a needle? I am sure a billionaire like Elon Musk could make that happen. Atomise the Camel, pass it through, reconstitute the camel. It's probably one of the pet projects on his 'to do' list, so he can ascend to godhood in a Tesla, placed in the nosecone of his space rocket!

Welcome to the 'thread moved to the lounge category, with no notification,' club. I am also a member.

:lol: Despite your humility and insistence that you have limited knowledge of the world, you still keep adding to my vocabulary. I was not familiar with 'apposite,' either.
Again, google to the rescue. Apposite meaning apt. If English is a second language for you, the word range you know is impressive.

Thank you for your kind words. I am quite confused by:

I am sorry if I accidentally betrayed you! It sincerely was not intentional. — DA671

Please explain. Was it these words below that made you think I was referring to your belief system?
If so, its me that should be apologising.

WE CAN ALL DO BETTER! And imo, we need no help from god fables — universeness

I did not intend these words to be a direct insult to all Hinduism, as you, yourself have explained to me that many Hindus express their belief system in many ways, including ways that do not include anything supernatural.

Nature made mothers, nature made every female and male archetype. — Athena

I wanted to pull this sentence out separately and 'complain' about its 'intent' connotation.
'Nature' is often 'objectified' in the sense that some people often try to assign it a concrete form like 'mother nature!' etc. Nature has no such concrete form and has no intent. Such thinking created the original pagan deities and animism(the belief that all objects and living things possess a soul or spirit).
Many early gods were some human/animal hybrid or sun/moon/river/forest god. I think we should stop objectifying/anthropomorphising the natural processes or 'nature,' in this way.

I know too little — DA671

I think we all know too little about such horrific events.
Based on a quick google search:
‘Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.’
The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

WE CAN ALL DO BETTER! And imo, we need no help from god fables but I understand, (if my analysis of her intent is correct) @Athena's very honourable 'mission'/intent, to find common ground / values / purpose and foster a more positive dialogue between theists and anti-theists. I would have to always admit to my own personal preference for abandoning all theism however, as to do otherwise, would be disingenuous on my part.

Btw, I had to google 'commingling.' That's a new one on me. Breach of trust, yes?

We really need to get our act together lest we make the same silly mistakes our ancestors made. Easy to say, hard to do and therein lies the rub, oui mon ami? — Agent Smith

The problems are still many and so deeply embeded within global sociopolitical systems and cultural/religious traditions. BUT, we can do better because we have improved the lives of millions in comparison to life for the majority in the past. 2022 years since CE or the 'common era' began. That's only a couple of seconds in the cosmic calendar.

I'd say it was actually a memeplex war in the ideaverse that spilled over into the physical dimension. — Agent Smith

The British were quite happy to see the religious groups slaughter each other. The British soldiers stood by and watched as it went on because they were told to. I can imagine the British colonial attitude at the time. "See how these 'natives' treat each other when we brits are not in charge." Churchill had such disrespect for Indians that he called Gandhi 'a half-naked Indian fakir.' Mountbatten was happy to encourage the carnage by offering a Pakistan which was made up of a Western and Eastern section, with India between them. This exacerbated the massive movement of starving poor people whose only difference was religious dogma and millions died because of religion and political intrigue.

I am not as concerned about private ownership of property, nor am I concerned about 'small capitalism.'
People must have quality housing as a human right but as long as that is provided then I don't care who owns a particular property. Billionaires or multi-millionaires, conglomerates (or anything like them) would not be allowed. So the amount of property owned by an individual would be controlled and they would not own the land the property sat on.

Yep, I am sure you would agree Javi, that the human condition would deserve the accusation of 'life sucks!' less, if everyone could personally stop being 'culturalist.'
If YOU as a human don't in your own heart believe/know that all people should be treated equally then YOU will always provide evidence for the anti-life people. I use YOU here to refer to each individual on the planet.
One planet stewarded by one united species is what I advocate. No more countries, no more currencies, no gods, no race other than the human race, no private ownership of land, no rich, no poor, no utopia or dystopia. WE CAN ALL DO BETTER!

Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism — universeness

I an unaware of cases where hindus attacked Sikhs during partition, they attacked muslims — universeness

Sorry Athena, this is clumsy on my part. I wanted to clarify a little.

During the partition of India, Hindus and Sikhs attacked Muslims and Muslims attacked Hindus and Sikhs. In the whole history of India, I assume Hindus have killed people from most religions as is the case for Christians and Islamists. Terrorists tend not to check what your religion is before they explode their bombs etc. Often, even their own people get killed in the crossfire.

I was unaware of this history of violence and it makes me curious. Why did the Hindus kill Muslims and Sikhs? — Athena

I am unaware of cases where hindus attacked Sikhs during partition, they attacked muslims.
There is an enormous amount of material on-line regarding the partition of India or perhaps you could PM @DA671 who knows a great deal about the topic.

I assume the practical answer is to avoid disease. — Athena

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.
From wiki:
The term is most commonly associated with treatment of the Dalit communities in the Indian subcontinent who were considered "polluting". The term has also been used to refer to other groups, including the Burakumin of Japan, the Baekjeong of Korea, and the Ragyabpa of Tibet, as well as the Romani people and Cagot in Europe, and the Al-Akhdam in Yemen. Traditionally, the groups characterized as untouchable were those whose occupations and habits of life involved ritually "polluting" activities, such as fishermen, manual scavengers, sweepers and washermen.

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!

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.

and this post is too long and also not on topic, so I am going to quit now. — Athena

Well, I understand but this thread is now called 'life sucks,' we are simply trying to analyse some of the historical evidence and aspects of human behaviour that might support that claim or highlight the behaviours that have to be effectively tackled and changed to develop my contention that life is wonderful but the human experience is imbalanced and riddled with injustice and 'needs a lot of work.'
Finally outgrowing all gods would be a good start imo.

Hope that clears things up for you! — apokrisis

The up and down labels assigned to quarks are quite arbitrary.

Perhaps this repetition will help you!

Whoo. wait a minute. Do you have any stories of people who believe in many gods behaving like those who think there is only one god who has favorite people and one god's truth? When people believed there are many gods they thought the people who won wars had the strongest god and that was one of the factors that converted people to Christianity. — Athena

Yes, Hindus are the third largest religion in the world (estimated at 1.2 billion). I assume the Hindu gods favour Hindus. Hindus have killed muslims and sikhs and probably people from all other relgions, in the name of hinduism. I am sure hindus have been on the losing side in many wars, but hinduism still has a massive global following and a global diaspora. I already agreed that many people got infected by or converted to (to use a less disrespectful term) christianity, through fear.

This is really important, many gods means learning far more than can be learned with one jealous, revengeful, and fearsome god. That is a war god, not the path to equality and peace. — Athena

So how come a 'power in the hands of the few,' caste system and the horror of untouchability came out of hinduism?

Too bad at the time of the enlightenment and the beginning of democracy people did not push against Christianity in favor of science and the power of our minds with more determination. — Athena

I generally agree but there was not a lot of education about for the masses at the time and I think many people tried and died trying but, you are correct, they were unable to stop the nefarious few that held most of the power and influence. The fight goes on today.

What we have to do now is advance the explanations of how thoughts shape our lives and then increase awareness of the positive choices we can make, including education for good moral judgment and that democracy relies on science, not a jealous, revengeful and fearsome god. — Athena

I agree and like you, I am trying.

Wait a minute, what is the truth of Demeter making a woman a better mother? She and all the gods and goddesses are archetypes. — Athena

I reject the term archetype based on its etymology:
The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made," first entered into English usage in the 1540s. It derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ἀρχέτυπον (archétypon), whose adjective form is ἀρχέτυπος (archétypos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ἀρχή archḗ, "beginning, origin", and τύπος týpos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern", "model", or "type". It, thus, referred to the beginning or origin of the pattern, model or type.

Humans evolved, they were not 'first moulded' or are copies from a pattern. I hate the idea of an archetypal human. Demeter never made a woman a better mother as no such fabled Greek god creature ever existed. A good mother can of course teach a poor mother how to be a better mother.

We keep the stories and repeat them because they resonate with something inside of us. All groups of people have their stories that they passed on from generation to generation and these stories are important, just as important as the mythologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. — Athena

Yeah, I understand what you mean but imo, we need to 'grow away from' such stories. 'When we are children we can act and speak like children when we grow up, we should put childish things away,' including god stories. I prefer the true stories of what humans did or are doing (when I can find reliable examples of such). I think we need to focus on finding the TRUTH and take all 'stories,' as suspect unless they can be confirmed as accurate! Fake news is a real killer and always has been.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels.

Which one of us will start the new thread? I need to know more of Scottish thinking and really wish you would start the thread. Is Scottish thinking connected with the Celts? What is the geography of Scotland and how would it shape the people? — Athena

Might be better if we just had a PM exchange Athena, if you think that could establish some foundational common ground between us. Perhaps a useful 'philosophical' thread could come from that.
Scots history certainly suggests we have celtic aspects to our national origin but exactly who and what was 'celtic,' extracts from a very foggy past indeed. Little is known about the inhabitants of scotland before the Romans arrived in Britain. All the early tribes have italian/roman names. The umbrella name is Pictii (or picts, picture/painted people). Individual tribes named as the votadini, novantae, caledonii etc. These are all latin based names. These names probably were not used by the actual groups they refer to, who I am sure had their own chosen names but we don't know what these were.
I think all humans gained a very mixed heritage quite early in the last 10,000 years.

Pro tip: up and down quarks were called that because they formed an isospin doublet. — apokrisis

Sounds quite arbitrary to me! what has isospin got to do with the dimension up/down?

From wiki:
In nuclear physics and particle physics, isospin is a quantum number related to the up and down quark content of the particle. More specifically, isospin symmetry is a subset of the flavour symmetry seen more broadly in the interactions of baryons and mesons.

The name of the concept contains the term spin because its quantum mechanical description is mathematically similar to that of angular momentum (in particular, in the way it couples; for example, a proton-neutron pair can be coupled either in a state of total isospin 1 or 0). But unlike angular momentum it is a dimensionless quantity, and is not actually any type of spin.

Perhaps you are the one experiencing bum bite's you don't understand!

No lecture involved, just discussion, do you have a lot of physics quals?

A neutron exists because it ran out of antineutrons to be annihilated by. It is doomed to exist as a fundamental particle forever. — apokrisis

A neutron is not fundamental, it is made up of two down quarks with charge − 1⁄3 e and one up quark with charge + 2⁄3 e . Like protons, the quarks of the neutron are held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons.

When the particle decays, does it act upon itself? Does the presence/fields of all other things (as parts) in the universe have no bearing on why/when/how that particle decays? — Nils Loc

No, a process is involved but that process is also 'of the universe,' nothing external to the universe is involved. The question becomes 'is the universe more that the sum of its parts?' I think the answer is no.

For each ticket n it is rational to say that this ticket might be (even most likely is) a loser. — Michael

They could all be loser's ie, a rollover!

My physics is limited as well but from my reading there is 'no particular reason' for the names given to the various quark types. Up and down has nothing to do with quark spin as far as I know.
The up and down quarks are the 'lightest' quarks, up is the lightest and then the down quarks.
The problem with the OP

Is it possible for something that has no parts, a unity/particular, to affect itself directly? Can a unity act on itself — Daniel

is that any claim of a fundamental unit is still conjecture so the answer to your question imo is YES if you are convinced that we have identified mass or energy fundamentals and NO if you are not convinced.
Even if your answer is YES, a fundamental that changes state does so through a process but there is the concept of underlying quantum fluctuations and phenomena such as quantum tunnelling (The wavefunction may disappear on one side and reappear on the other side of a barrier), which when I read about them I personally don't garnish much understanding at all.

No one in this forum can define a deity. — Rocco Rosano

That's normally the case with nonexistents.

Down quarks can change into up quarks and back to down quarks.

And what does certainty require? — Michael

Empirical evidence/proof. Proof that remains irrefutable in all past/current and future scenario's is impossible, therefore omniscience is impossible as are all the omnis as are omnigods.
It's impossible that nothing is impossible. Paradox is simple impasse. It's just a logic hamster wheel.
I think you and @Srap Tasmaner should be :clap: :clap: ed and be given the TPF award for the most tenacious exchange on any thread I have read so far. I admire tenacity but I feel exhausted for both of you with 0 progress made imo.

f there is something which is true but not necessarily true then omniscience is impossible. — Michael

OK, but its impossible either way because necessity is subjective and circumstantial. All possible circumstances cannot be predicted. So even if all truths were necessarily true, omniscience would still be impossible. So, we are left with the immovable object meeting the irresistible force impasse. An impossible scenario.

Well 'humility' is certainly big in Eastern cultures as far as I can tell, lots of traditional bowing and honour concepts, regardless of truth and hands clasped in :pray: images. No disrespect to trad Eastern cultures intended but I would not personally choose to mimic any of them. But I do not claim expertise or fluency in my knowledge or understanding of them either so perhaps it is unwise to carelessly dismiss all aspects of them.

Or does omniscience mean knowing everything with certainty? — Michael

By logical implication, yes.

Oh! Rather curious that! — Agent Smith

As Homer Simpson often exclaims! DOH! I just noticed why I was not informed in 'mentions,' you had no 'reply' link in your post. Mystery solved! or there was no mystery just a lack of attentive observation on my part.

I have to mostly look up the terms you throw out Mr Smith. You seem to have more knowledge of eastern cultures than I. So, I got:

ishin-denshin, a Japanese idiom which denotes the traditional concept of interpersonal communication through unspoken mutual understanding. This four-character compound, known as a yojijukugo, literally translates as "what the mind thinks, the heart transmits." Sometimes explained in English in terms of "telepathy" or "sympathy", ishin-denshin is also commonly rendered as "heart-to-heart communication" or "tacit understanding."

Not for me, I like to make my viewpoints loud, proud, heard and crystal clear, without comming across as an arrogant pr***. So. loud, proud, heard and humble I hope. So

tacit understanding aka implicature? — Agent Smith

Is not my style either, Implication often causes misinterpretation and misundertanding so I try to be crystal clear and unambiguous. That's why I want to insult and ridicule the antinatalist viewpoint because I find it ridiculous and insulting. But the mods wont let me insult and ridicule the antinatalists and that worries me as I think it gives the antinatalists succour and any extremists among them will feed and grow from such weakness.

Sorry for the late reply to this, again, nothing appeared in my 'mentions' section to indicate your posting here.

silentium est aureum. — Agent Smith

I have the physical and mental scars from past clashes that seem to indicate that I cannot partake of that particular protection. Make a good song title though:

In reading your post overall, it seems to me you are trying to explain/analyse/appreciate why early humans were so attracted to theism. I understand, but I prefer to summarise all of those reasons into the one main driver. Jungle law manipulation of human primal fears.

May I argue they did exist and were just as real as the God of Abraham? — Athena

Of course you may but a concept is an abstract idea. Humans can turn some concept into a reality but they can't create gods, they can only and have only ever been able to insist you accept them on threat of punishment, damnation and/or death.

Every Evangelical experiences the power of God exactly like the Greeks experienced the power of their gods. — Athena

I experience natural high's every bit as powerful as any evanhellical or ancient Greek was ever able to.

If you believe Demeter will make you a better mother, sure enough, she will, and if you believe in the power of the God of Abraham, you will see it everywhere. Your belief will explain everything to you validating your truth. — Athena

I don't advocate for self-delusion as a way to validate truth and I don't think you do either. I understand your observation that many people gain strength and focus by using deities as scapegoats and so they do not have to take responsibility/ownership of their own existence and what we decide to do or what actions we decide to take.
I was watching a program about the days of the partition of India. A Hindu woman had returned to where thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered, including some of her own family. She was talking to a Muslim that had witnessed the 'battle' as a child. At one point she asked him why they slaughtered each other as they did. They were both in tears when the old Muslim man said 'don't cry my daughter, this was gods will.' A pathetic excuse imo. Gods as convenient scapegoats.

but we might want to focus on what Rome did to Christianity. — Athena

Well, I am with those who posit that it is likely that Rome created Christianity and people like the treacherous Josephus helped write the gospels and the popes are the direct inheritors of the embers of the roman empire etc etc. I support the positions held by folks like Joseph Atwill, James Vallient, Professor Robert Price, Dr Robert Eisenman, the folks on Mythvision et al.

We could start a new thread about the Scottish Enlightenment and what it has to do with the US democracy. — Athena

I would enjoy that Athena, we could go back even further to the 'Declaration of Arbroath,' and 'The Magna Carta.' and how those documents influenced the American constitution etc. You are correct that all the winding historical threads do weave us all the way to where we are now and why we live like we do now and the purist philosophers can suggest a myriad of 'thinking processes' and epistemologies that governed/directed/conducted our pathway to 'now.'
I always enjoy such discussions but we are just going over the same old ground again and again and again. There must be quicker ways to drive human global unison forwards, than constantly going back over antiquity. We should not even have to go back as far as the enlightenment to make progress.

EDIT: I suppose the path was more the American Declaration of Independence to The American Constitution.

:lol: , Well, when you put it as pleasantly and fairly as that, it's hard to complain. Perhaps you would make a good moderator here, with the experience you already have. Perhaps your answer, if you were invited would be noooooooooooooo! or been there, done that! moved on!
After taking early retirement, offers to come back and help out as a supply or substitute teacher when needed have all been refused so far. Thankfully no wife, no kids etc so didn't need the money.
I loved teaching but I've been there, done that, moved on!

when the more tiresome complaints are made. — unenlightened

You complaining about those who complain is equally tiresome!

Of course :rofl: — Amity

:lol: :clap: Aw come on, post just one wee pic of you in full dramatic queen/king mode!
Perhaps you would even give the anti-lifers their first-ever genuine smile! :smile:

That's demonstrably false. Just look at most governments. :razz: — Benkei

Have protests never made governments uturn?
Have protests, civil disobedience, revolution, never brought down governments?
Were all past protests in history a waste of time and effort in your opinion?

Quit your whinging ... — 180 Proof

Don't be such a carpet! We don't all fold like paper when we think there is imbalance and the treatment of others is somewhat asymmetric.

Mods are not saints — unenlightened

Neither are saints. They will never and have never went marchin in.
Saint is one of the most ridiculous titles ever invented imo. Probably a separate thread.

Personally, if I have a concern about a particular mod, or a particular intervention, I raise it with another mod in private and wait patiently for my wisdom to be recognised. — unenlightened

Do you think you are the only one who has tried this route?

I dont refute the value of site moderators, I am just participating in the right to reply or feedback on certain moderator behaviour, just like they comment and act on certain member behaviour.
I had clicked on the 'feedback' category before writing and posting this thread. I was surprised to see it appear in the main page of the forum. I must have neglected to choose some option or other. I am fine with it being moved to the feedback category if that would be preferred.

Drama queens, the lot of you! — Amity

Typed in full drama mode? Are you dressed accordingly?

Dad jokes :rofl: :eyes: — javi2541997

Thank you my son!

Either stay and ignore it or drop this forum. — Tate

To paraphrase an old song. 'Never promised you a rose garden, along with the sunshine, there has to be a little rain sometimes.'

You don't like it, bugger off — Banno

Right back at you! What a great handle for an aggressive moderator! BANno!

At the risk of demonstrating the folly of employing imagery of the type that jgill is correctly pointing out with:

It's so easy to let one's imagination follow a kind of mental animation. — jgill

I 'imagine' measuring at the sub-atomic level as trying to measure the amplitude of a small water wave during a hurricane using a ruler. You might take lots of snapshot pictures and then try to identify and measure a small wave amplitude. To me, this is probably a poor conceptualisation of wave collapse but it kind of explains that the water wave system did not universally collapse and taking the snapshots did not physically collapse the wave but your measuring technique was able to achieve a valid measurement of the amplitude of a small water wave, during a hurricane. I used the hurricane image to invoke (again probably quite poorly) the random chaos proposed in underlying quantum fluctuations.
This is only my own musings based on what I have watched and read from those who know much more than I on the topic but the measurements taken at the subatomic level are very accurate as they match equation predictions.

I'm thinking of leaving this forum because of Xtrix. He is authoritarian, he is patronizing, he acts in bad faith. And now that he's a moderator, we can't do anything against that. — baker

Yes, Xtrix shouldn't be a moderator. — Tate

Interesting.......