Atheism is neither agnostic or certain of the non-existence of God. That's the traditional fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. The atheistic approach is simply that without proof or data in support of any claim, that claim shouldn't be made as a fundamental belief. So the notion that God "could exist" becomes irrelevant since it's not even a concept worth entertaining as there is nothing pointing to such an explanation for anything.

If raising the question, the answer is agnostic, but the question is flawed in the first place through an atheistic perspective. Just like Russell's teapot analogy, the question itself becomes absurd: "We can never be sure there is or isn't a teapot in orbit around the sun". That is an agnostic claim and an absolutely absurd one. The theistic perspective would be that they are certain that the teapot is there, without any data or rational deduction of how or why. The atheistic perspective is that the question itself is absurd, so the answer whether there is or isn't a teapot becomes just as absurd. As long as there isn't anything pointing towards the existence or non-existence of a teapot in space, the question itself is just abstract, absurd fantasies not worth entertaining in search of knowledge. It may even be that the search for proving or disproving such a thing is fundamentally a waste of time when there are things in our universe that we can measure and is much more worth examining in order to understand existence.

The atheistic question then becomes, why should we waste time asking absurd questions, debating absurd non-sensical hypothetical answers to these absurd questions, instead of putting time and energy into the things we can actually measure and get knowledge about? We should build from what we know, grow knowledge of what we can actually grow knowledge from and build our understanding of the universe and our existence from that evolving knowledge. Anything else is a distraction and a waste of time if knowledge and understanding is our goal.

However we verify or falsify the argument, determinism will never find solid ground outside of an irrational belief system. — unenlightened

Determinism has solid ground mathematically through probability. At quantum levels, probability has a randomness that hasn't been combined with larger models yet, but the probability of anything other happening outside causality of larger than quantum events is so low that it's within infinitiy numbers.
Free will does not have such support. So saying that determinism has no solid ground outside of an irrational belief system is pretty much just nonsense.

However closely you examine the virtual world of a computer game, you will never find anything that violates the determinism of the program; you will never find any trace of the player, but only of his input, which you may see as 'either random or programmed'. But we know that people play games, and are more than their avatars. — unenlightened

How in any way does this relate to the laws of the universe? Are you using an analogy of a computer game to compare the free will of the player with the free will of our selves within our universe? I don't even need to break this down to show how irrational such an analogy is. Free will is governed by the same laws of physics and the same universe as anything else. Thinking that our free will and our sense of self is disconnected from that is both narcissistic and arrogant by us as humans. A desperation of holding on to an illusion based in a sense of importance to our existence within a universe that couldn't care less about us existing. And theological explanations have no solid ground to support such irrationality without including tons of cognitive biases.

It appears to me that I make choices, and the making of choices entails that they are not already determined. — unenlightened

If I program you, psychologically, to crave for a certain product through repetition of commercial exposure of that product; you will eventually include a will to use that product. Commercial work shows how infantile people are when thinking about free will. Corporations can control what people want by the illusion of what they need. So the choices you make do not appear in a vacuum, you have no isolated thinking that works as the basis for the will you act upon. So to detach your will from what creates that will is ignorance of how our mind actually works.

What "appears to be the case" is not in any way solid support for a conclusion that determinism doesn't exist and determinism does not mean "someone determined it", it's about causality, laws of physics. You need to ignore both the laws of physics and how psychology works in order to conclude your free will to be free of any influence and reason, both biologically and psychologically.

This could be an illusion, but no one has presented the least reason to think it is an illusion. — unenlightened

There's plenty of reasons and support for determinism, but if you have a cognitive bias towards believing determinism to be wrong, you will ignore those reasons and support.

So just as I do not assume the sky is pink because it appears to be blue, so I don't assume that I cannot choose because it appears that I can. — unenlightened

This line of thinking is just naive. Your mind and brain are not detached from laws of physics and the rest of the universe. You cannot use your subjective feeling as support against determinism. And the sky is blue because of physics and your eye register the blue color because of it. Your assumptions are totally irrelevant when judging the nature of what spectrum the sky shows. Measure the spectrum and you get the data and if you get brain damage, the sky might change appearance, but the data is still the same, i.e your assumption about the sky is irrelevant since it's affected by how your brain works, not the actual composition of how the sky produce the blue color. The sky is blue whether you want it to be or not, determinism is governing everything in the universe, including our brain and mind, whether you want it to or not. What you assume to be true about your sense of free will is irrelevant as support for free will. You cannot prove the validity of the book you read by using the book itself as proof, that's fundamentally corrupt and biased.

You should look into the "System 1" and "System 2" theories in psychology. They may answer those questions for you.

The idea of free will is rooted in our defense mechanism against the concept of determinism. We desperately need to justify our own sense of control over ourselves and our life since the idea that we are part of a causality system is as close to cosmic horror we have in our knowledge about the universe. But the fact is that we can't escape the logic of determinism and any attempt to do so always fall flat when falsifying any argument in favor of free will. A common denominator for those arguing for free will is usually that they at the same time believe in supernatural elements to our existence and laws of the universe.

The closest thing to something breaking determinism is using quantum randomness as a deciding factor for choices and decisions, but that would only cause a physical representation of chaos that is causally undetermined, it would never grant the ability of free will. So, even if randomness were a factor within the causal system, it never supports free will as a system. However we verify or falsify the argument, free will never find solid ground outside of an irrational belief system.

It looks like the place where you got them is a low quality source, and best ignored. — andrewk

That's an understatement.

1. The type of evolution were looking for is one were features are added. We have never found evidence of that type of evolution. Only the type were features are lost. — hachit

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

2. When you look at the about 50 million fossils we have not one has evidence of evolution. So why should we believe that getting more fossils well prove otherwise.(this is 80% of his presentation) — hachit

Evolution doesn't occur through stepping stones, it's a process of change over a long period of time and there are many fossils showing this.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13717-evolution-myths-yet-more-misconceptions/

In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count – trillions if you include microfossils. These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians, for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals.

3. Those that beleve in evolution that know these facts treat evolution as a fath not fact. We also need to rethink the theory because we found a spear head in a dinosaur bone. — hachit

What spear in a dinosaur bone? Which publication of paleontology shows this?

4. Dawin's legacy was that he created a world without need for a divine creator. However we don't have proof of his world so we're going to need to change how we think. — hachit

Yes, we do.

Basically, you listen to someone who just ignores facts, findings and the science of paleontology in order to draw a conclusion. Should I spin the wheel of fallacies? Because there's a lot of them in this kind of reasoning. This is apologetics 101.

Would you agree that there are two types of identity? Variable identity, which is an identity which comes before its malleable variation; potato becomes a mashed potato, but it's still a potato since that is its elementary identity. A sofa cannot be a sofa if it is mashed since it's identity comes from the constant identity as a sofa. The sofa is a sofa because of a combination of variable identities into a form which makes it a constant identity.

Therefore, we can define identity based on variable and constant identities.

How would you define expressed meaning vs the initial meaning. Is there a variable meaning that has an elementary aspect to it, or is it a constant meaning that will lose its identifying form when it is expressed?

Time doesn't slow down for the one traveling. Time is constant for the observing traveler, but for anyone looking at the traveler, they would see his time as slower. The traveler would see others speeding up. If the traveler reaches the speed of light, he would end up at the location traveled to instantly, meaning, the traveler would end up at a point outside of normal spacetime, since the traveler cannot observe anything if the destination and time to get there is instant and infinite at the same time. Look into how a black hole would work theoretically based on Einstein and Hawkings.

Since you start out with the same kind of attitude that I was urging you to stop with I have no reason to continue wasting my time on your ego. You have been given answers and you refuse to stop using biases and fallacies. I went to this forum to get away from having to argue against populist rhetoric.

I'm not aware of anything in reality that matches that. — Marchesk

But you could perceive the concept that a room is still a room if what is inside it is the absence of anything. From this, the property of nothing as something is what makes the room a room.

If you define that space as having properties, but if there are no properties to that space, isn't it then nothing? How do you define nothing?

That sounds like a really weird way to phrase building a house. But okay, you're creating space for rooms. It's only nothing in the context of it not being building material. There's still air, hopefully. — Marchesk

Is it not still a room even if space in between is a vacuum, not even with quantum particles? Does a room need air to be a room?

You have to add nothing to the building blocks; walls, floors, and ceilings of a house in order for space to create rooms.

What proof do you have that ordinary people, without a degree in philosophy, cannot understand the concept of a dialectic discussion. Through out history people have been doing this with absolutely no formal education. The way you talk it is as if these abilities are something that developed because of colleges. Lots of the greatest philosopher had little or no education at all. Thinking is something that can be and is developed by anyone that wants to develop their abilities and is possible without out going to the university. That is the BS of the universities sell so that you will pay their exorbitant fees. — Sir2u

It doesn't take much to understand the basic concepts of dialectics and dialectic discourse, but do you think that if you went out on the street and asked random people what "dialectic" is, I can guarantee you that very few even knows what it is. You are trying to argue that people know dialectic methods without training when the closest is that they might accidentally do a dialectic, but do not have it as routine. This way of arguing that you are doing now is populistic, it's the anti-intellectual ideas that experts aren't needed, that knowledge is bullshit and that common sense is enough. It's the same BS that populists are spreading around, undermining any kind of intellectual discussion and progress in favor of emotional outbursts from people with low education. Their perspective is extremely important, but this anti-intellectual BS is actually disgusting and disrespectful against those who actually put a lot of time and effort into learning.

It is a good idea to read all of the thread if you want to participate properly. I have not, as I explained to someone else, made any demands. You stated what you think was the solution and I pointed out some of the problems with your idea. — Sir2u

You didn't point out problems. I'm not sure you actually understood the points I've made before smashing the replay button.

Both of which have been discussed at length, the former idea causes too many problems and would be expensive. The latter is a long term project that would not fulfill today's needs. — Sir2u

And you want a magical unicorn somewhere in the middle, please explain what large scale options you have outside of those two, I'm all ears, because that right there is no criticism to what I said, it's a denial of how society works in a democracy. This is why your demand on us to write an absolute solution is naive.

That s the only solution that I have ever offered, educate the people. But as I said earlier it will not work until the people have a reason to give up their guns. By reason I mean that possibly the feel safe without them, when do you think that will happen? — Sir2u

You are talking in circles. First, you say, exactly what I've been saying all the time, that to solve all this is to educate people. But then you say that there won't be a change until people feel safe. You are putting the cart before the horse.

The whole point of educating people is to make them understand that they will only feel truly safe when all cogs in the machine have been put in place.

For some that claims to be so superior at thinking, that is very badly expressed. It has nothing to do with philosophical discussion around justice and ethics. — Sir2u

I do not claim that, stop your mockery bullshit, it's childish.

Let me help you to express it in a clearer way.

Because gun control has elements of MORALITY and ethics it can be discussed philosophically.

I think that sounds better, don't you? — Sir2u

So why do you even question the idea that gun control is a philosophical discussion? You're doing semantical nonsense arguments to "win the day" instead of doing a dialectic.

I never said it was, I just wanted to find out how you would explain it. Bummer right. — Sir2u

No, you are just incapable of linguistic pragmatism. There's a fallacy called ambiguity fallacy. You question gun control as a philosophical topic, then you question the philosophical category in which the discussion of gun control goes under, to arrive at a conclusion that was linguistically pragmatically understood from the get-go.

The initial text you questioned gun control to be a philosophical topic was this:

Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric.

If you actually read that again you see that I pointed out that because gun control is a topic that can be discussed philosophically and should be, there are better tools through it than just common talk which can be affected by lobbyist and political rhetoric. Philosophical discourse is better equipped to look at the actual facts of the matter.

How you changed that to questioning gun control as a philosophical topic, I don't know, and I don't know how you arrive at your last conclusion which is basically saying the same thing as I pointed out in the first place.

You are arguing in circles in order to just win any points you can, but what's your actual point, really?
Ambiguity fallacy.

Well I suppose I could try imitating your dickhead tone, but I don't think that I have enough of a stuck up snobbish attitude to pull it off. But I will try if you want. — Sir2u

And you just keep going. Maybe you should look at who had the tone in the first place, who uses the most ad hominem words and arguments? Maybe you could even look at how others answer to you, then compare the data and do some self-reflection.

Your interpretation as snobbish is in your own head, you read some counter-argument to your argument and instead of keeping with a traditional calm and philosophical dialectic behavior, you just burst out insults back to the one making the counter-argument. Why do you think I point out that you seem to lack philosophical methodology knowledge? Because you don't show any of it.

Wow, so your opinions thoughts are correct because you use the dialectical approach. Where did you find all of the information that you used to come to these certified conclusions, I would love to see it. I think that you really need to go to the USA and offer you assistance in solving this problem. I don't think that they have anyone like you over there because this problem has been going on for years and years and no one has been able to come up with a solution. — Sir2u

What conclusions? That we either have the option of enforcing laws against people's wishes or educate them to understand why strict gun control is good for them so that they vote in that direction? It's basic logic of the democratic system. And the dialectic approach I'm speaking of is how we discuss this as a group. You aren't doing it, you basically just attack what you don't like and won't actually use any dialectic approach. And when someone does it to you, by dissecting your argument, you just call them a variety of ad hominems. It's extremely childish behavior on a philosophical forum and you don't seem to understand why so many argue against you in here.

I don't know. I am not in the habit, as you seem to be, of testing everyone's ability to use their dialectic skills. How many times have you tried to have dialectic discussions with people in the street? — Sir2u

It's not about testing people's ability. Are you intentionally misunderstanding what you read in order to just give whatever counter you can on everything? You do understand that what I'm talking about is that because not all know about dialectic discourse methods, they will lean back on emotional opinions. It's why arguments without method often fail because there's no self-reflection through the dialectic method. People just bash their opinions in other people's heads, this is a fact. You can just look at the hyperbolic comments on comment sections anywhere online and you will understand what I'm talking about.

sinse they took away our whips and bats. — Sir2u

An attempt at a joke I presume?

So you think that maybe if I quoted something from Socrates to support what I have said about gun control it would be more believable? Hmm, I will have to try that sometime. Or maybe if I continuously asked questions to provoke people to think but refused to admit I had any personal knowledge It would help my case. Reading about other peoples' way of thinking does not mean that you will be able to think like them. If that was the case I would be able to run circles around Witty.
While we are on the topic of peoples' knowledge about philosophy, did you ever figure out why those people came up with the idea that everything was made up of water? — Sir2u

You're just ranting irrelevant stuff right now. I'm talking about methods of discourse, not quoting philosophers. Methods in order to get rid of irrelevant rants.

True, but there are not that many moral problems, most of them are technical. Most development companies have legal department that deal with anything dodgy, Maybe that is where they would work. — Sir2u

I didn't think we were talking about specific companies. Moral problems, both internally as a company and externally with what the company is doing, applies where it is applicable. Within this topic, it is very relevant to have ethic philosophers consulting decisions of gun laws. But it seems you view philosophers as opinion bullshitters and not professionals? Like, better to get some street smart people to go through the moral complexities of political questions that will affect billions of people in all manner of life situations than a philosopher in ethics.

I never said I had an answer, at least not one that would work as needed, but I did point out that a lot of these things have been discussed before and I have given the reasons why I doubt they would not work. I was not demand absolute solutions, but with all of your superior dialectic prowess I thought that maybe you would be the one to come up with the right answer. Seems not to do so. — Sir2u

I did, but you don't agree that it is a solution, or don't understand how it's a solution, therefore you want another solution. And once again, I was referring to a dialectic discourse, which I urged you to do on the solution given, which you didn't, you just wanted another solution. So, I can't do more before you do your part of the dialectic, and that has been my point all along.

And a simple epistemic fact should be easy for you to prove, so go ahead and do it. But before you try answering think about the people that developed dialectic methods, where did they study? How did they come up with the ideas if it is not possible without education? — Sir2u

People who haven't trained in argumentative methodology, who don't know what dialectic means, is or is done, does not have that method as a tool while debating and discussing. Most people do not have such training. Those who have such training has most likely been studying some kind of philosophy.
Therefore, most common people don't have the methods needed for a dialectic method for knowledge.

In other terms:

X is dialectic understanding, Y is normal argumentative understanding. X leads to Z which is improved knowledge and better arguments, Y leads to A which is an argumentative emotional stalemate.
p1 X most likely leads to Z but does never lead to A.
p2 Y most likely leads to A but rarely lead to Z.
p3 X is common with those trained in argumentative methodology, Y is common with everyone else.

Therefore the probability of X being superior to reach Z is higher than that Y leads to Z and since X is more common with those trained in the methodology, it is lower in quantity than Y which is the rest.

It's a simple fact of probability. If you don't agree with the above probability, please feel free to counter it properly. The probability is a large scale probability, which means, in this case, that if a proper dialectic method is recommended to understand all nuances of a complex political issue, fewer people are able to reach a nuanced conclusion.

I never get excited by wishywashy discussions with people that think they are better than the rest just because they studied philosophy but know nothing of reality. Reality here is used in the sense of everydayness. But I do enjoy it when the fish are biting. — Sir2u

And you judge people without knowing anything about them or their experiences in life and reality but can't entertain the thought and simple fact that people can both be trained in philosophy and have real experiences.

You judge character, the way someone writes. It's fallacious, biased and disrespectful and if anyone needs a reality check it's definitely you.

I am not really sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that someone has been judging me because of my behavior? If that is so, that is not my problem and it is very unphilosophical to use this as an argument to prove that I am wrong. — Sir2u

If you use ad hominems in your arguments, you fail to argue and can't demand more of others. If you behave badly in a discussion, that is your responsibility and if people criticize you for your behavior it damn straight is your responsibility to do better. It's rather hypocritical to call out others behavior when they react to your behavior. That is what's called a tu quoque. If you go to a party and start punching someone and then get hit back by others, would you then call them out for hitting you? Like you have been mistreated in any way? Wouldn't that be delusional, to say the least. The ad hominem name-calling, the mockery etc. just because someone formulates their text in a certain way that you don't like is, as I said numerous times, childish.

I have not mocked you for any knowledge that you have provided, what ever knowledge that might be. — Sir2u

You just have a total lack of insight into how you write to people. And even the end of that sentence is a mockery. It's a bullying mentality, like some insecure teenager trying to hit back at every chance they get. To me, it's just irrelevant and desperate ad hominem-rants which gradually, for each time you write such things, lowers my respect of your knowledge in proper discourse.

If you want respect and good behavior from others, you should lead by example.

I get some very interesting responses from the people with interesting things to say. Especially those that don't take the time to write long post full of criticism. — Sir2u

Maybe people just don't care about answering to you because of how you write? I shouldn't, I mean, especially since I'm answering to a long post full of criticism... oh, the irony.

Never judge a book by its cover. I seriously doubt that you have read even half the number of philosophy books that I have. But I don't like to swagger around telling everyone that I know everything and common people don't. — Sir2u

I don't doubt that you doubt that. I also don't go around telling things like that. I mean, you should never judge a book by its cover, right? Especially when you don't even understand the books content or the point I made.

Do unto others what they have done to you. You insulted most of humanity so don't cry when someone tell you that you do not know everything. Ask around, I am extremely polite to all that are polite to me. — Sir2u

Is it an insult to point out that some know more of argumentative methodology than others? Is it an insult to humanity if I say that some people know cooking more than others and that some chefs are masters of cooking? If you cannot understand the simple probability logic and instead interpret that as an insult to humanity and that you shall take up the sword to defend humanity against this vile creature who said that there are fewer masters of cooking in this world than common people who mastered cooking, then I can't help you. Then you simply don't understand a word of what I said and instead just emotionally burst out ad hominems because you cannot wrap your head around what I actually said. And if you don't agree with the probability, please counter the argument I presented earlier, in a nice dialectic manner, so that I can read it without having to read your emotional burst of populistic anti-intellectualism, it's tiring.

So you get points for trying. But in your own words philosophical tools and methods of dialectic are supposed to come up with the answers. So why don't they? Is there no way you can go beyond your answer to reach the solution? You said that these tools were used for that purpose.
If you cannot go any further towards a solution to the problem then what does that mean?
Does it mean that you cannot use them properly? Or maybe you are ignorant of the true facts of the situation.
Could it maybe mean that there is no solution? No, you said that it would always reach a solution so it cannot be that. — Sir2u

It means you don't participate in a dialectic discourse in order to reach a good solution, you are more interested in blasting anti-intellectualism towards those who propose methods to reach solutions. When presented with an initial solution, you don't return in a dialectical way, you do emotional outbursts and then write nonsense answers. As I read other answers to you, I'm not quite alone in thinking this way. Maybe that should be a hint to you, but you'll probably just ignore it.

There we go with the challenges again. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have done that countless times yourself without realizing it. Do you really think that you would recognize a dialectic if it hit you in the face? Actually you might, if you read about Meno.
Explain to me how I could prove that I have an understanding of what we are discussing. Would you like me too some tests or something maybe? No I am not being hypocritical, I leave things like that to others that cannot "win" an argument without putting people down to do so. — Sir2u

Deflecting rants of nonsense. You have been given answers. You have a solution told and an opening to counter with an argument.

You are totally unable to self-reflect upon your own writing. You just burst out emotional rants with no content. I've answered this long post and yet, after reading all of it, you have actually not said anything new at all. You repeat your earlier points without reading answers to them, I mean truly read them. You continue a bullying attitude which is the same kind of anti-intellectual nonsense that populists push over and over, and which I think is beneath discussions on philosophical forums. If you think I have low respect for common people outside of philosophy then no, I don't have low respect. But "common" people like you certainly question whether or not I should.

You've read my point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology and you read my point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I'm still waiting for a response to those, worthy of a philosophical discussion. I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you and focus on that. Want to express your bullying populist attitude, go punch a pillow.

what beauty are you talking about exactly? — Rhasta1

It's often the last thing people hold onto when going from belief to nihilism and understanding the meaninglessness of life. People who believe in religion or some higher meaning attach an aesthetic beauty to existence which they feel would be pointless as well if they accept that all else is. My point was that I find this to be misleading for them because they have no concept of the aesthetic beauty of existence and the universe, outside of the idea that it was in some way designed. I'm referring to the mathematical precision and aesthetics of how we perceive everything around us. It can feel like it has some higher and spiritual beauty, but we have a programming that makes us see the world in a way that changes our emotions, that's all, but also in of itself a kind of beauty not to be missed.

In Christian tradition God seams to care about what happens on earth first rest of the cosmos being devoid of life takes secondary role. — Avro

Which is contradicting as to why the rest should be of an almost infinite scale and with such complexity. So that there might even be exotic material in the universe that does not even exist here on earth, while some material and aspects of rituals handle material and matter that have a rarity on earth, giving them high value, but in the universe, there's tons of it. Like rare metals, such as gold, which there could be whole planets of, but in some religious rituals, gold is of high value. Why does it have high value if there's a place in the universe that is entirely made of molten gold? So there's a lot of contradiction between a God who made the entire universe and a God who cares if linen and wool are mixed in clothing. I have a hard time even entertaining the thought of trying to make sense of it, so how can it make sense? This is a good example of why there's little probability of a god even caring about this tiny blue planet if a god existed at all.

So, all belief consists of ideas in the head about the world around us. — creativesoul

You demand a simple answer and I gave it. Belief does not exist without human thinking about something and starting to believe something, out of that comes to different types of belief. You cannot detach the belief from humans, even if a belief was written down and people forgot the one expressing the belief, it is still an expressed belief from that forgotten person. You are taking different concepts of belief and counter-argue the basic definition with that there's "too many versions of belief and therefore you can't define it".

Statements of belief are not in the head. They are belief. Therefore, not all belief is in the head. — creativesoul

They start in the head, expressed, they still come from the mind. A belief can exist, written down outside of the mind, but the belief is still from an initial mind. Belief is that which defines the type of statement it is, i.e something from the mind that is acted upon like it was fact. I defined a spectrum of truth we apply to belief, which ranges from acted upon like pure truth, to an understanding that it is a belief that is acted upon.

Some belief is about ourselves. They are belief. Therefore, not all belief is about the world around us. — creativesoul

This is what I mean with you breaking down everything into their smallest parts. You demand a simple definition of belief and then you dissect it to conclude that it isn't complex enough to incorporate everything.

However, all human use of belief as it exists for us humans relates to the argument I have made. If you stretch the definition of belief to not work with my argument, you essentially just invent another interpretation of belief, which isn't in use by people.

Belief is lingering thoughts about the world around us, ourselves, the universe, everything we can imagine and every thought we conjured into constant and variable memories. Belief starts with an idea, that through time turns into a concept of truth which may or may not be considered real truth. Belief can be expressed, influence other people's ideas that form into their own belief and it shapes how they, we and all humans act, behave and form the world-view and concept of all people's selves...

...I can go on and write an entire essay on belief without really breaking the argument I made.

Belief is prior to language. That which is prior to language cannot be existentially dependent upon it. Belief is not a concept. My charge here is that your conception of "belief" is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of belief. — creativesoul

How do you define belief yourself? Would you say that "belief" as it is used in language, and because of that, how it is used in my argument, does not work with my argument? Or is a semantic deconstruction of the term "belief" just a linguistical pragmatic failure to understand the argument through an ambiguity fallacy, intentional or unintentional?

I have a very small, 5 people, group of friends. I have 2 other family members. And we do discuss world problems of every kind, even though I am the only one that participates in a philosophy forum. But I work with hundreds of people everyday. Most of them seem perfectly capable of talking about the problems of the world as well. So I still don't understand why you think that non-philosophy forum people do not have the tools necessary to think about such things. — Sir2u

Because regular people don't generally understand the concept of a dialectic discussion, they see any discussion between two opinions as an argument without end since both sides just clash without understanding the other or the self. It's also a ground for meta-ignorance. This is why I numerous times doubt your insight into philosophy since you never demonstrate that philosophical process in your writing.

I am beginning to believe that "naive" is your word of the week. And I don't see how your route is realistic. — Sir2u

Because you demand absolute solutions to very very complex problems. That is almost a textbook answer of what naive is. The "solution" I described involved the very realistic idea of educating people into supporting strict gun laws through democracy. You either go by a totalitarian state-regulation to just ban guns, or you work with the people so that they understand the problems and understand why it's good for them as well. If you have any other solution beside enforcing change and planting seeds for change, feel free to express it, but if you want simple answers, that is the naive route.

This does not answer the question, I asked how gun control qualifies as a philosophical question, not which area of philosophy would possible put it into. — Sir2u

Because it has to do with philosophical discussions around justice and ethics, two of the biggest topics in philosophy. Why is it not a philosophical question to have a discourse around that topic? Please elaborate on why it does not qualify.

I have not asked anyone whether they can do a proper dialectic. But as you are making this statement about the non-philosophically inclined people's incapability, I am sure that you have asked everyone you have ever met in your anthropological wanderings and all of the parties you have ever attended. Because that is the only way to know such things that I am aware of. — Sir2u

Can you write any text without having an asshole tone to them? Without a dialectical approach, there are only opinions, often with a meta-ignorant problem underneath. People might have heard the word dialectic, but how many can have a dialectic discussion? How many discussions have you heard between people which ended in both sides improving their own ideas or come to the conclusion that the other was right? I mean, truly changing for both sides?

Actually I doubt that most of the people here on the forum are philosophy students or have a degree in philosophy. I can think of several members whom I know of that do not. — Sir2u

Of course, most don't have a degree in philosophy. But without any insight into philosophy, what is even the point of being on this forum? I mean, to read is good, but to participate in discussions without being humble about their own knowledge in philosophy and instead rage on with pure speculative opinions, fallacies and biases, is to a degree not even recommended by the forum guidelines. If there's no effort to even learn some basic philosophy, why even bother? Then Twitter is probably a better platform for such rants.

While knowledge of the use of dialectic tools is useful to argue successfully, it is useless in the face of ignorance. If you know nothing about the topic, there is no use for these tools.
Seriously, do you think that the common people have not realized that there is a problem with guns? They know well enough that there is. It is not the lack of these tools that stops them from doing something about it, but the lack of methods that can be used. They vote for the people that they want to represent them and the ones that propose removing the guns lose. They protest in the streets and get arrested because, as you say it turns into a brawl.
You say that you have the use of these tools, what are you going to do to solve the problem? — Sir2u

Dialectics leads to a better understanding of your own opinions and others. It's a tool to let people reach better conclusions and be less influenced by people with the power of persuasion.

You suggest methods to be used, what methods are there in your argument, which brings forth a change without restricting democracy and liberty of the people?

This does not qualify as proof of the statement you made. — Sir2u

The articles say that some people think that philosophy graduates might have a better career that others, but it makes no mention of them gaining popularity as a hired. — Sir2u

I very much doubt that is what the companies think, if they hire someone as a consultant they want the problem solved not just thought about. — Sir2u

It would get things going again without which there would be no new problems down the line because there would be no company.
But it would make sense to hire someone that could do both problem solving and preventative work. Unfortunately, "preventative" in industry usually means foreseeing possible problem and trying to prevent them, which would be almost impossible without the technological know how. I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of. — Sir2u

It's a cultural difference then since observations in my country are that companies and industries increasingly have pushed for philosophy training in leaders and philosophers consulting during problems, rather than just trying to figure things out themselves. It means they frame the problem the company is facing through the lens of philosophy in order to foreshadow the consequences of the solutions to the problems. They're also educating employees, especially in the tech industry and A.I.

I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of. — Sir2u

That are not the problems I'm talking about. But for example, figuring out the ethics of gun laws require quite a lot of philosophy in order to give a nuanced perspective to politicians and the people. If a problem touches upon philosophical problems, why would those questions be left to those who work with systems to solve? It's like calling a plumber to fix the roof.

I have made no demands, I asked you how you would solve a problem and you have no answer. — Sir2u

Because you don't have an answer, I don't, no one really has, which is my point. It's a philosophical dialectic with the aim of finding a solution. My suggestion was given and you demand absolutes instead. You are demanding something without any real interest in the discourse. If someone doesn't give an absolute solution to something you seem to interpret that as a disqualification of the specific participant on the topic. I gave you a possible solution, you have answered nothing on the validity of the causational consequences of that solution and instead demand an absolute solution. It's once again, naive and almost childish as a demand.

Oh dear. Is it my fault that you have nothing to contribute to the solving of the problem? I am not the one that sets myself above the common people nor do I claim to be a philosophy. — Sir2u

I do not set myself higher than common people, I stated a fact that common people don't have dialectic methods to discuss something in order to reach a higher understanding of their own opinions. That is a simple epistemic fact which would be ridiculous to counter without proposing that common people would automatically know it without studying it. It's almost a populistic idea and anti-intellectual, the kind of dismissal of knowledge that's been plaguing the world more and more the last ten years.

I am just a humble thinker with opinions based on what I see and what I know. It would seem to be that you are the one covering up your inabilities with pompousness. — Sir2u

You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others. The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward. You judge others all the time and you mock the knowledge they provide with inadequate reasoning and pure speculative opinions. The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge.

I can say exactly the same thing about you. You do not know me or what I have studied, but you presume to make statements about what I should do to improve my understanding of truth and the world. — Sir2u

You write about philosophical tools and methods of dialectic like you have no idea what you are talking about. So, I draw a conclusion based on how you actually write. And since your attitude is extremely impolite towards others that might have more knowledge in this area, I would say you solidified that notion. So, no you can't say the same thing to me because I actually try to answer, you are just defending your own ego with mocking and ridiculing other people.

So, either you demonstrate that you have an understanding of the things discussed and prove me wrong when I suggest you study more, or just stop with your tu quoque fallacies. You attitude at the moment is the evidence in itself of my statement.

Everything is pointless. But even though I'm of the opinion that there's nothing behind the beauty that exists around us, I find there's even more beauty in the idea that the randomness and probabilities of the universe settled on something that can perceive its own beauty. Even if it's just probability, it's truly mind-boggling and epic. I don't need fantasies to experience the grand awesomeness of everything, I think it in itself is enough.

Other than that, what else is there to living than to live the life you have? The other option is to never have lived, which is pointless as it cannot perceive itself not living. The question of pointlessness just becomes absurd as there's nothing to compare to. You have a pointless existence, and it's more than not existing at all.

Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong? — VoidDetector

Because religion, spirituality, and fantasy come to people trying to figure out the unknown without having the tools to really understand them. It happens today as well, when someone can't explain something, they attach delusions and fantasy to them before trying to make logical sense. I would say that it's part of the system 1 and 2 of how we think. System 1 is instinctual, it acts directly but does not think as we think it does, it only uses previously known information. It then feeds new information to system 2 which "thinks" about it and organize new information into new ideas combined with old information, that we then act upon in system 1. So when people encountered something they couldn't explain, they most likely reacted with system 1 and without any other information, they let system 2 make up an explanation to why that was.

This is why historians reason that the first religions were smaller, village-based religions which differed around the same concepts such as floods, thunder, famine etc. The larger religions and pantheons then evolved when trade-routes were formed between these villages, like a "sticky boulder" which rolled through the land, collecting bits and pieces of different spiritual and religious ideas and formed a larger narrative, which took over. So each of the larger religions throughout history started off with small fragments of smaller ones.

In essence, it's easy to understand why religion and spirituality formed because it always forms within people who try to understand something unknown without the right tools to do it outside of their own mind. It's taken us over ten thousand years to reach a point where we have scientific methods to figure out something without influencing it with our own fantasies.

You must have a very wide social circle to be able to make this claim. — Sir2u

No, it's about being observant to the behavior and opinions of common people around you. If you want to know more about how things are being discussed outside of your own small group of friends and relatives you need to act like an anthropologist and really look and listen to how people are.

And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution. — Sir2u

I already told you the realistic route of action. Stop acting naive.

Is gun control a philosophical topic? That sounds really weird to me. I thought it was a social problem that we were discussing possible solutions to. Exactly how does it qualify as a philosophical topic? — Sir2u

Philosophy of ethics and justice.

Just because people do not want to talk about philosophy at a party in no way proves that they don't have the tools to understand the issues. — Sir2u

Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic? Most discussions about sensitive topics always end up in brawls with each side always saying their opinion and no one reaching a higher level of understanding. It's exactly because of the lack of dialectic tools. But you don't seem to know much about these things?

Who is this "us"? I don't and I am reasonably sure that the majority of posters here do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I spend most of my time trying to sort out my own problems and have spent a minimum of time and effort on the issues of the world. What have you done to solve the problems of hunger in Africa, child labor in Indonesia or slave traders in Europe? — Sir2u

No, you are certainly not a philosopher, that's for sure. But you can study philosophy on your own in order to handle problems in a better way. Like, not acting as you do with the last sentence of that paragraph. Why do you think philosophers are now being hired, at a higher rate, to companies and businesses who need to make choices that affect people? Entertain the thought and the causality from that.

Before you can teach, you have to know. Which is the top of the list for jobs available for people with a philosophy degree. I have not been able to find any information about how many philosophers are actually hired as consultants but there does not seem to be much of a need for philosophy graduates in that area.
If you can please post a link to the information about that I would be thankful. — Sir2u

It might be more evident in my country, but here are some hints
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/mark-cuban-philosophy-degree-will-be-worth-more-than-computer-science.html
https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy

Philosophy is more about how you think about problems, not direct solutions to problems. What's the point of hiring someone who has the answers to current problems if they cannot solve new ones further down the road?

How can a question be naive? The person asking it maybe, although not in this case, but the question cannot be naive. — Sir2u

Of course a question can be naive, like asking what someone is doing with his philosophy to solve an entire continent of poverty. How is that not naive, blunt and fallacy-ridden?

So basically you, a self proclaimed philosopher, has no solution to the problem that has not already been discussed on this thread. All of the tools you say you have are just as useless as the ones the coffee drinking common people have. — Sir2u

I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. You're acting like a child right now and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion when you seem incapable of being humble.

But there is probably one thing that the common people have that you don't, a better understanding of how things affect them. Sitting high on a mountain looking at you belly button might make you a better philosopher, but until you get down in the streets you will not understand the problems you are trying to solve. — Sir2u

You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging?

I think I gave you the most realistic answer. Educate and turn people in a democracy towards wanting strict gun laws. You can't do much else. One thing to start with would be to force news and media to be objective, so that bought private companies won't spread misinformation that's supportive of a gun lobby agenda.

Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. — Sir2u

Common people do not discuss these issues on a philosophy forum or try to figure out the truth about the world and existence. They want to drink Starbucks coffee and enjoy some evening entertainment or sport on TV. I'm not criticizing this (although I think people should care a bit more about truth), I'm only stating the facts of how the world is. Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric.

It's actually us, philosophers and people who've been putting a lot of effort and thought into the issues of this world, who will be the ones educating other people on these issues. Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces?

How long do you estimate until that happens? — Sir2u

That's a bit of a naive question. It's time when it's time when people want it. Just look at how people have started waking up to the facts because of all the rapports of mass shootings. Or it can go in the other direction. For US, I think the problem is fundamental in US history and culture, so I don't think it's gonna happen anywhere but the most progressive states.

It starts with the people. If you want a solution, figure out how you can convince one single gun owner to give up their guns for the greater good. If you can't convince a single one, you won't be able to push a whole nation.

I really don't see a problem with finding out what to do. The data is clear that strict gun laws and quality of life/politeness go hand in hand. There's pretty much grad school psychology to understand the mechanics of what guns do in people's hands, especially if a societies culture is "keep enemies out of my parameter or else...".

You're right in that it's harder to enforce the laws, but that's dependent on how the fundamental mentality of the people is. The solution will be, in places like the US, to either force people to follow the rules, or accept that the risk of mass shootings, school shootings, high violent crime and individual isolation out of fear of strangers is the norm. You either enforce laws or you don't, it depends on what the people want in a democracy.

Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. Only at the right time can politicians enforce more strict gun laws without enraging half the country.

Just compare societies with low gun control and societies with high gun control - And then compare that to the statistics of best places to live in the world.

Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth?

What do all belief have in common that makes them belief?

I've explained the issue clearly. You have no criterion for what counts as belief. You are talking about the ground for belief, not the belief itself.

The question above needs answered. — creativesoul

The question doesn't make sense really. Belief is the ideas in your head about the world around you. They are either supported by something or they are fantasies and delusions.

You are not asking a question, you want your own answer and your question does in no way affect my argument.

The parenthetical content above highlights a flaw.

That is, you've given two kinds of belief. You've explained which kind qualifies as which. Unsupported belief... and all belief that is not unsupported.

Two kinds of belief.

I am asking what makes them all belief. — creativesoul

If that is your problem with the argument, then you simply don't understand the definitions I've given. There's no problem with having them split like that, why would that be a problem?

First, please edit your posts instead of spamming them, just a tip. Gets a bit fragmented otherwise.

That is, you've given two kinds of belief. You've explained which kind qualifies as which. Unsupported belief... and all belief that is not unsupported.

Two kinds of belief.

I am asking what makes them all belief. What do all belief have in common that make them what they are, such that whenever anything has this commonality... it too... is a kind of belief. You've enumerated and explained a plethora of ways that they are different beliefs. You've yet to have delivered a clear cut easy to understand criterion for what counts as being a belief. — creativesoul

I get your point, but I think you are fragmenting belief into the concept's smallest parts. Some of them can be categorized as unsupported, some as supported. If you look at their definitions you'll know where they belong. How I define it is based on a scale of support in which your examples can be fitted. My argument doesn't change if you have a specific belief, since by defining it specifically you know where its at.

Type A-C is the scale that the argument is built upon. Type A being unsupported, i.e all types of belief which have nothing but what you subjectively think about something or information that has as less support as your own thoughts. Meaning if someone communicated their unsupported belief to you and you just take it for granted without backing it up, you adapt that unsupported belief. You can fit whatever type of belief you define as being unsupported by external data, into Type A. This type also handles belief like truth.
Type B is everything that has some external support. You have data, at least some data that makes your belief probable, but you know that it is belief and are careful to not treat it as truth. You can act on it with caution, because you know there's a probability you are wrong. You know it is a belief.
Type C is a scientific belief, i.e hypothesis. Meaning it has enough support in facts to have a high probability of being true in some sense but is just a hypothesis to be tested. Going beyond this you have truth and not a belief anymore.

I'm not sure how this isn't clear cut?
Type A = backed up by nothing, considered true.
Type B = backed up some data/facts, considered belief, not truth.
Type C = backed up by a lot of data and facts, considered a hypothesis, probably true, but not yet proven. (requires a lot of research).

Belief is prior to language. — creativesoul

Not sure what you are referring to here, but if you are talking about having no language and a belief before learning a language, you are talking about a moral landscape that doesn't exist in society or as a society. Essentially you try to counter my moral theory of belief with an example of a society that does not exist. Without language, you have no society, without language, you cannot advance knowledge, meaning, if we are to define it by the belief-types, such a belief is definitely Type A and it will stay there until a language is formed, society is formed and knowledge is gathered and increased. But such a society does not exist and it's irrelevant to the moral theory since ethics are closely linked to society and culture. You cannot have morality if you don't have language since you have nothing to define actions with. Without society, culture and communication you don't have ethics.

Well grounded belief is as well. — creativesoul

Type B, supported belief, if this is a belief that's backed up with some evidence. Might even be Type C depending on the level of evidence. But still within the realm of supported belief and not Type A.

True belief is as well. — creativesoul

Are you referring to justified true belief? That's debunked through Gettier problems. A true belief that is accidentally true is Type A. Doesn't matter if it's true if there's no link to actual knowledge. Accepting that some beliefs might be true, without anything to support it, is groundwork for disaster and that's why I pointed out the probability of such belief to have negative outcomes. What's even worse is that "true belief" is used as some kind of defense for those who try to argue for their unsupported beliefs, by fallaciously argue that their belief might be true and therefore be true belief. So, definitely Type A.

What are your thoughts regarding these claims? — creativesoul

I think you aren't really looking into what I actually present in my argument. Why is the Type-scale not working for you? What is unclear about its definition?

but just extending the time doesn't help much. — Rank Amateur

That's a dismissive simplification of everything.

after proved false or unreasonable is still better. — Rank Amateur

No, your belief is still unsupported before any kind of support backs it up. If you prove it false, it's not unsupported, it's purely delusional.

The point being that unsupported does not mean true or not true, fact or not fact, reasonable or unreasonable - it just means unsupported. — Rank Amateur

And my premises support that there's a higher risk of distorting knowledge and of unreasonable acts because of it. That is just a fact of probability on how unsupported belief works, agreed? In what way would supported belief have a higher probability of doing the same things?

And some unsupported ideas will lead to good things an some to bad and some to neutral. — Rank Amateur

Not if the unsupported belief is turned into believed truths, which is often the case when people believe something long enough. Distorted knowledge is always bad since it's in the way of truth. Compare unsupported belief to supported, which has the highest probability of reaching good things more than the other. There's no question that unsupported belief is worse than supported. I don't really need to make the argument for that probability to be true, right? With how history has been shaped by unsupported belief, the suffering and terror because of it, I don't think anyone can really argue for the value of unsupported belief. What I'm arguing for is that it's morally wrong to even have this as a personal belief, since it eventually leads to projecting that personal belief into the world and distorting knowledge.

I don't see the link you are trying to make - sorry. — Rank Amateur

I think you think you found a big hole and because of it, you dismiss everything. I think that there's a clear definition of what "holding on to unsupported belief" really is and I've made examples of this in my argument. Now you are sort of straw-manning things and stretching it to say that "unsupported belief" doesn't have a timeframe and therefore false. It clearly has a timeframe, as I described in numerous examples.

I've answered the previous concerns you had and now it just feels like you are trying a little too hard with this point, even though its pretty defined. But I can actually redefine this more clearly:

Belief is something you have for a longer period of time. An idea is something you have in an instance. Unsupported belief is therefore not a precursor to supported belief, it is its own thing. Supported belief and unsupported belief starts with an idea, but unsupported belief is settling on that idea without any support for it, while supported belief is doing a rational induction on it to come to a conclusion that is at least reasonable and probable.

That would at least make it much more defined if that's what you felt was lacking.

You were going to well until that part. :razz: (I'm a fan of most blockbusters, and not so much of a fan of the typical Criterion Collection sort of fare) — Terrapin Station

I'm talking about what generally is considered about movies. If you have unlimited freedom you can do whatever you want but that rarely focus your creative mind to think since you can do whatever you want. Restricted budgets force you to make choices and think around problems, which makes you figure out new ideas instead of falling back on comfort.

But this decision is always reversible. There is no enforcement of the authority that you don't do yourself. — Echarmion

Enforcement and authority are not essentially really the same thing.

This doesn't seem to change the fact that written down schedules are memory aids and what actually determines my actions is my decision to follow the schedule in my head. — Echarmion

So is a decision to give authority to someone else. You can give authority over your scheduling time to an assistant, lots of people do that and then they follow it. I think you are a bit too semantic about this, I'm talking about the psychological mechanisms and how they make you feel, not what a scheduling calendar really is.

That's seems a rather odd approach to the topic, considering this is a philosophy forum. — Echarmion

The topic is a question about why to feel in a certain way because of it, it's very much a question of psychology. Opinions are irrelevant if there's science behind it.

Amnesia is a special case because it raises the question whether or not the person making the schedule and the person following it are actually the same person. — Echarmion

Yes, but that's really the point. What's the difference if you don't remember the reasons you planned for and if you know them?

Have you read previous posts in this dialectic? Maybe you find answers there. I've written in detail about this numerous times in this thread.

In essence belief (outside of unsupported belief which is just emotional ideas conceptualized out of chaotic memory) is a posteriori out of facts.

You might need to explain your question better if you want another answer.

I'm getting off topic, but I just want to chime in that there are other reasons for (doing things by) schedules and lists, including it aiding in maximizing variety (while it can also avoid too much arbitrariness at the same time), helping one remember things to aid in time management/efficiency, etc. It's more like a tool in those situations than an authority. — Terrapin Station

True, I was just going by the question of why it feels that you are "free" when you give up freedom to restrictions through your own schedule.

There's, of course, another reason that can be interpreted by the question. And it comes back to Sartre as well. If you are free to have unlimited choices, that's overwhelming for the mind to quantify, but limiting choices down and following them organize and structure your mind around the idea of choice as it limits them. You then only have the choice of doing the things or not doing the things you have written down.

All depends on how you interpret the question. A broader look is about giving authority over your time to something else that you follow, the other is the psychological effect unlimited freedom has on us.

It's also why creative people feel they are freer to create when there are restrictions, why many big blockbuster movies feel soulless and smaller movies with restricted budgets more creative.

A schedule is not an external authority though. But even if we go with the AI example: if the AI functions like you programmed it to do, how is that result not in accordance with your will? — Echarmion

Because you give up the responsibility of handling authority over yourself, to that of an external thing/person. (you can read more in the longer post above)

Are you saying I cannot keep mental track of an exact schedule? That seems absurd. Writing it down might help my memory, but would not change the fact that when I act in accordance with the schedule, it's the mental representation of that schedule, not the piece of paper, that generates those thoughts. — Echarmion

Memory is very lucid, it's why witnesses can never be taken as factual in court cases, especially over a longer period of time. If you have two things to do the coming week, sure, but if you have 10 things per day to do at specific times, good luck, would you want that responsibility of keeping track or give that responsibility to something else that can have authority over your week?

Even if it's your decisions you write down I'm speaking of the mechanics of why you feel freedom in giving up the responsibility of what to do.

Think about this: You schedule your coming three months, but then experience an accident that gives you amnesia. You cannot remember anything of what you were supposed to do or why and in order not to fall behind you try and stay on schedule. You are unsure of why you do some of the stuff, but you trust it and it gives you comfort over trying to figure out what to do. Who's the authority here? What if the things on the schedule were things you didn't agree with after amnesia set in? But you still know there are reasons for them and you need to do them.

Your post comes off as very condescending, I don't mind arguing with people but in my experience, it's not very productive discuss things with people who look down on you but perhaps it wasn't your intention. — Judaka

And yours didn't? Go back and read your answer to my post, its close to a fallacy-riddled interpretation of the writing I did instead of trying a more linguistic pragmatic approach before acting like the ideas are beneath you.

It is also concerning to talk to people who seem ignorant of the possibilities for valid alternative interpretations. The Milgram experiment hardly showed that people crave authority, it just showed that people have a proclivity towards obedience in the context provided in the experiment. It doesn't weaken your position but I'm not sure how you think it helps it either. — Judaka

Stop using terms like "ignorant" in such an arrogant way if you at the same time complain about the tone of someone else. A little self-awareness would help.

The Milgram experiment is one of many about authority vs individuality, but it's one of the most famous to show how authority isn't something we can easily spot when we are under the veil of its rule. But it also pointed out how we lean back more when someone is calling the shots, the pressure of choice is reduced, which is why when the variations of the study and the replications of the study were made, they could see how the level of obedience lessened and heightened by the level in which the authority called the shots. If the authority person pointed out that the study "demands them to comply" that "it's not their responsibility", the obedience increased. This behavior is attached to their sense of agency of what they are doing, the more responsible and controlling the authority is, the more obedient they got, i.e the less they acted out on their own free will and even continued past just doing what they were told.

This is closely related to how we are formed by our parent-child relations when growing up and how we view that as a comforting authority, in which when there's a problem our parents would take care of us and guide us. Without such authority, all choices are your own and so is the responsibility, which makes many lean towards authority figures who guide them and "saves" them from that freedom of choice and responsibility.

You are correcting a confusion that never existed, I was not meaning to imply that your views were strange because you thought a schedule was literally an authority that ruled over someone. I don't think it even reads like I implied that - if that is indeed the only criticism you have of my comment. I don't know since you didn't say anything except emphasising "like".

I just don't agree that people feel a tranquillity due to not having the pressure of freedom. I don't know the basis for this claim and what's what I was asking for. — Judaka

So Sartre was wrong according to you?

Let's see if we can make an argument out of it, based on a mentally healthy person:

p1 Freedom in choice always leads to thoughts of responsibility
p2 Responsibility always requires conscious effort and energy
p3 Biologically we are always trying to conserve energy
p4 Conserving energy always leads to taking the path of least resistance.
p5 Responsibility is not a path of least resistance.
p6 Giving away choice always means giving away the responsibility of that choice

Therefore, freedom in choice requires energy in order to think responsibly about the choices and because we strive for conserving energy we seek comfort in paths of least resistance, which we don't find in responsibility, but rather in giving up choice and responsibility to others.

Think about authority figures in your own life. If you would have to make a choice for everything around you, that kind of freedom will soon crush you under the weight of its sheer magnitude. You always give away choices in order to find the path of least resistance, you give others the choices you could have made as long as it doesn't affect you in a bad way. You don't choose what to choose, you only choose when the responsibility is or isn't something you want to give away.

If you think about the topic in this thread and ask yourself. Do you want the responsibility to keep track of every scheduled event the coming week in your head, or would you give that away? Even if a kalender is a physical thing and not a person, it still acts as an authority. You give it information and then let you be controlled by it. Essentially it works as an authority who controls your week and because you don't have to be responsible for holding every piece of information in your head, you feel comfortable in giving it up. Imagine if it was a person, you have an assistant that keeps track of everything and you give authority to them to handle your schedule and you trust them. They could intentionally screw things up for you and they have more control than you think because you gave them that power, that authority to plan and schedule for you.

So in the case of authoritarian regimes. Part of the reason people accept totalitarian authority is that they give up the responsibility of how the country is run, they trust their leader because its comforting. Its the same in religion, you give up authority over yourself to a God or institute in order for the comfort of following a path rather than creating your own.

But since the authority is derived from your own authority, doesn't that mean that it's your will that has authority? And if it's your will that has authority, doesn't that make you free? — Echarmion

When you have created an external authority, do you have will over it? If you create an AI that rules over you, it is not you who rules over you, it's your creation.

If you crave ice cream but have a rule against eating ice cream, is freedom following your craving or resisting it? I would say being able to resist makes you more free, not less. — Echarmion

If you write down rules that you must follow, that list of rules has authority over you. Freedom would be to choose whatever you want outside of that list. What I mean is that if you externalize something, it is more than general thoughts bouncing together to form a decision. If you write down exactly what to do over the course of a week, down to the very time to do it and set an alarm to prompt you by it, you can essentially forget everything and let the external thing that govern your week and this is what feels liberating.

Try to hold on to the same thing without externalize it, you wouldn't be able to, since you include the schedule within the thoughts evaluating them.

Where are you getting your information? Authoritative governments rise to power easily because people want to be ruled over? That's a first for me. — Judaka

This is about freedom/authority if you want to go through all aspects of why authoritarian governments rise to power its a much longer post and not about the subject. I suspect that you have the ability to distinguish the specific topic we are discussing and the whole topic of authoritarian governments rising to power?
Of course, there's more to it, but the psychology of how we let authorities begin to rule over us has a foundation in psychology. I think you already know about the Milgram experiment for example?

Most people schedule because it's necessary not because they dislike freedom... Another claim I'm tempted to criticise harshly but if you had anything to back it up I'd like to see. — Judaka

Are you intentionally misunderstanding? Let me break down what I wrote so that you can understand it better

A schedule is like an authority that you invent. You (unintentionally) form its rule over you and when you are (unintentionally) ruled under it you feel that sense of tranquility with not having the pressure of freedom.

It's not a conscious intention to do it, it's the unconscious reality of what it is doing to us.

I really just don't see any of this... — Judaka

Maybe study some psychology and you will understand what I'm talking about.

A computer can create, just as a monkey can, but is what it creates art? Art is virtually impossible to define as it's so subjective, — Tim3003

As I defined it

Art needs to be a creation with intended communication of something.
It then needs to be combined with a receiver (viewer) of that communication.
The communicated message goes through interpretation by the receiver and the combined event between the communicator and receiver through that art is how I define what art is in its most fundamental form. — Christoffer

It doesn't matter if the art is modified and later perceived in the wrong way. Just as Greek statues are collectively considered white marble, they were originally painted (in comparison looked quite ridiculous to the monolithic nature of how they look now), but the fundamental truth is still that they were created by an artist with intention and the receiver interprets the art. If there is no art-intentional agent, there is no art. If anything and everything can be considered art, then everything is art and it loses its specificity in language.

As I also mentioned, an A.I that creates art must be its own art-intention agent, it cannot be programmed to follow rules, it must be able to interpret reality and mix them with subjective thought. An algorithm cannot do this, it is programmed and has no idea of what it is doing. If the computer subjectively knows it creates art, it does so with intention, otherwise its the one programming the computer who did the art through algorithmic randomness. But if a computer reaches the level of doing art by how we define humans doing art, they will need to be treated as artists and individuals of those thoughts.

There are strong observations in psychology and sociology about how we crave authority. Sartre was true in his idea about not being blessed by freedom and makes a strong case for having authority over ourselves, but as it turns out, this freedom can in many cases push people, especially those with a weaker mindset, to crave authority, wanting to live under it. This is why it's so easy for authoritarian figures to rise to power, people want a leader, someone who guides them, a parent figure when they've reached unlimited freedom.

A schedule is like an authority that you invent. You form its rule over you and when you are ruled under it you feel that sense of tranquility with not having the pressure of freedom.

It's unfortunate that our mind is the most self-delusional piece of thinking equipment we have as a being. We must always think beyond ourselves to see truths and the truth is that we want freedom and when having it we want to be ruled. A contradiction between our intellectual ideas and our emotional inner life.

In my belief-argument (another thread) I mention three types (A, B and C). A, being an unsupported belief, irrational, based on nothing more than the personal fantasy surrounding it. B, being supported belief which is essentially a posteriori, an induction based on facts you know, carefully measured to the best of the ability you have within a normal day to day life; a way of thinking that minimize subjective distortion of the idea you have. C, a scientific hypothesis, supported more by facts and observations than type B, but not enough to yet be called a proven scientific theory.

As per the last part of the dialectic between me and Rank, it's clear that it's important to mention that everyone has a belief that is unsupported in the beginning, or rather, everyone has a thought that needs verification. The key is that unsupported belief, as I'm referring to, isn't about the thought process to reach supported belief, but the end in itself. If you hold on to unsupported belief and never push it towards supported belief by verification and falsification, you act and live by that unsupported belief.

In essence, it's like this.
Type A is looking at a door to a room and thinking there's something in there, you are even convinced it's a brightly lit room with a white armchair, maybe even a person in it. You have nothing to support the idea but you are pretty sure that's what's in the room.
Type B is opening the door to see that there's a dark wooden table with a blue vase and a red rose in it. You conclude that this is the case, but you also noticed the room was pretty darkly lit and you might have gotten the colors wrong. You are careful to conclude every fact as true, but you are pretty sure the basic truth is at least a somewhat darkly wooden table with a vase, maybe blue and a red rose in it, probably red because you have knowledge about common roses and it's a greater probability it's red you saw. You draw an inductive conclusion based on all of it.
Type C is getting 50 people, everyone goes into the room one by one and examines the table, vase and rose. When each comes out, they write down all the observations they have about the content in the room, without interaction with any of the other 50. You also enter and you use your own observation and the 50 people's gathered data/observations to conclude that there is, in fact, a dark wooden table, a greenish cyan-colored vase with a red rose with a few dark spots on its green leaves. The light in the room was dark, but in tungsten kelvin, which would affect the color perception of the objects based on the difference with light outside the room, you write this observation down as well and look for other observations from the 50 people which supports this and from those that prove against it. Your conclusion is a scientific hypothesis until you can photograph the content of the room to make a definitive scientific truth about what's in there.

Now, if the different types were to interact with the world about what was in the room, Type A would spread downright fantasies about it, even distort their own fantasy further, changing colors on the white chair and that the person was blond or dark-haired, but always unsupported by any observation. Type B would point out exactly what was in the room but would note at the same time that it was unclear exactly what color the vase had, maybe blue. Type C would have a detailed report which would need confirmation by measurement to reach a scientific theory, but is as close as possible to the truth you can be without a priori data.

You agree that " supported" beliefs start as unsupported beliefs. This simple acknowledgement of fact is by definition in conflict with your premise — Rank Amateur

I think you misunderstand what I meant there. Your comment was that every belief is unsupported in the beginning and this is true; whenever we have an idea, it does not come into our minds with a support attached to it. However, if you hold on to this belief, this unsupported belief, without going further, you are acting upon that belief and act out uninformed acts.

No they often lead to "supported beliefs" after proper evaluation - you can not have one without the other. — Rank Amateur

Do you think that if the premise is changed to: "Holding on to unsupported belief always leads to uninformed acts" is more clear then?

I am not sure you can bridge this logic flaw in the argument. No idea starts as a supported idea, the support follows. My suggestion is you would need to eliminate the idea of "unsupported" and insert , false or disproved. Which is where I think you are intellectually, IMO you equate "unproven" with false, which they are not. — Rank Amateur

But the explanation is clear about it, if you hold on to unsupported belief you will act out on it, but if you challenge the unsupported belief you either rule it false or find support. I think you are trying to shoehorn in that it's a logical flaw when it really isn't, seems more like it's a misunderstanding because of how the premise is phrased without clarity of what it refers to. But the above change covers it.

Why should fantasy and facts be mixed up in order to make people think? Truth and fantasy should be clearly separated. What was the question?

And conspiracy theories is in my opinion pseudo-intellectualism at its worst.