I already said, by self reflecting and trying to track the two.
Have you ever practiced mindfulness, or meditation? Id recommend first researching how your mental illness or whatever you want to call it, interacts with meditation or mindfulness as there may be dangers, but if its safe then it can really help to parse whats happening in your mind.

...ok.

Well Im not trained in psychology, but I would say that you depsycholigise philosophy by making the distinction between your psychology and your philosophy. Self reflect, And try to figure out where one begins and the other starts, and when/where your psychology is informing ( I almost want to say “corrupting”) your philosophy. Then you will at least know which enemy you are facing, and if philosophy is actually an enemy at all.

Ya, thats just theistic semantics, calling a lack of belief a belief to draw a false equivalence so they can shift the burden of proof. You aren’t doing that, but you are making the same error.
What I think you have a problem with is people who are atheists for bad reasons, and/or who are anti-theists and atheists but fail to make the correct distinction between the two. Those people are just one kind of atheist, and there are all kinds of different atheists...what they have in common is a lack of belief in god/gods, thats it. Thats what defines atheism. You want to change the definition because you do not want to be in the same category as people I imagine you find obnoxious about thier atheism.
Anyway, if I lack a belief in god then the answer to the question “do you believe in god?” Is “no”, correct?

No, I dont think people are naturally ethical on the whole, but Im not sure why thats relevant. What Im trying to get at is how you may be conflating philosophy with those other things, and that not recognising this distinction is at least partially why you feel burdened by philosophy.

Ok, well how do you distinguish between all that and the philosophy? How do you know where the specific sufferings come from? Why do you lay it at philosophies feet?

You suffer from mental illness right? How do you make the distinction between suffering from mental illness, and the suffering from philosophy?
It seems to me that the former informs the latter.

I asked what YOU think atheism means, not anything about atheists you know and how they may or may not describe themselves...or about how you choose to describe them using theistic semantics
I would like a clear, concise definition for atheism from you. Im asking you that because I want to know if I agree with your definition and to keep this from going into the weeds. Please, just give me a short, concise definition without reiterating your problem with some peoples use of the term.
My second question may have been a bit clumsy, so lets just start with my first one. It will be easier to communicate if we keep things short and to the point, dealing with one thing at a time.

You havent demonstrated a very deep understanding of the word, certainly your use of “CLEARLY” Is erroneous here. If it was clear from the epistemology alone you wouldnt need to bring it up. You also fail to justify claims you make, such as that defining atheism as lacking belief in god is an insult to reason and logic. How? Even if you think thats the wrong definition, that doesnt mean its an insult to logic and reason. Anyway, I have some questions if your actually interested in a discussion.
First, you didnt provide a definition of what you think atheism is, so lets hear that.
Also, What is the difference, in your mind, between “being without a god” and “being without a belief in god?”. Im curious to know what being without god would even mean if not being about belief.

He means all the things you necessarily “agree” to by being alive. I think he might even include All the things you might experience aa well, if pressed.

Indeed, you need to shop around for the right person. And try a range of meds and see what works best. My aunt is schizophrenic, and was pretty hopeless about getting better until she found the right meds, but when she did it was a huge increase in well being.

Were you addressing me with that last comment, cuz I didnt mean to say we have “keep going” in our DNA, even though we probably do. I was making a different point altogether though.

Are you getting professional help?

I don’t buy that at all. There are plenty of people “we” don’t need, and plenty of people that are not interdependent on plenty of other people. Also, plenty of people in plenty of different boats.

I suspect there are 2 main reasons people do not want other people to “give up” ( a bit unclear how expansively you mean that).
The first is social conformity. Social creatures like humans have instincts that identify social outliers as weak and therefore a threat to social stability or the tribe. Its the same reason why a pack of wolves will gang up and kill the weak link. Im not saying that someone (you in this case) who chooses to “give up” are weak (You may be, but could also have other reasons for choosing the “give up” method). I just think that the “give up” attitude is triggering the response from others described above, whether that triggered response is accurate or not I do not know.
Second, I think that people naturally see themselves in others, our peers are like mirrors. Since everybody feels like giving up sometimes, they do not like to be reminded of those times of hopelessness or weak moments by someone who hasnt moved on in the same way, or who doesnt seem bothered by such a state the way they were when they felt like giving up.
To sum it up, your decision makes people uncomfortable.

Alright, well you’ve successfully wasted my time so kudos if that was your goal but we are done here.

Thats not an explanation, nor in any way demonstrative of your claim.
I suspect you know this...you bored or something I guess?

You are claiming its true, you have to explain why.

No, you are the one making a claim, its up to you to demonstrate why your claim is true or why we should accept that its true.

The moral reasons they have is not “immigration policy”. Immigration policy is political, its not a strictly moral consideration. I think “they” would consider it a strictly moral issue, ergo when you judge them for not having the same practical mix that you do, you do so with a different standard...the point ive been trying to make is that you need to parse out that distinction for your judgement to be valid. Are you judging them by a strictly moral standard, which is how they are thinking about it, or do you want to measure their strictly moral position by the metric of Whats good for the country? (Whats good for the country may not be moral at all)
Once you parse that then your question answers itself, they obviously pass a moral standard with the former, and obviously fail at the practical consideration needed for an immigration policy.

Im finding it difficult to parse your point here...
It seems like you want to know if the justification they use is valid or not, weighing it against a practical consideration about immigration and border controls. You are mixing metrics though, this is an example of morality vs practicality (including finding a balance between the two) and if you want to say that ignoring the practical consideration is immoral that is different than saying the practical outweighs the moral.
I think you need to make a strong distinction there to focus on what youre after. Thats my take in it so far.

What do you mean by contrasting “moral” and “right” in your question? Is “right” meant to mean “moral”? Or do you intend it to mean something more like practical towards a goal?
In other words, Id like to know if you are asking about competing morals or are you asking about how a moral should be weighed against a non-moral (or immoral) consideration?

You must have meant to respond to someone else.

I don’t know why that was addressed to me. What do you think any of that has to do with anything I’ve said?

Well math isnt something that has always existed. “”Always existed” is problematic, but even without that math is a man made description and/or a modelling structure. I think you might be confusing our description (math for example), with the reality we use something like math to describe or interact with. So that might be a useful distinction to make in your journey.
Im missing the connection between man-made things being problematic and the above, but none the less Im curious. What is it about man made things that is problematic? By what standard could you possibly measure it differently that the horror show that is the natural world doesnt also qualify?

Really, I’m just going on a journey — Brett

Ok. It sounds to me like its taken you towards deterministic ideas, that ideas and actions are already laid out somehow and they are just waiting for you “discover” them (become aware of the casual chains to some degree).

What sort of things? — Brett

Things that are created, like ideas or an iphone. It depends on what catagory of things you are getting at.

It depends on what you mean by “everything”. Some things by their nature cannot exist prior to our Ability to “see” it.
Are you taking a roundabout route to talking about determinism?

Ok. What about it exactly?

Knowledge isnt something that can be discovered, it is something you have as the result discovering something. Knowledge results from discovery, but the thing you are discovering isnt knowledge itself. You find a coin on the ground, and that results in knowledge of the coin. The coin existed before your discovery, but the knowledge only exists once you, the discoverer of the coin, becomes aware (gain knowledge) of the coin.

I described some of what defines TDS in my post to Brett, but Im choosing not to directly answer your charge because A) Its a plain attempt to put words in my mouth and dishonestly control the use of the term TDS and B) I have these little notes to myself regarding people ive interacted with on this forum and yours reads “dishonest and stupid, clarifying questions only, discussion pointless”.
Since you immediately proved my note correct by essentially using a “whoever smelled it dealt it” argument, Ill heed my note. Good day sir.

Again, I think you have it right on the money. Indulging the outrage, leaning into the division with selective reasoning and shamelessly mischaracterising everything Trump says and does are the hallmarks of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). The cherry on top of defining TDS is how unnecessary it is to lie and misrepresent Trump, of all people. Not just letting his actual characteristics speak for themselves they pile on more and more made up or skewed assessments and has the exact opposite intended effect. It empowers him and makes it easier to get away with the shenanigans he DOES actually commit. Every time they exaggerate, every time they lie, every time they act like Trump essentially, they give Trump something to point at and say “see? Fake news” and be 100% correct. It makes him look better to his fans, and has zero effect on those who already hate him.
Another trait Ive noticed with TDS is how Trump voters are viewed. Those suffering from TDS cannot admit, or see, that there is actual logic and coherency to voting for Trump if the voter is operating under certain premises such as the country is so corrupt it has to be burned down and rebuilt, or that only someone who cannot be bought (on account of already having tons of money) can break the status quo or even that a straight talker is whats needed over a mouthy, pandering politician, then a vote for Trump makes sense. I dont think any of those things are true and its clear to me Trump is NOT a straight talker but if I did think those things Then Trump just might be my guy. To someone with TDS its simply the worst people voting for the worst guy cuz they are all just the worst.

I think you’re spot on here. Trump derangement syndrome, like religion, makes even normally smart people into dogmatic morons. No middle ground, no room to discuss anything but black and white, no understanding. Rational discussion is not welcome on the topic of Trump.
I think Trump derangement syndrome infects both sides though, not just his opponents. Maybe ww disagree there?

Am I wrong in my assessment that you do not trust him or his information? Also, what is it about his view you do not understand?

I see. Apologies, I grouped you in where I should not have.

Also, you realise the Russians also spread disinformation from the left as well right? Russia is interested in creating conflict and chaos, internal strife etc, and they troll from and to the left as well as the right. Renee Deresta has good material on this subject, and the “Internet Research Agency” which is the Russian professional service whose goal is to amp up pre-existing animosity.

Ive finally caught up on the thread, and aside from being disappointed in myself for bothering Ive also become curious as to what any of you are getting or hoping to get out of continuing discussion with Nos.
If you truly believe he is a troll, then shame on you for feeding him, right?
If you think him dishonest, putting defence of Trump before truth, then why continue?
If he is ignorant, am I wrong that you all think him hopelessly so? He has proven himself immune to all arguments any of you have put forth...hadnt he? So why continue? What are you getting out of it at this point...just a place to vent and Trump bash with Nos as the piñata? Im genuinely curious.



And to you Nos, the same question. What are you getting out of it at this point? You must realise by now that everything you say including an actual valid point you might make would be ignored or otherwise dismissed out of hand. A troll, a liar, an idiot etc etc. Is what they call you and as far as I can tell precisely what they think you are, to varying degrees.
So what are you getting out of it at this point (im assuming you are not a troll for the sake of this question).

Im not sure the relevance of a). What I see as relevant is what connotation the word has as intended by the user. If an inoffensive word becomes offensive, that doesnt mean we should treat the initial use of the word as offensive. It works the other way too. Take your own extreme example. If later the “N” word comes to mean something nice, and pleasant and is perfectly acceptable then we do not look at its previous usage (ie “those damn “N words” are lower forms of animal life to be subjugated or exterminated”) as acceptable, its still horrible. By the same token, the word “supremacy” is still harmless even if it has come to be used horribly in certain contexts.
For b), I don’t accept that certain words do not belong in a scientific context, only some scientific contexts. To use your example again, someone could be doing a study about social effects of the “N” word, or someone could be doing a study on the use of the word in history etc etc.
Yes, a person could use the “N” word in science (as a name for something as you said) but in that case they are the ones introducing ideology then. (Unless they somehow do not know the words history I suppose).
That is not whats going on with this word “supremacy” though, is it?

You got alot wrong in that so its hard to see where to respond. (Not necessarily your fault, you said I might look at my phrasing as the source of confusion and maybe you are right). Ill try and focus in a bit to avoid getting lost in the weeds here. Also, I realise I responded to something you were saying to Nos, but I did not mean for my comment to be a continuation of what he was saying.

First thing:
The scientists didnt introduce ideology by using the term “supremacy”. The people triggered by that word are the ones introducing ideology by Inserting their notion that the word is a problem into the mix. The original scientists using the term “supremacy” were not using it with any idealogical intention whatsoever. This is not the same as your example with the “N” word, which as far as I know has no other use except in the realm of ideology. (Thus by using it the scientist would be inviting ideology.)

The argument for changing 'supremacy' to something else is precisely that science should be ideologically free because 'supremacy' is considered by those scientists making the argument to be an ideologically loaded term. And if scientists were given free reign to use the words they see fit, they would be given free reign to introduce ideology into science. So, your position here is incoherent. — Baden

Words are not ideology, the freedom to use whatever terms the scientist feels appropriate is not the same as the freedom to introduce ideology into science. The word “supremacy” does not mean “white supremacy”, nor restricted to any other use of the term “supremacy” that might bother somebody. The intent of using the word “supremacy” had nothing to do with race, or whatever other context people might be triggered by.
You have it backwards, restricting the use of a word that makes people uncomfortable when that word was not even being used in the same way that makes those people uncomfortable is whats introducing ideology, not the initial, innocent use of the term.
Further, controlling word usage in this fashion is not harmless, its a wedge for authoritarian control whether its intended that way or not. (Meaning, even if that control is used to combat racism or something by a good actor, it can and will be used by bad actors).

Swearing isnt the issue, its silly to be offended by swear words.
If there is a problem, its rudeness/lack of etiquette.
Take these two sentences:

“Your a good fucking guy Dingo”
And
“You are a worthless waste of everyones time”

The second one contains no swears, yet the first is the harmless statement.

Im comfortable with the information I already have, and put very little stock in such a source anyway. No offence, but I am not interested in this peddling you do about Trump. Just because I recognise someone like Tim Wood has Trump Derangement Syndrome doesnt mean Im open to your own rose tinted take on the guy.