Perhaps, an essential factor is being aware of risks in chemical adventures. — Jack Cummins

There are lots of messed up people who say they never use and drug or alcohol. Like Mr Trump.

We must learn to distinguish betwixt Erinyes and Justitia and all will be well. Easier said than done, easier said than done! — Agent Smith

Why is that distinction important? Especially in relation to what I said.

I always considered Catholicism much more "civilized" than Orthodoxy. — Alkis Piskas

The mass originally was in Latin. They knew no one but the priest class understood latin.

Impossible to have these under drugs! — Alkis Piskas

Yet is happens.

Who's choosing Christianity and from what beginning? — Alkis Piskas

The Catholic Church always appealed to an illiterate population. From beginning to today.

What proof? It is us who have invented God! — Alkis Piskas

Agree.

t's a social justice issue. Hence how we treat others. Here in Australia, we put people into detention centers for seeking asylum. Hence Banno is correct around why this matters. — Tom Storm

don't care what banno says about anything. later.

Because, surprisingly, physicalists are human. — Banno

wow

Human rights; refugee policy; social justice; welfare reform; drug law reform; justice for Aboriginal Australians; economic reform; housing policy reform - that kind of stuff. — Tom Storm

Why would a physicalist have a policy on refugees?

The physicalist atheist and the dedicated Jesuit often share first principles about how we should treat others. I think this is why I have avoided philosophy in the past as I am temperamentally inclined towards action over contemplation — Tom Storm

What are those first principles shared by physicalists and Jesuits?

So, it seems to me the answer lies in the growing perception that the left have sold out to corporate and plutocratic interests. — Janus

Hitler's National Socialism, fascism, was popular in the lower middle class. Because they tend to be less educated and without skills for good jobs. Basically, about resentment.

And then there are those who argue Christianity is simply a kind of stew of pagan philosophy (particularly Stoicism), the pagan mystery cults and Judaism, with bits and pieces of the story of Apollonius of Tyana thrown in as a kind of seasoning. — Ciceronianus

Religion is just a form of experience, or a social form

Now these things may not resonate with you, but these teachings appeal to many people even outside of Christianity. — Paulm12

so why keep naming me?

Similarly, it's been useful for Jesus to be considered the Greek Logos, or Aristotle's First Mover, from time to time; useful for the Church to do deals with such as Mussolini or Napoleon; useful for them to don native garb in Japan--it's been a very pragmatic religion. — Ciceronianus

Dumb people gravitate to Christianity.

I've heard the word delegates used. The delegates vote on behalf of the ordinary members of the party? — Down The Rabbit Hole

The final tally is comprised by the individual votes, the delegate votes, and superdelaegates (not a joke).
One of the controversies is that the superdelegates were simply Hillary votes.

That they are an option for the country to vote on.

I don't know a lot about American politics. Bernie may have been rejected as the candidate by a vote of his party. — Down The Rabbit Hole

In the US we have primaries within the party. Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton.

If something can be turned to evil, then it's not a virtue to begin with. — baker

No. Aristotle's Ethics is a long discourse on exactly how virtue is a mean between extremes.

Go back and reread the discussion. How does explaining things the way Gregory did help you in any way? — baker

He explained it quite well. He was talking about how people express faith.

It has no explanatory or didactic power. — baker

You mean because it does not align with your religious dogma?

This sounds like a worldly understanding of the matter. — baker

And why is that wrong?

For one, because many philosophers do just that: They use philosophy to talk about religion. — baker

Why isn't religious talk about religion?

Philosophy is for talking about religion, among other things. — baker

I never heard of that. Why do you believe philosophy is for talking about religion? Isn't religion for talking about religion?

How does Christianity "speak to the human condition/experience"?

I don't feel addressed by it at all. — baker

Me as well. I never understood why a Jewish religion 2000 years ago is supposed to speak to me.

Speaking generally, the mission to establish absolute separation_independence of things is more idealist than real. — ucarr

Well said. Fully agree. Myth of the atomic object.

I can't think of any left-wing candidates in recent US history (my understanding is that Bernie Sanders wasn't presented to the electorate). — Down The Rabbit Hole

What does "presented to the electorate" mean?

ok

I ignore posts with wiki.

According to Wiki, — Joshs

don't care about wiki

Hegel writes, — Gregory

When quoting, please cite the source.

This is an attack on all theories in the vein of the recently fashionable "The universe is a simulation": — hypericin

I do not think the universe is a simulation. But I do think it is a kind of computing system.

Yep. As with all antinatalist arguments Bartricks starts with a bizarre premise with which no-one else agrees and then proceeds to show that it yields bizarre conclusions with which no-one else agrees. — Isaac

Then insults everyone.

The world is. I am not Catholic but one of the previous Pope's said abortion is the new Holocaust. I agree — Gregory

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Genocide and saving humanity are pretty far up there, ye — Gregory

So you think the US is committing genocide. Odd.

No, I said that saving the planet from heat death supercedes it — Gregory

So, abortion and heat death. Nothing about violent coups.

What did you mean? Republicans are trying to end abortion. — Gregory

Is abortion the only thing that matters to you?

I know nothing about computation but I think I get the idea. You need to perform an experiment to test a hypothesis. That’s basically what you’re saying unless I’ve misunderstood you. — Average

It's the concept of a series or algorithm where it is supposed to continue on to infinity and retain the same outcomes. People now see that is false and cannot be proven true.

Always the same with Trump - although you think you've seen the worst, heard the worst, something comes along that is even more despicable than all the many despicable things he's already done. It's a bottomless pit of depravity. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Trump is always more horrible than we can imagine.

I don’t know how empiricism is connected to these concepts but I’m glad that I understood your intended meaning. — Average

From Seth Lloyd, a few years ago: "the only way to figure out what's going to happen in a computing system is to go through the computation."

https://www.edge.org/conversation/seth_lloyd-seth-lloyd%E2%80%94life-what-a-concept

There are no "short cuts." It has to be played out to see what it was about.

Next: "PRESS: You mean this metaphor of the computer very literally — you can literally envision the universe as sort of going through a set of procedures that you could trace back.
LLOYD: Yes, I don't even mean it as a metaphor.
PRESS: How do you avoid the Gödel trap, in the sense that there are things that exist that you can't possibly explain the origin of?
LLOYD: Exactly. The halting problem and Gödel's theorem are essentially the same problem — they're very closely related, and Turing knew about Gödel's work when he came up with the halting problem.

In other words there is nothing necessary in the universe necessarily because necessity is meaningless. Is that an accurate summary or am I missing something crucial? Also if you replace the word necessary with the word probability it doesn’t seem like a radical transformation. To use your example if you don’t eat you will die could also be replaced with the statement if you don’t eat you will probably die and the meaning is still basically similar. — Average

Yes. Empirical.

Perhaps it's my fault though and if so I apologize. I just don't understand what you mean when you say that "Necessity is just a condition" and since necessity is so closely connected to what is necessary it follows necessarily that I can't understand what you mean when you say that "There is nothing necessary about life on earth". — Average

Necessity is the way scientists in the classical, deterministic model explained events. In the 1900's the quantum model disputed necessity and replaced it with probability or randomness.

Another way to explain it. Statement one, "If you do not eat, you will die." Statement two, "If you don't eat, you will necessarily die." Statement two adds necessity, but it still means the same as the first statment.

As Schrodinger said, just because things happen a certain way only explains the boundary of the behavior, not that it has to act that way.