Curious that I find that surprising. Maybe it’s because he stated that “religions are experts in causing harm” and historically you seem to look down on that sort of biased statement towards religion. — praxis

In what way is that a biased statement? Even Jesus admitted bringing a sword.

Religious institutions, historically, have been instrumental in sustaining political institutions, and vice versa. The third pillar of that very stable structure of power is the military. The disciplines of monasticism and militarism are very similar in both psychology and practice. Both serve and influence the political regime, which knows it must bow to their demands, because it cannot survive without their support. The dissolute civilian partner, and least reliable institution, is the political one. When a political system collapses under its own corruption or excess, the military and/or religious organizations are able to step in and take control. How the fourth, the silent financial partner - the merchant caste, or bankers, or corporations - plays this endless triangle game is how the rich get richer, with full collusion from church and state.

Ok. I would think it might depend on the myth, though. — Ciceronianus

No, it doesn't depend on the myth. It depends on one's understanding of the myth, its meaning, context and significance.
Just as belief of* any particular scientific theory depends on one's understanding of it.
* of, not in

Not even close there. — Darkneos

:grin:
:grin:

When the atheist ask a believer to give up belief in God, — Art48

Which atheist has asked which theist to give up their belief?
I'm an a-theist, not anti-theist. I have nothing against any of the gods I don't believe in, although I disapprove of many of their followers' practices. I have never, not once, tried to talk anyone out of believing in a deity or saint, although I have tried to convince some of them of some real-world facts.

I have asked theists to stop supporting oppressive legislation, stop insisting that only their sect's holy days be recognized, stop demanding that their doctrine be taught in public school, stop taking civil rights away from other people. I've never asked them to give up anything except political power.

It wouldn't surprise me, though, if it's [QM] taken up by religious apologists and claimed by them to support their religious beliefs. It seems that's been the case for a while now. — Ciceronianus

Because nobody understands it. Demonstrable, provable science is hard to suborn, which is why the anti-evolution arguments always try to exploit the perceived gaps, rather than the theory itself. But esoteric theoretical science can be likened to the mysterious ways in which God works. While the scientists operate by different rules and glean their information from different sources than the mystics, a creation myth doesn't sound more impossible than a big bang.

Given your sometimes harsh treatment of religious believers, — T Clark

I'm not mean to believers; I'm critical of religious organizations. True believers can too easily be victimized, exploited and weaponized by hypocritical prelates.

f you are gonna insist on being a muppet at least be a cheerful one. — invicta

:grin:

"Gain" works in this sentence as well as "lose." — Hanover

I'm not so sure. After all, missionaries have often been successful in making converts among colonized natives. Impressionable young people may turn to a religion under the influence of a mentor or admired role-model; others may be drawn to it by someone who helped them in a time of adversity or mental anguish. People who turn toward religion are usually in a vulnerable state - confused, troubled, anxious, grieving - and so more open to verbal inducement than they might otherwise be. Or they had been philosophically adrift, without firm convictions and looking for something to believe.

People who turn away from religion start from a very different position. They have been secure, anchored and certain; they were not looking for a change. Yet they somehow become uncertain, unmoored: religion let them down in some way. But what they were disillusioned with wasn't the logic - there had never been any logic, and it hadn't bothered them. It wasn't the lack of proofs or the inaccurate cosmology - it was emotional. Something they had relied on proved unreliable.

Religion offers solace, comfort and hope; atheism takes those things away.
Very different operations with different mechanisms.

People do find their way out of religion and the old arguments seem to lose their traction and believability, perhaps more so than atheist arguments gain appeal. — Tom Storm

It's a very personal process. You don't lose a faith trough argument or persuasion; you lose it through intellectual growth or experience. Once you have begun to doubt, you can reason out how and why it happened, and maybe borrow the writings of atheists to explain. As long as you have faith, you can argue back against whatever an atheist says - or ignore it.

It sure sounded like a whine.

The universe really does owe me an explanation for giving me the ability to recognise the fact that I came to be in it in this human form for such a limited amount of time. — invicta

The bible has an explanation: You should never have taken that fruit; it was forbidden for your own protection. The notion that having this awareness makes us unhappy - IOW 'ignorance is bliss' - has been around for quite a long time in the human narrative.
I'll lay odds the universe doesn't feel it owes you squat.

Yet I would feel short changed…wouldn’t you? — invicta

No.
For one thing, I've had a lot of fun with that same big imagination, and that's all mine.
For another, I'm past the best-before date, at an age when I appreciate every extra day I get to keep - no questions, no complaints, no arguments.

Children are meant to bury their parents, not vice versa. — ssu

Meant by whom? Over most of human history, never mind biological history, infant and early childhood mortality was always high, and accepted as the natural order of things. Any species that raised 50% its offspring to reproductive age was extremely successful - so successful, in fact, that it would overpopulate its habitat, which would result in a catastrophic event, like an epidemic or mass starvation, to get the numbers back to a sustainable level.

Our modern ideas about life and death are largely artificial, based on technology, not biology.

Other life forms who lack our apprehension to dwell on this issue are simply natural phenomena which makes our life worth living …sometimes in the form of a consolation from a pet etc. among life’s other amazing wonders. — invicta

No. They do not exist for us. Nothing exists for us. The fluke that we have this big massive imagination and even more massive self-valuation doesn't give us divine privilege. It gives us the ability to dominate, subdue and despoil, not the right. And it gives us illusions, like that the universe or god or something or somebody owes us more, even more than we've already claimed, stolen and wasted.
You blame the universe for making your life shorter than you want it to be - and so do many humans. At the same time, the single most common cause of premature death in humans, as well as billions of other life-forms, is human activity.

“I believe God exists. I also believe the Bible tells enormous lies about God. — Art48

I've heard that argument. You believe that "something" exists; you give it a capitalized generic name, but no identity, no past, no human contact, no creed to associate with. You're free to make up whatever laws or stories you like.
That can't replace faith in a personal father-god, who commands, judges, forgives, who loves you so much that he sends his only child to the gallows to save you from sin and invites the best part of you to live with him forever.
I am also free to make stories: I write fiction. I appreciate all the gods - demons, dragons, fauns, gorgons, succubi and saints - for their cultural contribution, and believe in none.

that religions include tall tales which don't always reflect well on God. — Art48

They reflect accurately on men. They are our legacy; the history of human aspiration and yearning, imagination and prejudice, power-lust and blood-lust; they tell our story.

Agree? — Art48

Of course not. Pretend you believe to lull the believers into a false sense of security and then trash their holy book? What is that supposed to accomplish. They're not necessarily fools,. and most of them already know the Bible is full of tall tales and outmoded ideas, or else think it's all metaphorical and allegorical and symbolical, or some such excuse. They know it's not true, but they cling to it, because the foundation of their faith, the biography of their creator-deity and the existence as well as reason for their sacrificial deity are in there. That book is the container of their world-view and philosophy.
How can you be a good Christian while repudiating the Bible?
Or, for that matter, an honest atheist while denying that the god you disbelieve in is the one depicted in that same book?

. When the atheist ask a believer to give up belief in God, — Art48

Why should an atheist ask that? I have no desire to wean anyone off their religion. I only ask them not to force it, or its strictures, on other people.

I just find it a massive tease to be granted existence and yet only experience it for a brief spell. — invicta

It wasn't given or granted, as others have pointed out - life just happened. But that brief spell/blink of an eye business is an appalling insult to butterflies, who have to struggle for their existence as hard as we do, or harder, only to die within a few weeks; they don't have the time or leisure to bitch about the brevity of life. Humans very often put things in an unapplicable perspective.

Essentially my actions and life and all my accomplishments being reduced to nothing. — invicta

A terrible driver, runs over child and speeds away, leaving him dead on the road, and later hits a tree, smashing the car and killing herself. She's had her eye-blink of existence and is gone. Are the child, the tree and the car not also dead, missed and mourned? Similarly, if you plant a park or build a house, it continues to stand after your death. You are reduced to nothing (eventually) but you accomplishments are not.

but you haven’t proven it so. — Darkneos

Nor have you.

Most people don’t question whether their feelings are genuine or not. — Darkneos

That may be true, or it may not, but neither possibility supports any of your premises, or any of your cause-effect assumptions.

Just because we have that desire isn’t a reason. — Darkneos

It's the best, truest, most compelling and most genuine reason.

I thought this was a philosophy forum. — Darkneos

And I used to think that in philosophy, the one proffering a theory would define their terms and support their argument.

You haven’t really answered why anyone should. — Darkneos

Okay: Nobody should. We just want to, because we feel that desire to live, and the fact that we continue to live as long as we are able proves that feeling is genuine. Therefore, the original proposition of this thread - couched in undefined terms and based on unsupported premises - was wrong.

Neither are you.

You’re not really answering. — Darkneos

Yes, I am. Just not that question.

Since the Roman Empire, this topic has been debated, and there have been problems with the specific age of who we should consider "young" or "old". — javi2541997

Which is why I didn't specify number of years, or any civilized societies between pre-agricultural ones and our own.

There are a lot of productive people and a lot of tax incomes to be paid... See? — javi2541997

And an awful lot of pension to pay out, for longer, as well as public amenities to maintain. In Canada, standard retirement age is still 65, but we can start receiving [a smaller] pension at 60 or [a larger one] at 70.

The age and what we consider "young" or "old" depend on how much your body and brain are able to work. — javi2541997

I've never heard anyone say that a 26-year-old suffering from disabilities, addiction and depression (ie, distinctly unvibrant) is old enough to die, while a happy, clever 90-year-old was too young to die.

Abstract concepts such as "young" or "old" were created for the state for two basic motives: employment and pensions. The state considers you "old" when you are no longer productive, but is this connected to death? no. — javi2541997

The concept came long before the state. In all social animals, there is a period of maturation during which the offspring are considered too young to take responsibility for themselves, and are fed and protected. This is also a period during which half the offspring die, and that's an acceptable loss to the pack or herd. In old age, past the ability to fend for themselves and do their part in feeding and protecting the pack or herd, it is also acceptable for them to die. In robust adulthood, when they're an asset to the society, members are valued, and sorely missed if they die.

So, too, in human societies. The first years are so hazardous to human infants that a some primitive peoples didn't even name a child until the age of three, when it was considered viable. Beyond productive age, some humans choose to die and get out of the way. In some marginal societies, surplus or sickly babies, as well as those too old and infirm to contribute have been killed by their next of kin.

As far as nature is concerned, any age between three and senility is the wrong age for a human to die, unless that person is severely damaged and unproductive. But when people in modern prosperous society say "too young to die", they mean any age under 75. After that, they say "Oh well, he had a good life", whether it's true or not. Except the religious, who say "She's with God now" whether they believe it or not. These are ritual formulas, because we're expected to say something, and we really don't know, most of the time, what we really think or feel about an actual death. We prefer to think about Death in the abstract. And we do that, a lot.

When you're still enjoying life, it's too soon to die. After that, any time is fine, but some means are preferable to others.

That's what was meant, if we don't genuinely feel anything, if we're just controlled by society then why bother living. — Darkneos

Yes, you said that. Several times. But I assume you didn't mean it, because if feelings aren't genuine, neither are thoughts. Society is just making you say that.

I might have preferred the adult....

Where there is victimization, there's helplessness. — frank

There is a distinction to be made between victimization - systemic, or habitual or protracted persecution of a person or group
and being the victim of a single act or event - such as a crime, traffic accident or professional incompetence or negligence.
In the first situation the victimized person is usually helpless, due to dependent status and no avenue of redress, or being a minority with no civil rights.
In the second, the victim generally has legal recourse and can appeal to law enforcement, health care and social service or religious agencies, and so is not helpless.

The victim can't be held responsible for really, anything. — frank

With regard to systemic victimization, no, they can't. As to victims of crime, accident or malpractice, they very well may bear some degree of responsibility.

If progress is to be made, the villain will have to do it because or she is the only one in the story with any power. — frank

I don't see the link made between progress and villainy. Indeed it's possible for a villain to hold all the power in a given jurisdiction, but that wold make the whole population victims. In non-dictatorships, the law, the governing body, the community or the congregation holds the power to dispense blame, aid and justice.

At some point in a story of recovery from racism, sexual or physical abuse, national invasion, etc., the victim has to let go of powerlessness and start becoming strong and responsible (for both good and evil). — frank

How does one - or a group, or a nation "let go of" powerlessness? How do you figure becoming strong and responsible is an act of will, rather than logistics? Do you assume that victims don't want to defend themselves, that they never fight back? When they do, it tends to be messy, and it's how many victims turn into casualties.

It doesn't help the victim to stand fast to the narrative of helplessness. — frank

So if you beat on somebody weaker than yourself, it's their fault? They made up the "narrative of helplessness"? Sounds like the self-serving excuse I've heard from more than one abuser.

You may think you're being a good socialist or whatever for being so pitying, but you're really perpetuating something dangerous. — frank

That's three, maybe four separate unexplained assumptions, thrown into a pile to sound bad while its meaning is entirely unclear.

Beware labeling her as a victim though. That label is helpful for defending her and prosecuting her abuser, but if she keeps that label long term, it's crippling to her. — frank

Who assigned this label to which person?
This sounds like a specific case of abuse, not a question of ethics or policy.
It seems to me, the subject itself can only be productively considered case by case.

Doing or not doing some acts is what makes a person genuine. — javi2541997

Only, the subject here was not persons or their character, but their emotions. As in: all our feelings are fake; they have no authenticity; therefore our life is not worth living.
And the reason our feelings are fake is that they're controlled, influenced and/or affected by something referred to as 'society', which is somehow external to and distinct from persons, but not defined; nor is it revealed where 'society' gets the concept of emotions or the motive and means to manipulate the counterfeit feelings of people.

What if he does not want help? — NOS4A2

The OP stipulates that he's trying to quit, and has his family's support.

a). The alcoholic is trying to quit the addiction and b). That the family wishes they would quit also. — Benj96

If we all looked at ethics in the "big picture" view, many? Most of us? would be compromised to some extent. — BC

Of course we are. It's almost impossible to do the right thing - even when we're sure what that is - every time, or as well as we probably could. But when you know what it is and it's within your power to do it, if you fail to do the right thing, you feel like crap. That's your conscience telling you you could have done better.

Nobody explained what 'genuine' means, or how you can tell whether feelings are genuine or counterfeit. I have to go on, at least I find out! Then I'll decide.

Yes. It that OK?

well, I'll take the reporter's word for it. — BC

Me too - unless I'm in the forensic lab or on the jury.

I do agree about developing a BS detecting system over time. It's unfortunate that many use a bias/habit filter, rather than a reason/experience filter - their stubborn wrong-headedness gives all seniors a reputation for reflex conservatism.

What I describe is a 'background mental operation", not a deliberate forensic test for falsehoods. It doesn't necessarily result in "truth". The procedure protects me (to a fair degree) from outright false statements. — BC

That's a fairly comprehensive checklist for critical judgment. Mine is almost identical, though I list in a different order.

The "truth" is elusive, and usually beyond the scope of any single statement or fact-checking one can do on one statement: there is always a larger context.

The Russian war example is a good one: neither spin is an outright lie and neither is accurate; both PsOV are valid within a context that has to stretch back over three decades, and that situation came out of WWII, which was a result of what happened because of ....... Eve taking that pomegranate or something equally untrue.

For forensic purposes, we have to investigate a larger field of facts, mistakes, lies and questionable data than we do for simple acceptance or rejection of a statement.

For me, the potential consequences determine the degree of rigour I need to apply. Having run through the critical checklist, we can believe a declaration of love, or car repair bill or food label provisionally - until it's contradicted by later evidence.
In a criminal court, we don't get a chance to edit or rescind a verdict: somebody goes to jail who didn't commit the crime, or goes free to commit another.
Political decisions, like whether to support a party or candidate, carry even greater responsibility, and international hostilities have the biggest consequences of all. And yet most people seem not to not subject those claims even to the scrutiny they accord a trivial purchase from amazon.

But the ethical problem isn't solved or simplified by living in a small town--it's just more personal. — BC

And that's what makes it an ethical problem.

In real life, people make a lot of unhealthy choices while shopping. Clerks are not in a position to police the habits and addictions of the community or individuals. — BC

The OP scenario is a small town, wherein everyone knows that this person is trying to dry out. The store clerk is not required to diagnose or pass judgment on a stranger.

You care about that family very much, as a close neighbour and friend. The alcoholic asks for a bottle of vodka. — Benj96

Presumably, the alcoholic has gone to AA, his pastor, his GP and whatever services are available. His diabetic cousin is regularly refused candy at the grocery store next door, because the cashier thinks he's cute and doesn't want him to die.
The question is whether the store clerk should put his job/employer's earnings above the welfare of the alcoholic, even if the alcoholic - in this moment of weakness - doesn't?

What I am against is how the states makes profit from them — javi2541997

They don't. The public has to manage damage to the citizenry and infrastructure from harmful behaviours - the health and law-enforcement and property defacement and traffic accidents. It's not unfair to collect a substantial part of the compensation for those funds from the people who cause the damage and need rehabilitation. If part of the compensation comes from people who drink responsibly, as the LCBO posters exhort us to, we accept that burden as insurance payments, in case we fall off a wagon, just as good drivers also help to offset the expenses for damage done by bad ones. It's a social contract.

OTOH - I'm really against governments running the gambling racket.

I quickly realized we don't see or feel the sun's light and heat due to where we are. Perhaps we don't feel God's love because of where we are, not His 'lack of love'. — Michael Phelps

Ho-kay, that's a lot of feeling, and it may be partially authentic/original (as distinct from 'genuine', which has not been defined), though it's familiar enough to contain a substantial portion of cultural belief.

But I don't see it as an exercise in truth-finding in the same way as looking into a microscope or telescope. Those activities don't require feeling, either as physical sensation or as emotion; merely the use of sensory equipment and its augmentations to perceive data and our intellectual faculties to analyze and collate the data in order to interpret information as truth or untruth.
Can we exercise our sensory and intellectual equipment to determine the truth content of our emotions?

In real life, I believe most people don't really, really want to know the absolute truth of everything. — Michael Phelps

And some are realistic enough to know that attempting to find out the absolute truth of anything could take a lifetime and yield no results. However, discovering a little partial truth about some things can be an enjoyable and rewarding process.

Our governors and public servants just accepted that consumers tend to buy a big amount of cigarettes and booze, so it is an "opportunity" to make them profitable. — javi2541997

It's been called sin tax, and I don't think there an attempt at deception.

Sin taxes are designed to increase the price of goods and services in an effort to lower demand. They are a form of Pigovian tax which is levied to pay for the damage caused to society for detrimental goods and services.

The increased price may prevent some young people from starting the vice, but it does also encourage illegal trade that circumvents the tax. This kind of legislation is relatively easy to pass in elected bodies, because no party wants to be seen as pro-addiction, and a segment of the voters always wants to see the sinners punished.

Did you felt disappointed or upset with society when we/they didn't help you out? — javi2541997

Not at all. Various kinds of help were always available, but I didn't ask until I seriously decided to quit. The people close to me were very co-operative.
But for some culturally embedded reason, alcoholics have a much harder time. I guess it's because most of them behave badly under the influence, everyone is angry with them. And I suspect the rest of us resent them for making us feel bad about drinking, sometimes to excess. I know I used to resent born-again nonsmokers. (I'm still a smoker; I'm just taking time out, as long as my life is worth living smoke free.)

That's not really answering the question of what's the point in going on if nothing you feel is genuine. — Darkneos

No, it's not. It's asking the questions: Where do feelings originate? What do genuine ones feel like? How do they become non-genuine?

I stopped taking it seriously once Jesus and God factored into it. — Darkneos

Why should anyone take it seriously when you cite an alleged Buddhist as source, and refuse to answer any questions?