sorry for the ridiculous spelling of 'soldiers.' Dunno what happened there? :rofl:

This is so disrespectful it's not even to be reckoned with. — Garrett Travers

Yeah, the rarely seen honorable capitalist, as rare as a white rhino. A millionaire or billionaire that earned their wealth by completely fair means. Stock exchanges, which produce nothing but control the price of all goods and services. Capitalism is base and vile I don't disrespect it, I loathe it.
Do you approve of such characters from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch or influential families that were built on monies made from criminality, such as the bootlegging Kennedy's or fraudsters such as Trump?

Millions of bodies on the state-socialist roster in the past century alone and you can dare say something like this with seriousness. It's deplorable. What have these people done to your mind. Have you forgotten Soviet Russia? The Khmer Rouge? The Ba'ath Party? — Garrett Travers

Putin is an unelected totalitarian dictator and a theist, Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot were also totalitarian dictators. As is Kim jung un, as was Stalin. Hitler was a fascist obsessed with the theosophic occult. He believed in the supernatural and his soldgers swore allegiance to god and Adolf Hitler and on the list goes. You ascribe the deaths they caused to socialism? Utter nonsense!

These aren't reasons, they're feelings that are completely fabricated — Garrett Travers

Again, right back at you. Panto chat is boring. You conflate and you come to wrong conclusions. You cant see a difference between totalitarianism and socialism. Using a label does not mean you are such. Is a pedo priest a Christian because they use the label? is a King divine because he demands you accept the label? I have already told you that one must demonstrate socialism if you use the label. If you don't then you are not socialist. None of the vile killer groups you mention are socialist.

Capitalist governments, historical monarchies, totalitarian regimes, autocracies, religious authorities, aristocratic regimes etc. These kill those they rule, socialism/humanist is benevolent.

I don't mind socialist. I mind forced socialism. — Garrett Travers

If by forced socialism you mean one-party rule or totalitarianism then we agree. Socialism is by the democratic consent of the majority or else it is not socialism! There can never be forced socialism as a realpolitik. It can only be forced on very small minority to ensure the well-being of a majority. Yes, it is anti-capitalist but it's not anti-entrepreneur. It's anti-greed, anti-millionaire and billionaire but small private business is fine. I favour global socialism. I will work within street, village, town, city, state, national and international socialism, meantime.

The rest of what you typed is just your own opinions based on your own interpretations of your own readings and musings, nothing more. You have no powerful evidence for your political viewpoint at all.

I plan to — Garrett Travers

Good, I hope you are successful with your musings and writings on ethics.

I'm not completely duped by political sophists. You'll see in time. I guess Russia isn't enough of an example for you right now. But, you'll get it in time. Don't worry, ethics will remain with me, alive, even if I'm the only one willing to break from their desire for power over their fellow humans. — Garrett Travers

As I said before, blah blah blah, white noise, I am sure like most people, including me, it sounds good when you read such words back to yourself. As Rabbie Burns said:

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"

If a governments which murder people every day steal money from laborers to fund programs, that's not benevolent. I didn't pull anything out of the air except your head. This is exactly the logic I offer you. Your governments are evil, and always have been — Garrett Travers

Most governments dont murder those they represent and most governments don't 'steal' money from people. Most capitalists do but very few socialists do.
Paying national insurance through your wages is fair as long as currency is the main means of exchange. An NHS (like in the UK) is benevolent, to say otherwise is nonsense unless you think making profit from human ailment (like the US system) is ethical.

Which is to say, you can't argue with it. — Garrett Travers

I am arguing with it I am suggesting it was nonsense. I have just given you some further reasons above.

I don't really care, because the government has never fully abided by it. That's because governments are predicated on force, and nothing else. — Garrett Travers

Then work towards making future governments better and demand that their authority comes from the democratic consent of the majority of those they represent. Demand they fully abide by the content of humanist constitutions (if you don't like the label socialist, then let's use the label humanist). Demand change not by unhelpfully calling all politics and politicians evil but by demanding better politics and better politicians. Instead of trying to break the human race into tiny cooperatives which you claim will be able to live in harmony with each other based on the Epicurean commune model and such as your written guidelines on ethics, encourage all humans to unite as one species on one planet. No nations, no races (except the human race), no currencies. This has much more chance of success compared to your enormous collection of tiny cooperatives.

You keep complaining about governmental force Garret but you also state that you will protect your envisaged communities through the use of force if need be. Governments justify their use of force. Individuals justify their use of force. At the level of force, you offer nothing new!

On an earlier point,
I like Epicurus and Democritus as I have already stated. I accept Epicurus as a socialist but certainly not the first one or as the creator of such.

Was there no one in ancient China, the Mayan culture, the ancient Egyptians, all the early Mesopotamian civilisations who behaved like or could have been called socialists?
All these civilisations existed before the Greeks.
No socialists among them, is this your claim?

From wikipedia, Thales was around 650 BCE. But it also has stuff on ancient Egyptian philosophers such as:

"Ptahhotep. He served as vizier to the pharaoh in the late 25th, early 24th century BC. Ptahhotep is known for his comprehensive work on ethical behavior and moral philosophy, called The Maxims of Ptahhotep."

Wikipedia goes on to say:

"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."

I am not claiming that this wikipedia article is evidence for socialism before Epicurus. I simply offer it as evidence of political thinking way before Epicurus and suggest that it is very likely that many such thinkers could have been called socialists or humanist (I don't see much difference between the two labels). Control of the means of production, distribution and exchange is a central tenet of socialism but so is 'politics of, for and by the people,' 'basic human right to food, water, shelter, education, medical care and employment,'
None of these should be based on ability to pay or who your parents were or your ethnicity or creed.
From each according to their ability to each according to their need. These are only some of the basic socialist tenets.

No socialism earlier than Epicurus? No, I think there was socialism going back to the Cro-Magnums.
We need good politics and we need true socialism. We need to unite not divide.
I want Scottish Independence from England but mainly as a means of politically rejoining Europe.
One human species on one (pale blue dot) planet (at the moment).
Keep writing your stuff about ethics, it may help, but unless you change your political viewpoint, I suggest, with respect, that you stay out of politics.

I'm not afraid of god. I love them! Gave us the gift of live — EugeneW

Does that mean you are too scared not to love them?
Your parents created you, gave you life, does that mean you must always love them no matter what they do to you or others?

Afraid of what? — EugeneW

This non-existent god, religious threats, oblivion!
My advice was and is more general than personal.

Haha! Why not? I'm gonna call them Stephen. If we know everything, will we all be Stephen? — EugeneW

Is it really freaky that my name is actually Stephen! No kidding!
Ah! wait a minute I think I may know you.
Expect a PM.

Not every religion threatens with hell — EugeneW

So? Even more reason to not be afraid!

What if all gaps are closed? — EugeneW

If we answer all questions and fill all gaps then feel free to declare all of those involved as components of a label you want to call God. Fred would be just as acceptable. I will believe in Fred because I will then be a component of Fred.

What matters is that the person who discovers it is bullshit is disappointed and mourns the loss of this faith. — Joshs

Your words after that got too 'esoteric' for me. I am a complete novice at philosophy rhetoric but I will offer the following on the above quote.

Well, that would be a matter for them to struggle with. I would experience no such nostalgia. I would celebrate and continue in my excitement towards the questions that remain unanswered. If all the questions get answered then and only then might it become valid to talk about the Omni's.
If all lifeforms at that moment can intercommunicate and affect every part of known space then we might envisage the birth of a self-aware universe, a pan or cosmo psychism. If at that time you wish to label such 'God' then fine. The idea that god will eventually be all of us or all lifeforms united then ok. I will subscribe to that. This would be a natural god not a supernatural one and it would not be ineffable and would be in full view of everyone. But I don't think all the questions will ever be answered, which is good news for us as we would still have a purpose.
If our Universe does become self-aware then what would it do? Create a copy of itself from scratch? repeat the process all over again? until we have a multiverse of gods? has this all already happened?
Are we all components of an emerging god?
Sounds like fun to me!
Let's get started on technologies that will mean we can survive off-planet!
Time is a wastin! This god needs birthing before the big rip!

The existence of god cannot yet be disproved but what's wrong with looking at it the other way. If it exists then it needs to manifest in every town square of the world. If it can't even do that then I am not impressed and I certainly have no fear of it.

Only a fool would claim to have no fear of how you will die, especially when existence seems so imperative to us but this fear comes from a lack of knowledge.
I do not fear oblivion as the term suggests no awareness and therefore is the same state as before birth.
I fear the way I will die and I mourn the fact that I will no longer exist by way of entropy rather than my will, but it also excites me as all trips into the unknown do, even though I believe it to be a very short trip to oblivion.
As I have said before, science may be able to aid future humans with this death problem.
We might be the first intelligent species anywhere in the Universe. Someone has to be first.
If we don't go extinct then it seems to me that we will obviously move off this planet and towards the vastness of space.
8 billion humans could each have a thousand planets and that would be nothing. A cosmic splash.
A million years from now, each human family might live on their own separate Mclass planet, who knows.
See, I can do storytelling as well and what I suggest is no less valid than your god fable.

All the life after death scenarios offered by religions are so obviously creations of the human imagination. The paradisical versus the hellish. To me, they are obviously false and mere manifestations of the human ID as described by Freud, so I am not afraid of their threat.

maybe you guys are such reactionaries to the notion because you are afraid. — theRiddler

What would I have to do to convince you that I am not afraid of any god story or the threat of oblivion?
How can anyone prove such to anyone other than how they ultimately face their own death?

I offer my life as a sacrifice to destruction and eternal suffering, if your god will manifest to all humans or at least to all scientists and submit itself to scientific scrutiny.

After enough suffering, I will be a 'creature' anyway, perhaps a Gollum type character from Lord of the Rings. "Fascinating" as Spock would say, do you think I will scream for eternity or do you think I might get used to it and perhaps even come to enjoy it. After long enough, I would have no memory of pleasure after say a thousand years or more of suffering in hell (or listening to bands like Take That on eternal repeat) so no comparator so would I still even recognise that I was suffering? Again fascinating! But the hell story is as bullshit as the heaven story.

I hope I have made myself clear that I fear only the 'loss of my current existence and how it will happen,' I do not fear oblivion(non-awareness) or the threat of being judged by a non-existent supernatural F***wit and the threat of suffering forever in hell.

Why should science legislate and organize society? — EugeneW

It doesn't, you are thinking of politics, not science.

I know you probably won't welcome this from me but your post above, listing Joe's skills was hilarious.
I tried not to laugh but "I couldn't help myself." :rofl:

It's the same as propagating theism, with god replaced by science. — EugeneW

No it's not. Science makes no claim of supernatural agency and god is a fable, based on the human tendency to make up stories about that which they don't yet understand. God is merely of the gaps in our knowledge. Science is simply the most reliable method we have, to search for, identify, constantly review, scrutinise and establish new knowledge. Scientists will also turn to storytelling or at best, educated guesswork, when they 'thought project' hypotheses about the meaning of life the universe and everything or at least a T.O.E.

Every point you make here is reasonable, fair and accurate within the framework you suggest.
But it does not matter how much individual humans are comforted by the idea of a supernatural superhero, who cares about them and will offer them life after death if they do this or that, if it turns out that it's complete bullshit. How much more could this species achieve, if such speculation was no longer, ever, ever delivered to the less educated as undeniable fact!

Heroin can make you feel really good (so I've heard anyway) but the cost to you and to society can be extreme. Religion as an opiate of the masses is well described.
I do have a real problem saying to a person with a personal faith that comforts them and they don't preach about, "Your god is fake."
I mostly won't do it. But if they start to threaten me and everyone else with damnation or any punitive consequences of not having a faith in their god, then for me, they have crossed the line.

An atheism that does not engage this sense of religion will fail to transform deep-seated notions about faith. — Joshs

My approach to such people would be different than my approach on this thread. My approach would be much more gentle and I would stop if I thought I was doing damage to the psyche of an individual believer who was of the type you describe but individuals like the few religious scientists that exist make for a much more interesting and good-natured debate, compared to those who claim personal religious revelation, through mental/physical contact with what they perceive as god.

I will shout right back at pulpit bullies!

a vast number of religious people do not regard their faith as competing with knowledge. — Joshs

I don't think the number of rational theists is 'vast' amongst the number that currently exist.

Even many people who themselves do not have religious faith believe that it would be great and beneficial to have such faith. — Joshs

People are always attracted to what makes them feel good but do you not agree that truth is more important than what makes you feel good?

This belief in the existential value of religious faith (rather than in the truth of religious claims) is the main line of defense for religion in a secular age — Joshs

I agree but I see this as more like its last defense. A benevolent, benign faith that does not threaten punitive consequences for non-acceptance. A commune you can join if you wish but you can leave whenever you like with no negative consequences, almost Epicurean in concept. Some individuals with a personal faith may demonstrate this but I see no evidence of such a doctrine in any organised faith group or theosophist group such as the moronic Scientologists.

Btw, I am a Daniel Dennet fan and a Sam Harris fan.

I’m here in service to that spirit. — Joe Mello

:rofl: The boing old christ complex! another non-existent character. I think these threads are popular because all intelligent people enjoy throwing stuff at religion, that all. Look at the size of the thread on Trump, similar reasons. This is not due to the veracity of your point of view, it's more due to incredulity at your level of personal delusion.

By the way from 16 to 20, I served my apprenticeship as a painter and decorator. I also gained the UK qualifications of City & Guilds, Advanced craft and FTC (Furthest trade certificate). I can do sign writing, graining, marbling, etc. I can hang specialist wallpapers from Japanese hand-painted ones to Lyncrusta Waltons. I became a journeyman and still hone my skills in these areas but I decided to go to Uni when I was 22 and study computing instead of becoming an interior designer, so in a small way, we are brothers of the brush. I retired after teaching computing science for 30 years.
Being a skilled person does not prevent you from falling for god fables due to being afraid of eternity.
Being a rational thinker does!

When I was 24, I was a painter with a high paying job, 5 girlfriends, a sports car, and a bodybuilder running 10 miles 3 times a week. — Joe Mello

If you were having such a nice wee life, it's hardly surprising that you found the empty darkness scary.
Your money, girlfriends, car, strength mean absolutely nothing when you were alone in your room at night and the wee unexplained noises happened.

When your mind screamed at you that religious doctrines such as catholicism threatened you with eternal damnation in hell, if you continued with what they would consider ungodly behavior and an ungodly life. Your brain decided that 5 years of penance in a monastery would be your Pascals wager. You heard the voice of god in your head but it was just your own self-doubt. You created your own revelation.
You should read Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot and pay attention to his chapter on the great demotions.

I have said this many times and challenged your superhero non-existent god many times, in the pitch dark, by myself. From when I was 14. I have called it every bad name I can think of and asked it to show me its power.
I do that rarely now as I am cursing at non-existing fables and I am wasting my time.
Your god has no power! It doesn't exist or it is a coward which cannot even silence this little weak atheist. I can only be killed by a human who is messed up enough to claim to be working in the name of your god fable or just because they don't like me and want to. I will most likely die, as most do, due to a natural or accidental act.
I have had and continue to have a wonderful life. I accept death as a harbinger of change. I leave the development of having more options, to the scientific attempts to increase longevity and develop transhumanism.
Go back to enjoying your strength, female fans, cars and bodybuilding and perhaps do more to help poor people as you go. Enjoy your life, as it's the only one you have. Don't be afraid of oblivion. You were not afraid of it before you were born. There is nothing in the darkness except what we bring ourselves.

If your age means you are more comforted against your fear of non-existence by your belief that you have had 'special communications' with your superhero, then that's fine. continue with your delusion but please don't try to infect others with your fairy story viewpoints.
Use your special relationship with your superhero to call upon it to show me its power.
I have asked priests, ministers, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, evanhellicals, Satanists, theosophers, mystics, pagans, etc, etc, to do the same
Their gods are all as powerless as yours.

It's amazing how some humans become more theistic as they get older. They seem to get more afraid as oblivion gets closer. The last hope of those who live in such fear is the god fable.
No matter how much study these people do and regardless of their background, they remain the scared little children they will always be. Those who hope a superhero god of the gaps will save them from oblivion are just deluded fools who will never appreciate the true wonders of the natural Universe. Meantime the intelligent humans will continue to look to science for life extension and future transhuman options. This thread is an utter waste of time.

Just look at a chemical process, or things being repelled from each other or moving towards each other. They possess an inherent longing to or aversion for each other — EugeneW

I note you are asking this of Garrett and I am sure he will give you a good answer, but can I ask you if you project the concept of attraction and repulsion such as we see in natural magnetism with say, the human tendency to be attracted to those who agree with us and repulsive towards those who disagree with us? Can any human action which could be labeled an 'act of attraction' or an 'act of repulsion' be associated with attraction/repulsion as viewed in the natural world. Is this, in your opinion, at best, anecdotal evidence for the panpsychist or is it at worse, just a result of anthropocentric conflation?

I didn't want it when I was homeless and hungry with my wife — Garrett Travers

A sad epilogue to this comment is that in my opinion, if socialism was the controlling politics of your country at the time this happened, it would not have happened. True socialism has yet to be employed anywhere.

Paid for by money extored from individual laborers by a government who kills people every day. — Garrett Travers

What utter nonsense! So in your head, a benevolent, national health service, free to all at the point of delivery was created by abusing a group of humans you pull out the air and call 'individual laborers' and the abuse of this group enabled a murderous government to create this benevolent medical care for all its participants. This is the logic you offer??

I hold most of the rest of your response above in a similar vein.

And fuck the Magna Carta... ?? — Garrett Travers

Ok, if you want to, even though your American constitution was strongly influenced by it along with the declaration of Arbroath. Anyway, I am not too interested in your choice of what you want to F***.

And I think you've never heard it in your entire life. You don't anything about it from even a basic level. — Garrett Travers

Blah blah blah! Just white noise and more utter nonsense!

Nothing I said was political. There's nothing about having rules for co-existence within a given domain of space that implies an institutional monopoly on the use of force — Garrett Travers

This is an example of your naive understanding of politics. Politics exist at all levels of society, from family politics to the politics of relationships to state politics. Force is a tool we all possess. It only becomes a monopoly when a combined force is the strongest in the playground but such forces are normally always, eventually overthrown.

There's no such thing, and when you realize that you'll realize why you openly swear allegiance to a mass murdering group of psychopathic ideologues. Also something you haven't addressed, and you won't either. Because you've been completely fooled into thinking that somehow they don't apply to you, they do. And it's as appalling as swearing fealty to the Khmer Rouge, or Ba'ath party. It's worse than swearing fealty to Nazi's, they haven't butchered half as many people, and hell they called themselves socialist too, imagine that — Garrett Travers

This is just the ramblings of unfettered emotion. Bitter and twisted, I have no idea which traumas in your life have brought you to such bizarre conflations.
If you apply a label such as socialist to yourself then you must be able to demonstrate its tenets. No member of the khmer Rouge, Ba'ath party, Nazi's etc have demonstrated socialism. The labels of socialism and communism(a label you like to associate with Epicurus, try calling yourself a commie in America) has been abused in America since Castro terrified them and even before then. Do you think McCarthyism was justified? Was that an example of your 'rules of co-existence?

You have made inane and ridiculous comments on this thread such as:

Those people don't exist anymore. Land does not belong to "tribes," it belongs to be people using it — Garrett Travers

Do you not see Americans or Russians or Brits or French as just big tribes?
Go tell the communities listed below that their 'tribes' don't exist anymore.
This is only a very small part of the list of existing communities of the indigenous peoples in that particular landmass, named by those who had no right to seize it, through the murder of its then inhabitants, named after a map maker!

List of U.S. communities with Native American majority populations:
Alaska. Utqiagvik (57.2%) Bethel (61.8%) Dillingham (52.6%) Hooper Bay (93.7%) Kotzebue (71.2%) ...
Arizona. Canyon Day (98.5%) Chinle (91.3%) Cibecue (96.0%) Dilkon (97.0%) First Mesa (96.1%) ...
California.
Colorado. Towaoc (94.4%).
Idaho. Fort Hall (65.4%) Lapwai (81.4%)

You just swipe their history and their human consciousness that should never be violated away.
As a politician, you would cause wars all over the place because you seem to have no skill at diplomacy at all.

And I will gladly take on any number of challengers who want to debate this topic, you, or anyone on this site. — Garrett Travers

Do you see debate always as a 'challenge'? Can it not be a dialogue? You can offer measured dialogue, I have read you doing so. I am not suggesting every word of mine is non-inflammatory but I try not to throw down gauntlets like you have done above. If you keep pushing such buttons then I for one will simply conclude that you are no longer worth the effort of debate. Only of course on the topic of politics.

The first is required for the second. My consciousness, nor any other's, belongs to you to implement the "well-being" (dictatorship) of any other person with. It is a task that is impossible, because there are too many people in the world, and well-being isn't even something you can define between individuals. I don't want your well-being, keep your well-being to yourself. I didn't want it when I was homeless and hungry with my wife, and I don't want it now, and you couldn't give it if you tried. — Garrett Travers

The importance of individual freedom is not lost on socialists. I do accept and have stated so many times that finding the correct balance between individual freedom and the well-being of the majority is very hard to achieve but socialists will achieve it. That's why amongst socialists, socialism is often called 'inevitable.' All poor people on the planet have experienced what you and your wife experienced to some degree or another. Did that experience contribute to your current view of politics? My own experiences of being poor afforded me a different view. I am glad of that at least.
I would rather be homeless and hungry on the streets of the UK than on the streets of any so-called 3rd world country. I would rather neither possibility existed and therefore as a socialist, I demand global UBI. Do You?

Oh, I'm still waiting on you to actually address anything I've said — Garrett Travers

In my opinion, On the issue of politics and socialism, I do so and have done so. I dont seek or require your conformation that this is so as I consider your political views and your understanding of socialism, skewed and misguided. So I apply the old adage of 'well, you would say that wouldn't you'. Feel free to apply the same to me. Panto exchange is very common on this and most other discussion websites.

I'd maybe suggest that, you're not being very consistent here. But, I'll be around if you want to strengthen up your position — Garrett Travers

I suggest that you are not being very consistent here, especially when you say politics is evil and then you offer political guidelines when you are asked to play arbiter in a hypothetical. If you fear politics so much you should decline such requests.

The guy who thinks politics are evil, shouldn't have power, because he may use it for non-evil......?? Huh? — Garrett Travers

No, the guy shouldn't have power because he does not believe in politics so he is incapable of wielding power in any useful way.

It seems to me that your main political stance is that the freedom of the individual is more important than the well-being of the majority. A regressive and misguided viewpoint.

But, I'll be around if you want to strengthen up your position. — Garrett Travers

Ditto!

Got any historical examples of non-violatory socialism? — Garrett Travers

Every global national health service in existence.
Every welfare state system in existence.
Every free education system in existence.
Every revolt against slavery and oppression, including ones before Epicurus and the Greeks.
Every fight against the divine right of Kings.
The entire trade union movement.
Democracy
Freedom of speech and freedom of protest.
Almost every significant document relating to human rights/bill of rights/Magna Carta etc
I think your understanding of socialism is quite limited.

you seem to forget that socialism IS the plagiarised and perverted philosophical rhetoric of Epicurus — Garrett Travers

Socialism (no matter when it was labeled as such) existed long before Epicurus and long before Greek culture existed.

You know, if you just worked with me instead of against me for just a few minutes, I could show you what I'm talking about. Something to consider — Garrett Travers

Overall, I think some of your conclusions are an aid to improving the current state of the human race
and I am sure we have a lot of common ground but I would fight tooth and nail against your political viewpoints. Anyone who makes statements such as 'all politics is evil' should never be given any position of authority. I will leave our exchange there.

But, the more I study neuroscience, the more that amorphus concept seems to apply only to conditions of neurological disease, functional issues, trauma. I need more analysis before I can discount it as an applicable term. — Garrett Travers

It seems to be important to you to catergorise each human being as a perfect fit to a personality type.
You and neuroscience will never achieve it. I predict that such categorisations will always be 'inaccurate.'

One of those inclinations is a desire for power. — Garrett Travers

"....Some have power foisted upon them." Not every person who has political power, desired it.
I was a union shop steward for many years, I never wanted to be such but It was requested of me from my fellows at the time. It took a long time to convince me but I think I stopped a good few attempts by the employers to abuse employees.

No, I'm asking you to provide me an example of a politician, that either hasn't killed someone — Garrett Travers

I gave you three.

Attacking a tribe is political action, and what gives rise to political bodies of greater power. The first tribe should definitely not just walk up on peoples established boundaries, but nothing calls for homiced in such actions. — Garrett Travers

No, attacking a tribe is a human action. How did these boundaries become established. First to arrive? If you think so then I hope you campaign in the USA to give it back to the indigenous tribes it was stolen from. How are you going to stop those who want what you have? Appeal to their ethics?
We have been fighting each other since we left the wild. It will not stop until we unite as a single species and that will only happen through political discourse and the acceptance that the alternative is extinction.

In accordance with the principle of the Primacy of the Human Consciousness of all involved parties, the offending person is hereby ordered to avoid contact with the father's child, until, or unless he has determined that fostering an understanding relationship between the two people, over the course of however much time is required for the child to understand the full impact of interpersonal relationship and potential child rearing and the responsibilities therein contained are reasonably understood and agreed to between all parties, and once the child reaches the age of independent proficiency of productive skill needed to remain homeostatically apart from the father's purview of responsibility. Failure to comply with this recognition of the value of the conscious state of all parties involved will result first in an issued utimatum of expulsion for continued violation, and in expulsion from the tribe for an indeterminate period of time as needed for recourse to achieve understanding and correction of violation if such is conduct is continued thereafter. As the original violation is on the part of the person outside of the father's purview, the offender, he will accept primary responsibility for pursuing this path to win the father's favor, or cease interaction with the father and his child in a manner satisfactory to him. Are the terms understood? — Garrett Travers

Typed like a true politician! This is a political dictate, a political policy to control a behavior that you dont approve of. So when the girl reaches say 18, she will understand so much more than when she was 17 and 11 months? Such rules can only ever be approximations but we do have to draw lines somewhere or we will be back to the times when Islamic prophets can have sex with 9 year old girls. You even use terms like 'the offender.' Looks like you would make rules to control the behaviour of a population after all. You would also enforce consequences if they are not complied with. Sounds like politics to me!

Lions aren't conscious, they operate on instinct. They do not operate in the ethical domain of existence. — Garrett Travers

I did not ask you about the consciousness of lions. I was discussing your concept of 'source of evil.'
Evil is subjective, an evil act to some is a justified act to others. This will always be true. Evil only exists in the judgement of others it has no other existance.

You don't have an opinion, you have what other people have told you to think — Garrett Travers

This kind of comment is best responded to with RIGHT BACK AT YA!

You're political views are run-of-the-mill, tribal human violations as means to achieve whatever ends you declare are important, predicated on no ethics, and barrowed from talking heads. This is your standard for "politics," : "To me, there is just 'human behavior' and the political systems we decide to create to control it." This is exactly the mentality of every murderous dictator in history. Putin is showing you right now what exactly this philosophy of ethics produces inevitably. — Garrett Travers

This is just nonesense. I advocate for the ethical politics of socialism and I advocate for one united human species. I also advocate for real solutions and I suggest that you try to see that mere philosophical rhetoric is never going to deliver what is needed.

Socialism is our only hope. We must unite. — Photios

In my opinion, these are the best, correct, and most hopeful words on this thread.

I fully support what I perceive as the overarching intent of your OP which sounds to me like a clarion call towards a very old (way before the Christianity fable was conceived ) socialist tenet. "People (now it would be 'of the world',) UNITE!"

Anyone who makes any effort in this direction is to me, part of the solution. But sure, yes, we all need to do more.

I don't however think this matches with your ideal of the Epicural commune, which to me matches a comment (copied below) that you made in another thread:

" the inviolability of the human, in the mind of the average person, no such thing will ever be possible, and our only hope will be to split into communities."

This does not match your clarion call for everyone to unite against madmen like Putin. Division into ever smaller communities (Epicurian or otherwise) would allow a F***wit like Putin to easily take over the planet.

United we stand, divided we fall This has been true since we came out of the wild.

Have you ever considered the nature of how different practices, or art forms kind of call out to certain personality types? For example, I grew up with a very loose household, and got into a lot of trouble. I really fell in love with making music for years, but I hate the idea of playing golf, or shuffleboard. I've noticed the same phenomenon with people who pursue roles in politics, they all have a similar tone, background, personality type. Have you noticed what I'm highlighting, by chance? — Garrett Travers

There are generalities, that can be used, to identify such inaccurate categories as 'personality types.'
It is true that your life experiences will affect your 'personality' but individual human nature is malleable and can be massively affected by new knowledge (education) regardless of previous experience or previous nurture. You say you used to get into a lot of trouble. What changed?
I got into trouble in the past but mainly due to standing on picket lines or fighting against abusive employers. I am mostly 'proud' of the trouble I caused. I come from a financially poor background and I am sure there is some truth in the argument that I have been influenced by my background and my nurture but that's only some aspects of who I am. There is much more to me than the influence of early background and nurture.

I concluded you must be asking me a loaded question, as the question:

Okay. Find me someone that belongs to a political party that has never killed someone, and I will call those specific ones by another name forevermore, truly — Garrett Travers

is in the worse case 'silly' and in the best case 'poorly structured.' If you are seriously asking me to name a politician who has never personally killed someone then that's a silly question as the vast majority of politicians have never killed anyone. No human is perfect but I have many political role models from Keir Hardie to Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner and there are many others, none of my role models killed anyone.

I think you conflate politics with the nefarious behavior of individual politicians.
If the leaders of a tribe decide to attack another tribe because members of the second tribe took water from their well and 'game' from their land without permission, Do you blame politics or the political decision made by the leaders of the first tribe?

Yes. When you vote, you are voting for your power to force people to live as you wish, at base principle, with volition. I genuinely don't see a work around — Garrett Travers

You claim you require 100% personal freedom and you offer only your personal code of ethics as a guarantee that you will never infringe upon the personal freedom or well-being of anyone else.
Consider a person who has the exact same ethical standards as you do but they have one difference. They thought it was perfectly ethical (let's say they are 22 years old) to have sex with my consenting 14 year old daughter. I do not agree. I want this man severely punished. You are the arbiter, your decision will become political policy for the tribe. What would you decide to do?

You like the Epicurial commune. I prefer Epicurus and Democritus to Plato as I prefer the atomists Greeks (although in truth I don't much value early Greek or Roman culture) to those associated with god/religious fables but I bet the commune of Epicurus had a political overview and that its politics would have developed had the commune been sustained over a significant time frame and the size of the commune grew and grew. Perhaps Epicurus would have named his political system communism.

Your political viewpoint would mean the humans could only exist in very tiny groups that hardly ever cooperated. We would stagnate and be easily conquered by the first group of maniacs that came along.

which I have described is the source of evil. Namely, violating Human Consciousness. — Garrett Travers

I don't agree that a 'source of evil' exists. Is it evil for a Lion to kill and eat a lamb?
Is it evil for a human to kill and eat a chicken? I assume vegetarians think it is.
To me, there is just 'human behavior' and the political systems we decide to create to control it.
I don't mind the labels 'good' and 'evil,' they are useful but if you need a source then they are simply potential human behaviors, nothing more exciting than that, no supernatural aspects at all.

I want to see the human race leave this planet and start to create off-planet colonies so I have no interest in your, in my opinion, regressive and misguided view of politics.

I will just have to accept your rather nuanced way of looking at politics, so I would not vote for you at the moment. I still think that you are not the kind of person who would use advantage to gain power/influence over others in the way that many bad people/politicians do. I don't know you but from your main postings, I think/hope I am correct. We need more good people not bad Putin's

Okay. Find me someone that belongs to a political party that has never killed someone, and I will call those specific ones by another name forevermore, truly — Garrett Travers

Hah! I don't fall for 'loaded' questions like this. I name a politician and you reply with something like "how do you know that none of the policies they championed, 'caused the death' of someone, somewhere?"
I have been a member of political parties and I have not killed anyone but did I vote for a policy that caused the death of someone somewhere? We are all potential voters. Is this 'philosophical' evidence that we are all potential killers. More so than being a potential killer by being born?

Anyway! I still think the human experience is all about asking and answering questions and I am still intrigued by how the increasing pace of gaining new true and/or fake knowledge might decide/influence our future (possibly transhuman, possibly interstellar) fate.

No, it's just accurate descriptions. Instead of characterizing my words, argue against them — Garrett Travers

Accurate, only in your opinion. It is natural for me to categorise that which I consider an 'extreme' viewpoint to be just that, extreme. I find to argue against such 'chiseled' viewpoints, over a discussion forum, pointless. Face to face, yes, I would make the effort. On this forum, no, not worth the energy investment.

I know that, that's because everything you've been taught to believe about politics is a lie — Garrett Travers

You do not know everything I have been taught about politics. You do not normally make such irrational statements. Perhaps you are just 'stressed' due to exchanges you have had recently on other threads.
On reading some of them I felt exasperated for you but you fight your corner very very well.

That's what I was conveying to you. It's a shame that politics isn't registering to you as the single greatest source of homicide in human history. — Garrett Travers

Don't confuse politics and some evil politicians. Do you have no political role models? Dead or alive? Are all politicians evil? Please don't say yes because that would just be IRRATIONAL!
The human race needs good people in positions of power. Politics are a reality within the human experience. Use your impressive philosophical knowledge to help make and maintain better politicians.
If you do and you stop making the misguided political comments you have made in this thread, then I for one would change from hoping you never have political power, to voting for you, because WE NEED GOOD PEOPLE IN POLITICAL POSITIONS OF POWER!

I kindly invite you to read the post I just issued on the main page. — Garrett Travers

You know more about the academic subject of philosophy than I do in the same way that I know more about the academic subject of Computing Science than you do. Career choice and qualifications, obviously influence expertise.

On the issue of politics, typings such as:

What's that? as your response to my 'as a socialist.'

Democracy is antithetical to freedom — Garrett Travers

If your "security" involves violating my basic need of 100% self-determination to provide "well-being" for people who are not me, then you're a dictator. — Garrett Travers

Yes, because "politics" means murder, nothing else. All politics are anti-human. It is a slave-driving organization — Garrett Travers

Socialism is just a pagan adaptation of concepts, all faith-based, pulled directly from Christianity — Garrett Travers

You've been duped, brother. — Garrett Travers

Sound like angry words based on some kind of bitter and twisted, personal, irrational emotions you have towards all things political.
There is a political chasm between us based on the viewpoints you typed above.
If your philosophical conclusions have informed your political viewpoints then I think you should disconnect the two.
I can only hope you never hold political office or become able to influence politicians.

Thank you for your frank reply. I understand your true position much more clearly now.

It already has numerous times, they call that religion. Which is really just hatred of self, and love of non-self in a way that seems coherent. Which is why it has always pursued the death of people who were accepting the nature of what they actual were, which was a singular self — Garrett Travers

I don't think that collectivism always results in a religious outbreak that becomes a controlling doctrine of the collective. As a socialist, I fully support the necessity of the democratic freedom of the individual but this must be balanced with the equally necessary security and well-being of all. Getting that balance correct is the most complex part of any socialist agenda and it has never been achieved so far by any national political system.

The god concept is normally rejected as intelligence levels increase and fear levels reduce.
I think that's why few scientists are religious. If 'question asking and answering' becomes more and more networked in the future and if future transhumans demonstrate abilities to communicate in advanced ways then we will answer questions at an increasing pace. This will surely produce the technologies we need to move into the big space outside of this pale blue dot.

I don't subscribe to many of the current tenets of pan or cosmo psychism, but they have aspects, which I think are valid when the history of the pace of the discovery of new knowledge is considered.

Perhaps we will have to survive WW3 first, based on the current brinksmanship being played out between Russia, China, USA and Europe.

I agree that both panpsychism and cosmopsychism are pure conjecture but I do find them intriguing.

I'm only interested in Spinoza – tell me what textual evidence from Spinoza's writings (or correspondances) corroborates his alleged "panpsychism ... support". I think you're quite mistaken about him (& Russell too) — 180 Proof

I wish I was more 'well read' on Spinoza and on many others but I am not.
I merely copied the claim that Spinoza supported panpsychism from wikipedia's offering on panpsychism
The main quote is:

"It is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers including Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, William James,[3] Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, and Galen Strawson"

I think there are a lot of fake atheists on this forum. I have come across this often. The theistic arguments are so vacuous because they ultimately rely on the acceptance of the supernatural.
There is no evidence at all for anything beyond naturalism.
Many who use the label atheist, have theistic manuscripts firmly inserted in orifices, making it harder to see them. They use the label atheist to appear to others as logical thinkers but then they use stealth to introduce the same old vacuous arguments that those such as William Lane Craig and his debunked Kalam cosmological argument BS have been doing since religious fables started.
Some 'chancers' even have the cheek to complain that some atheists are being 'too nasty' towards theism. Theism has threatened all non-believers with hell and damnation for eternity.
They have murdered, non-believers in every vile way their 'god-fearin' mind could come up with.

Many who use atheism for their own purposes are as bad as the fake 'evanhellicals!'
They should have the courage of their true convictions and show their true theistic heart.
Every time I watch online debates between theists and atheists, I see the theists defeated badly.
I think there is only one future for gods in the mind of humans, as humans gain more knowledge,
diminution.

I spend more of my time on discussion forums such as Quora, where there seems to be a much more enlightened membership. This is my last post on this website. Many good thinkers on this forum but many chiseled, ossified people as well.
There are enough able people on this site to counter the fake atheists and the true theists/antinatalists/political extremists etc.
I will read any responses to this comment but will not respond to them.
Enjoy your future exchanges with each other!

I took a quick look and did not find an etymological connection between the Spanish 'el' and the deity El. Nor did I find a connection between the English 'the' and the Greek 'theos' from which we get such terms as theology. But yes, 'el' translates to 'the' — Fooloso4

Yeah, your correct. There is no etymological evidence. It's the same for the claim some people make that Evil and Devil come from Eve. The suggestion was that evil simply means to act like Eve and disobey god. Devil was simply a supporter of Eve(women getting the blame again). But the etymological evidence for the origin of the word evil does not support these claims. However, I don't think etymological evidence offers a complete picture of the origin of every word. I have often read things like 'is thought to have originated from....'
But I accept that without etymological evidence such claims are pure conjecture.

Just about everyone today calls when the sun comes up sunrise and when it goes down sunset, even though we all know the sun is not moving and the earth is rotating. 1,600 years ago in Rome, people did not know the Earth rotates. — T Clark

I think you are missing the point! God should know! It's supposed to be omniscient, so you would think it would teach its prophets a little bit of science so they wouldn't make so many mistakes.
But I suppose it cant because it does not exist!

08:20 am. God and its supernatural pals fails again. Perhaps they were all too busy entertaining themselves watching dying children in Yemen and Afghanistan. Seems like, when they combine all of the power they have in the Universe, it's not enough to silence this single atheist.

You offer an interesting synopsis of the history of left wing politics or mainly exemplification of some of the various ways that communism has been interpreted/applied historically, by certain settlements of people but on the 'pessimism' aspect and without reference to extreme solutions to projections of pessimistic views, such as antinatalism. Just a simple question really, do you think life for the average citizen in a country like the UK or USA has got better or worse or stayed much the same, in the last 2000 years?

Btw, I have never liked this left-right way of categorising politics. The USA has a bill of rights and not a bill of lefts. We talk about human rights and not human lefts. There seems to be a bias towards the functions of the right hemisphere of the brain. Even 'left-handed' is traditionally considered more sinister than 'right-handed.' I think such issues which seem rather benign actually do colour some people's view that the 'left' of politics is more sinister than the 'right.'

Thanks, fellow Earther!

Oh, I forgot to say. If I am destroyed/die from natural causes/accident etc at any point after 8am (unless it can be definitely proved it was by supernatural means) tomorrow morning then it does not count. That's the offer I am making to the non-existent supernatural. So claims like 'yeah but he was killed by a car, a lightning strike, a terrorist attack, an upset theist three days later, DOES NOT COUNT. I would just be dead and the supernatural would still not exist.
That's about the best I can do. Put my own life and risk of eternal torment (come ahead you demons, science will smash you) on the line.