In most cases, people don't get the concept of the trinity because they forget that God is omnipotent, he made himself Mortal, and he made himself Will because he can and wanted to. God "Is — Gus Lamarch

People don't get the concept of the trinity because it is incomprehensible, and the Catholic Church admits as much.

"On this subject of its incomprehensibility, the Catholic Catechism has this to say: “The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God.” It goes on to say: God’ s “inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit."

https://salisburycatholics.org/holy-trinity#:~:text=On%20this%20subject%20of%20its%20incomprehensibility%2C%20the%20Catholic,be%20known%20unless%20they%20are%20revealed%20by%20God.%E2%80%9D

The fact that there are 3 separate entities that admittedly cannot be understood by the human mind to exist as a single unit while being 3 is sufficient enough for me to declare the concept meaningless and therefore declare Christianity polytheistic.

Tri-Unity is logically contradictory on its face, as it means 1 is 3.

Do you know of any book form histories on Judaism along this vein? — Noble Dust

I was just looking on Amazon, and I came across this book. I've not read it, but I ordered it. The author's theory is that Moses and Akhenaten are one in the same person. Seems like nonsense, but the reviewers thought his theory interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Moses-Akhenaten-Secret-History-Exodus/dp/1591430046/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=Akhenaten&qid=1600261762&sr=8-7#customerReviews

Trinity is not coherent, but this is a discussion for another time. — Gus Lamarch

Christianity - through Judaism - would evolve this concept, causing the son to become God together and co-equal with the father. — Gus Lamarch

This is part of where your link from Akhenaten to Christianity becomes difficult for me to follow. The Akhenaten religion is being used as support by you that Judaism arose from it based upon their similar monotheistic views. My point is that I don't see Christianity as monotheistic, but I view it as polytheistic, having 3 distinct gods. The way Christianity avoids this criticism of polytheism is by devising a triunity theory that claims that while there are 3 descriptors of God, they all are one. You have rejected the trinity theory as incoherent, which means I don't follow how you can say that Christianity arises from the monotheism of Akhenaten when Christianity is not monotheistic.

I guess my direct question to you is whether you see Christianity as monotheistic, and, if you do, how do you conclude that if you reject the triunity theory?

For the sake of completeness, I'd also point out that where I use "Christianity," I remove Mormonism from that because the Mormons do not believe in the triunity theory, but consider it to be a flawed theory created from scratch by the Catholic church. The Mormons believe the father, the son, and the holy ghost are three distinct entities and don't seem worried about its polytheistic implications.

Aten was represented by a Disc - halo - in the sky with arms reaching out: — Gus Lamarch

That looks like the sun. Regardless, the picture is ambiguous in meaning and any conclusions drawn are speculative.

In any event, I was never under the impression that Akhenaten's religion was overly influential, but more that it was something that sprung forth for a very short period of time and then fizzled out. The time period of this belief is noted to be between 1353 BCE to 1334 BCE, which is 19 years. That's hardly much of a religious movement, especially compared to Judaism, which had already been around 600 years at this point. The importance of Akhenaten is that it is a pre-Judaic instance of monotheism questioning Judaism's claim that it was the first monotheistic religion.

The concept of monotheism seems to be a reasonable consequence of a thought process that attempts to interject more and more powerful deities. It starts off as having a variety of gods with different powers that all do battle with one another, to there then being one god that is more powerful than all the rest, usually with each nation proclaiming themselves to be protected by a most powerful god, then finally with someone saying that they have identified the one true god and that all others are unholy. Then to cap off everything they then create a a sacred document that states as its most critical rule "thou shalt not have any other gods before me."

Christianity - through Judaism - would evolve this concept, causing the son to become God together and co-equal with the father. For this reason, iconography brings together both concepts - mortal man, next to the divine - the father - who now was also part of the divine -. — Gus Lamarch

This interjection of Christianity into the mix seems far fetched. I really don't follow how you see a child of God based religion to flow from the Akhenaten concept that predated it by over 1000 years, so maybe better explain that.

The question related to the influence of the Akhenaten religion upon Judaism is a historical one. Wiki dates Akhenaten to 1353 BCE to 1334 BCE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten . Judaism is dated as far back as 1950 BCE.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-birth-and-evolution-of-judaism.

But what is interesting about this article (and it's from a Jewish source) is that it acknowledges that pre-Mosaic Judaism (1950 BCE to 1300 BCE) was polytheistic, placing the origin of its monotheism post Exodus, which would land it squarely in the 1300 BCE time period. That means you do have the monotheism of Akhenaten occurring at the same time as it first appears in Judaism.

The question then is whether Akhenaten influenced Judaism because we know that the two religions were practiced in geographically close proximity and they both maintained a similar emergence of monotheism at roughly the same time. To that direct question, I found:

“Israelite monotheism developed through centuries of discussion, declarations of faith and interactions with other societies and other beliefs,” Fagan writes. “In contrast, Akhenaten’s monotheism developed very largely at the behest of a single, absolute monarch presiding over an isolated land, where the pharaoh’s word was divine and secular law. It was an experiment that withered on the vine.”

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/akhenaten-and-moses/

This article argues, and I think persuasively, that you can see a gradual shift in Judaism toward monotheism over time, which seems to indicate an evolution of a belief system, as opposed to what existed with Akhenaten, which was a sudden, new idea.

All of this also leaves a technical quibble. In your OP, you asked if Islam, Judaism, and Christianity would best be called Akhenatenic as opposed to Abrahamic. I'd say not because the Abraham story pre-dates the Akhenaten monotheism by possibly as much as 600 years. The origin of the 3 major religions clearly pre-dates Akhenaten and they all attribute Abraham as their paternal forefather.

The best you can say, even though I don't think the historical record supports it, is that Akhenaten's new monotheistic theology influenced the evolving Judaic theology of the time. I'd think it a stretch to say Akhenaten was its true forefather.

Should we consider Judaism, and consequently, Christianity and Islam "Akhenatenic" rather than "Abrahamic" religions? — Gus Lamarch

First, thank you for this post. It's interesting.

My thought is that it is not controversial that there were precursors to Judaism. There are many biblical passages and stories that reflect similar beliefs and accounts within the geographic region. There's also good argument that Judaism did not begin as a monotheistic religion, but that it evolved into one over time. In Exodus, the plagues do not appear to have been levied to prove to the Egyptians that there is a single god, but they were being shown to prove that Yahweh was the strongest of all the gods.

That being said, I don't think we can say Judaism is Akhenatenic simply because bits and pieces of that religion pre-dated Judaism and might have been adopted by Judaism. The Abrahamic religions refer to an actual Abraham and officially declare a link back to him. I do think there are common roots within all the religions of the Near East, but I don't see the link between Akhenaten and Judaism to be strong enough to proclaim that Christianity is an offspring of it. The links between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, though, are undeniable.

I'd also argue, by the way, that Christianity isn't monotheistic, but that it speaks of a trinity that references 3 distinct gods and no amount of mental gymnastics can make the concept of the triunity coherent. That is to say, while I think Christianity is Abrahamic, I don't think it's Akhenatenic, at least to the extent you use that religion to represent monotheism.

Where do I find the data to compute my ratio?

This one ought generate a bunch of good Samaritan replies that I won't need to respond to.

Game on!

Capitalism is all about profit-maximization. — jorndoe

Except that's not what happens in any economy anywhere. Assuming the majority of business owners cast aside all ethical considerations in the operation of their businesses (which they don't), they cannot expect to disregard the multitude of formal government regulations that exist in every country without negative repercussion. The distinction we can draw between those business friendly countries and those more heavily regulated isn't a capitalistic/socialistic distinction, but simply the degree of regulation/lack of regulation the population wishes to tolerate.

That is to say, there is no principled distinction between Sweden providing extensive social security systems and the US offering far less. It's just a matter of degree. Both obviously allow for free enterprise and both offer governmental services. The quibble is just over how much there should be in order to maximize whatever outcome the population desires.

Oil companies are going broke. — Banno

Do you really think this? I mean it makes for a good headline, but do you truly believe that all those in the oil business, from the guy who works at the gas station, to the guy on the oil rig, all the way up to the CEO are all about to have to start looking for new jobs?

The issue to address here is the question of why natural reason (meaning the innate ability of human beings to engage in reasoning) demands coherency — Metaphysician Undercover

I think there's a bit of equivocation going on with the term "coherency" here. I take logical coherence as distinct from scientific coherence. If an argument is logically incoherent, it's truly incomprehensible. Logical statements that draw random conclusions and self contradictory statements would be examples.

Scientific coherency demands consistent use of underlying principles for the explanation of results, but the lack of such coherency doesn't result in incomprehensiblility. For example, if Newtonian physics accurately explains much phenomena, but ad hoc explanations must be used to explain others, we don't stumble into confusion, but we just note our underlying principle must be wrong.

Our demand for logical consistency is based upon what we take logic to be because if we're logically inconsistent, we are, by definition, not logical. It's what logic is.

Our demand for scientific coherence is based upon our prior observation of the existence of consistent laws of physics, but some are willing to allow for the paranormal, which might be stupid, but it's not incomprehensible.

A pragmatic basis for rejection of Christianity: https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-09-04/dont-believe-in-god-you-might-sleep-better-at-night

yep. And they think this reasonable - to punish a child for the offence of it's parents. — Banno

I found you a brand of Christianity that isn't burdened by such ideas. https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Original_Sin

The limits of my language are the limits of my world
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

What do you think Ludwig Wittgenstein meant by that? — TheMadFool

That an event that cannot be reduced to language didn't occur in any meaningful way. I don't think it means words carry pinpoint precision that cannot cause confusion due to their inherent ambiguity.

But, I could be wrong in interpreting Witt, and it's hard to know if I'm right or wrong, because, as far as I can tell, nobody ever really agrees over what he meant.

I mean I understand your point - the usage of words are a matter of convention and don't reflect a point a view of those who utter/write them. Yet, as the quote above, from Wikipedia, clearly shows, people do care about people's choice of words i.e. they read intent into them. I was simply following the crowd. Erroneously perhaps. — TheMadFool

Word choice is obviously important, and in formal settings (politics, business, law), people are very careful how they phrase things. I would assume a pro-life person would be very careful to call a fetus a she and a pro-choice person would call it an it, but I'm not sure it would amount to a massive blunder for a pro-life person to call a fetus an "it," so much so that you could declare the pro-lifer as admitting the fetus really isn't a person.

I mean maybe pronoun choice is one piece of evidence you could look at in deciphering community views regarding fetuses, but it seems like a really small piece of information that wouldn't carry a whole lot of weight.

These word usage and syntax arguments have come up in other threads in other contexts, and it seems like they always break down to being just the peculiar way English is structured and it's hard to extrapolate much more from it. As noted, French is going to assign a gender to everything, Japanese isn't going to assign a gender to anything, and English is going to assign a gender to some things, but I really doubt that means the French, the Japanese, and the English all have profoundly different worldviews regarding what is male, female, animate, and inanimate.

An completely plausible explanation. Yet, I wonder...pro-choicers are, at the end of the day, making the exact same claim - the fetus is an "it" just as a piece of nail you get rid off with a manicure is an "it" - albeit in different words. — TheMadFool

But the French insist upon assigning a gender to everything and they don't use a gender neutral pronoun, so am I to assume they think differently of trees than English speakers? This is all a matter of convention. I might be pro-choice and still refer to a male embryo as a he, even though I don't respect its personhood. The gender designations in English truly refer to genders, not to animate versus inanimate objects as far as I can tell. I would ask a child with a doll "what is her name?", not because I think the doll is a person, but because it has a gender of sorts. I call my dog "she" and I surely don't think it's a person.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I have this nagging feeling that the way we use words [may] reflect our intuitions regarding the subject/issue we use them in. — TheMadFool

I think you might be reading too much into it. We use words to communicate to the people around us and it's doubtful everyone is clued into all the nuances that might be impregnated into every word choice. The point being, maybe I meant to use the term "impregnated" here for the double entendre or maybe I was oblivious for a fleeting moment that we were talking about aborting pregnancies and it was just a distracting word choice.

My guess is that it depends upon who's doing the talking and some might mean some things that others did not. I would assume there are languages out there that lack the personal pronoun altogether (as I'm told is the case for Japanese), but I don't think we can then say the Japanese don't fully recognize the difference between people and hats.

In summary, an analysis of language suggests that babies, ergo fetuses, don't have personhood and therefore abortion should be ok but the way people in general and mothers in particular resent people who refer to their babies as an "it" indicates the opposite - fetuses are persons. — TheMadFool

And ships and nations are often referred to as "she," yet neither have personhood nor vaginas. We call hurricanes things like "Katrina," but I don't know if I'd call the hurricane a she, although I might now that I've been forced to think about it. When grandpa dies, we don't look upon the corpse during the viewing and say "It looks so peaceful," but we say "he" despite grandpa having no rights or personhood. If I see your body walk by the window, I will say I saw "it," not "him" because for some reason your body has no gender, but gender belongs to your being, and that is different from your body somehow. So complicated. What does all this mean? Probably nothing metaphysical, but just how we communicate.

I'm pro choice because I don't think a sperm attached to an egg is a person, but I do believe a nine month old fetus that is just finding its way out of the birth canal is (as opposed to who and her). That's at least how I go about determining personhood from not, as opposed to looking at how we talk.

It is correct.

HIV doesn't kill, it's the other diseases. — ssu

Can you truly not see a distinction between having a pre-existing comorbidity that leaves you vulnerable to serious illness from an otherwise modest viral attack versus being infected with a virus that devastates your immune system to the point where you succumb to otherwise benign opportunistic diseases?

With similar thinking, I assume you get very low deaths to the AIDS pandemic too. — ssu

This isn't correct. Prior to effective treatments, AIDS killed 100% of those infected regardless of age or comorbidity. Covid kills primarily (and with very few exceptions) those already vulnerable. With covid, it's a reasonable question to ask to what extent has death been hastened by the infection in those with comorbidities because the answer will determine to what extent we need to implement safety measures against infection. It's clear that such a question is difficult to answer because it requires an evaluation of the deceased person's pre-covid prognosis, and prognoses are by their nature speculative.

From a political perspective, the fact that death from covid cannot be distinguished from death with covid is extremely problematic because it leaves the question of how diligently we ought to protect ourselves against covid subject to legitimate debate.

Behaviorists think that there is nothing more to mind than behavior; to be in a mental state just is to behave some way. — Pfhorrest

I'd argue a behaviorist admits there is a mind separate from behavior, but its inner workings are unknowable. The mind is not just behavior, but the behavior is the only thing that you can measure. In order to advance psychology into a scientific discipline, as opposed to the speculative theories of Freud, Skinner limited the relevant data to that which could objectively be observed and measured. So, I don't think you can say that behaviorism states that the mind is behavior, but it's more that the mind is a black box with inner workings that cannot be known, therefore making only the behavior relevant for analysis.

I'm shaken by how 'mercans make an individual's race so pivotal. — Banno

There's a probably correct assumption that tribalism controls at some level and so people expect that someone of similar ethnic likeness will better protect their interests than someone not. That results in race based voting and in placing one's own in positions of power, which only perpetuates the problem.

It's especially a problem in Australia. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-diversity-multicultural.html

Put up or shut up? The mods claim to know good quality from poor quality. Let's see a section where the mods demonstrate that they can deliver good quality. — Hippyhead

Assuming your request is in good faith and not disingenuous, and that you sincerely seek the wisdom of the moderators so that you can elevate the quality of your posts, the better solution is that you request the mentorship of a moderator to assist you. That seems a much more direct method of providing you the education you desire than in asking that the moderators post in a fish bowl for your observation so that you can learn by example.

Assuming your request is not in good faith and is disingenuous, and what you really want is to create a micro-forum where you can judge the moderators and prove to yourself that you're just as good as a moderator and you were wronged by unsupported harsh judgment, I reiterate my response that your idea is a waste of time and I join those who have compared you to a fourth grader.

If the former, I'd be willing to review some of the posts that were brought into question and offer you insights into why that might have happened. I'm sure others would too, and I do mean this sincerely.

I would like to suggest that the mods consider opening a new section which is readable by all, but only the mods can post there. — Hippyhead

We have something similar, although it's a section where only the mods can post, but it's different than you suggest because it's a section that only the mods can see.

We talk about all sorts of stuff, including discussing interesting new ideas, unlike yours.

Obviously, each of us might ban different users for "low quality — Judaka

There will always be some element of subjectivity in what is and isn't low quality, but, as a professor explained to me once in response to the complaint that essay exams are overly subject to subjective grading, the same students have an amazing knack of failing all their essay exams regardless of who the grader is.

Puff the Magic Dragon holds special meaning to me. Despite all that is said about it being about drug use, I take it as a sentimental song about a little innocent boy growing up.

A dragon lives forever, but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant's rings make way for other toys
One gray night it happened, Jackie Paper came no more
And Puff, that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar

The Grateful Dead's Ripple has always had a very spiritual feeling to me. I absolutely love to listen to it over and over again. :heart: Few friends relate to the degree I do about this song and that is one of the best parts of the song. Friendship :flower: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

My favorite as well. But you knew that.

Reach out your hand if your cup be empty
If your cup is full may it be again
Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of men

How does having a higher IQ alter or modify one's behavior? — Shawn

I saw this movie called Charley where this person had an operation or some such shit and it turned him from being dumb as shit to being a brilliant fucking egghead. When he was a dumb fuck, he'd say dumb shit, but when he sharpened up after the surgery, he had all kinds of jaw dropping things to say.

I think if you want an answer to your question, you'd go watch that movie.

When did S go above A? I never heard of that. It sounds stupid. I give an F to the creator of S. Speaking of S, where the hell is he?

Instead of rating dead philosophers, let's rate each other, from top to bottom. That'd be more controversial and interesting.

I give me an S. I'll give @Baden an S also. I just want him near me.

I am black - and as far as we are concerned - Senator Harris is black, especially (though not only) because she identifies herself as black. Nonblacks - whether "whites" or not, "liberals" or not - don't get to define the color-ethnic identity of anyone else but themselves or their own. That's colonialist, sir; that's racist. :shade: — 180 Proof

I agree in part and disagree in part. Historically, bright line definitions of race have been used for nefarious purposes. Whether it be the discrimination of blacks, Jews, the Japanese, or any other group of people being placed upon particular suspicion, it's never a good sign when the majority population starts searching another's ancestral history for impurity and declaring who's fit and who's not.

There's a curious distinction in the Kamala Harris situation because those you accuse of racism are trying to declare her non-black. That is, they are trying to claim she's less qualified for the lofty position of VP due to her non-blackness, meaning being black in this situation is a benefit, not a detriment. An interesting consequence of progress, I suppose.

This situation reared its head more notoriously in the Rachel Dolezal case, which you'll recall was a white woman who self-identified and presented as black and rose to the position of president of her local NAACP chapter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal . That case challenges the significance of self-identification as being a basis to establish race, and it offers legitimacy to the argument that a search of ancestral history should be the final determinant in establishing one's race. That is to say, if we can negate Dolezal's claims of blackness based upon an analysis of her genes, then we can challenge Harris' claims of blackness based upon an analysis of her genes.

The problem, I'd submit, is our ethical acceptance that race matters. I live in the same world as you, and I fully understand that race does in fact matter, but I have a problem in claiming it ought matter. While Biden wants to be President and he realizes the reality is that he must choose a black running mate, the fact that he might choose someone on the basis of race does not make it the ethically right thing to do. Harris should be chosen by the content of her character and not the color of her skin. That sentence ends with a indelible period.

The point being that whether Harris is black, and whether you believe her to be black ought be entirely irrelevant to this whole discussion. To those who argue Harris is not black and therefore should not be voted for by other blacks, I share in your calls of racism and your objections to her trying to be delegitimatized. Logic, however, dictates the same calls of racism to any who might vote for her because she is black, meaning anyone who delves into the debate of whether she is or is not black enough seems to be conceding that her blackness matters. It shouldn't.

I recall several years ago (which is documented in the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo#cite_note-latimes_milestone-66, which is a cite (sort of) as demanded by @Banno) that Go was thought of as too complex a challenge for AI programmers due to Go being a spatially based game with generalized principles. Chess, on the other hand, lent itself to mathematical number crunching, so it was something that could be deciphered by AI programmers.

That theory held true until AI programmers began making Go programs that beat the top players, suggesting to me that the real reason Go AI programs lagged behind chess ones was likely due to commercial reasons in that there was more money in deciphering chess than Go.

I'm nice as fuck. Like if you said, "Hanover, can I borrow your pants," I'd be totally walking around in my boxers just to see you happy. I'm not just shirt off my back nice, but I'm pants off my ass nice. If anyone here was starving because of the stupid decisions they made in their lives, I'd be completely non-judgmental and wouldn't point out their fuck ups, but I'd just say something nice as shit, like "man, that sucks, starving and all, I wish things weren't all fucked to hell for you." Some people just can't be nice to save their life, but to me, it comes so easy. I think it's my cult leader like charisma that I have. It's extraordinary really.

Would any one of you like to be treated in the exact same way as blacks are known to be treated by police and the criminal justice system in the United States of America? — creativesoul

If I committed crime, no.

It was no accident that whites were sent to new housing in the suburbs — Bitter Crank

This assumes the work of evil manipulative geniuses. A better explanation is that whites simply chose to move.

There is an Australian television show called "Q and A" in which various experts are placed before a live audience, to answer questions. In one memorable episode a young white male audience member in a private school uniform insisted that he was not privileged; his claim was that he and his family had earned their position.

He was laughed down. An entirely suitable rebuttal, I think. — Banno

How do you know that he and his family hadn't earned their position? Had he been black, would he have been similarly laughed down? I don't ask that rhetorically, but it's a real question. I can't imagine that every prep school kid was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

I tend to agree with this. The problem as I see it, is that the word "privileged" has an air of classism to it, suggesting some aristocratic upbringing, which is why it's probably the wrong term to describe what I think is meant by it. What I think is meant by it, in a neutral sense, is that there are some people better off than others, in particular, when it comes to race. Assuming that true, I certainly don't feel like nobility simply because I'm white, and to be called "privileged" does in fact minimize my accomplishments, as if my pedigree is the true cause of my success. That's not to say other races might not have been denied those things I take for granted, but that speaks to their being treated unfairly as opposed to my being treated specially. I suppose it's a matter of semantics to debate whether I am privileged or whether other races are under-privileged, but it certainly feels like a derogatory comment to suggest I've received special benefit when, in truth, I haven't. I just haven't received sub-standard treatment as some others have.

I'm not privileged as I see it, but I do recognize others are having their rights violated. It's not a privilege to be treated as an equal with dignity and respect. It's a right, which is precisely why we refer to them as civil rights and not civil privileges .

that they turned up to get payed, and indeed that they did get paid, somehow for you shows how uncooperative people are... — Banno

It shows that cooperation is just part of the equation, but that selfishness plays an important role. It also provides am.explanation for why capitalism works in terms of creating great wealth.

I'm sure those folks are appreciative of your thanks, but it's doubtful any of them showed up at work each day to provide you such bounty in exchange for just a warm pat on the back. They probably worked for money, would not have produced it but for their getting paid for it, and would have done it anyway even without yours or anyone else's thank you.

What is true:
human beings as highly cooperative, reciprocal and intuitively moral creatures — Banno

This seems a linchpin to your theory, and it's false at least in numbers high enough to matter. If it were true, the economic or political theory we chose would hardly matter.

If we assume that people are highly self interested, first to their families and then to those most similar to themselves, we end up with something like we have now.

If a symptom of Covid is fiery diarrhea, then count me in! If it's just the expected consequence of hot wings, then that. I took some Pepto-bismol pills that said you weren't to chew them, but were just to swallow them with water. I chewed them anyway. They kinda tasted like the chewable kind, just not flavored like cherry and they caked up on your teeth a little bit, sort of like they weren't designed for chewing. Overall, it was a pretty good experience. I hope it douses the flames.