The problem of evil is what you're asking after. And anyone who says they've figured it out is wrong.

For this reason, Nirvāṇa is frequently, but erroneously, interpreted as non-existence, oblivion or non-being; this seems to have been how it was understood by the early European interpreters including Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. — Wayfarer

You'll have to point me to where Schopenhauer distinguishes between non-existence and non-being, lol.

What lots of people do doesn't equate to purpose.

Purpose is the essence of Life. The purpose is to create, observe, learn, and evolve. To have fun. — Rich

You'll have to explain this further.

What's north of the north pole is technically space, the final frontier.

Future scene of TL before she dies:

It is impossible to feel anxiety now; I have encountered numerous difficulties since then and I have had nothing affect me because I have formed a permanent environment for myself that will ensure this peace, just as much as I am now flexible and fluid enough to work with the ebb and flow both with positive and negatives, meaning that when I encounter a bad experience, I work at resolving it and not getting anxious about it. Sorry, buddy, but this peace is permanent and I know that from experience. — TimeLine

Wait, wait, wait - if you get kidnapped, taken to an abandoned warehouse, get hooked to the ceiling like the carcass of a dead animal, where you then have to watch as someone takes a jagged meat cleaver and disembowels you - you won't feel anxious? You'll be smiling and laughing and preaching to the serial killer how permanently at peace you are? Your palms won't be shaking or sweating, your brain won't be in a tangled, panic-induced hysteria?

Sorry, bish, but you're fulla shit.

No, anxiety isn't necessarily the cause of panic attacks, it can also be a symptom if the panic attack occurs seemingly randomly, in a person who does not suffer from an anxiety condition. — Agustino

One can suffer from anxiety, such as a panic attack, without being subject to having an anxiety disorder. It's the same as someone who can be depressed and not suffer from capital d Depression.

Of course one can be anxious without having a panic attack, but a panic attack is a condition of anxiety. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU doesn't seem to be aware that anxiety and panic attacks are classified as different medical conditions — Agustino

?

Merely because a panic attack is its own medical condition doesn't mean it's not caused by anxiety.

Where does he write that he doesn't agree with that?

Every panic attack is a moment of anxiety, but not every moment of anxiety is a panic attack. If you've never felt the difference between a panic attack and less acute anxiety, you probably won't understand why "idiot doctors" have made such a dichotomy.

I challenge anyone to listen, fully, without distraction or interruption, to the full 20 or so minutes of music I just posted, before responding. — Noble Dust

Strange selection of music you linked. Of the three I only like Meshuggah.

Is it the nostalgia that's beautiful? — TimeLine

Must be, as there's not a lot of musicality going on in the song you linked.

It depends on the situation, I think. — czahar

Words in themselves aren't violent, though. Certainly the situation in which misuse of pronouns occurs depends on who is misusing the pronouns and why, but that still doesn't make the misuse violent.

No, but it'd be rude.

Even those terms have seen backlash for being disrespectful, even though they're true, just as Haiti being a shithole is true.

Trump has been in a lose-lose situation with the media for a long time. He could do everything right and still get shit. Just the way things will be.

Given the troubles you have had with moderation in the past, I'm surprised you would say that.

Although I find the positions Pseudonym has expressed in this discussion poorly argued and morally suspect, I have no question he should be allowed to make them on this forum. — T Clark

This forum isn't a shelter for every nutcase who fumbles through its doors. If Pseudonym wants to peddle his thinly veiled fascism, he ought to go here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism/

Personally, I think we should limit faith schools and discourage religious attitudes by rational debate, if that makes me a fascist, irrational zealot then there's clearly no place for contrary opinions here. — Pseudonym

You can spew nonsense all you like, but I won't be entertaining your idiocy any longer than I already have. And if the moderators here want to be consistent in upholding the forum's guidelines, fascist views like yours ought to be a ban worthy offense.

So what I'm saying is that by failing to act in such a way as to discourage religion, you are expressing your sincere belief that it is at least OK to have religion in the world. You're not withholding judgement, nor being agnostic on the subject. Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it. — Pseudonym

You're gonna have to explain your understanding of deontology with regard to the discouraging of religion before this makes any coherent sense.

To put it another way, we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences? — Pseudonym

Who is we? If you're an American, there's something called the First Amendment - do you know it?

How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? No answer can claim to be more agnostic than any other, each person answering can do so with great hubris or with great humility, what they think the answer is has no bearing on the extent to which they consider themselves to be right. — Pseudonym

I'd find it hard to believe that anyone here has suggested that the allowance of religion in society comes without any strings attached. If you've looked up the First Amendment of the US Constitution, then take a gander at the Fifth Amendment - it ought to clarify what freedom of religion means in a free and civilized Western democracy like the United States of 'Murica.

Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. But instead of our detractors being fine with that and accepting that we're also intelligent people looking a complex, mixed picture, I'm told that I'm actually irrational, that no rational person could possibly reach that conclusion, only a zealot as bad as ISIS could possibly reach such a conclusion. — Pseudonym

You are claiming here that religion is more bad than good, so please provide me with a response that shows me why you think this. A simple, utilitarian list of pros and cons will do.

What does one do if one's belief leads to a conclusion where the uncertainty is very high (my theory is shaky at best), but the consequences of being right and not doing anything about is are really severe? — Pseudonym

I dunno, you tell me. On the severity of inaction, I think we both would agree that radical Islam, for example, has no place in civilized Western society and so should be thwarted, but you seem to be lumping Jihadi John in with Methodist Matthew, which is what I find to be so patently absurd with your comments here. The overwhelmingly vast majority of religious practice that goes on around the world does align itself with civilized, Western society and its principles, which is why I do not agree that we ought to discourage the lawful protection of those who practice their religion. You can holler in the street and peacefully protest and discourage religion all you want, but the moment you try and take away the right to religion, you have gone too far.

It is possible that religion is harmful to society. — Pseudonym

It is possible that my dick fell off in the shower this morning, too.

Someone could theoretically believe this with great hubris, convinced they are right, or with great humility, accepting they could well be wrong, but nonetheless concluding so on the balance of evidence. The nature of their conclusion does not in any way necessitate the degree to which they believe it. — Pseudonym

Okay. I better go to the doctor, then.

Inaction has no less consequence on the world than action, it is no less a response to one's beliefs and can be carried out (if that's the right word) either with great conviction, or with great doubt. — Pseudonym

Yes, just as dozens of Saudi terrorists flew planes into two skyscrapers employing the very same appeals to "duty" and "conviction" as you now are doing here.

It follows from 1-3 that any moral agent must make a decision about how to act (or refrain from taking action) in the face of their belief about the degree of harm/benefit religion causes society. — Pseudonym

Join me in the cockpit, will you? Let's do this.

It is possible to ban all religious activity in public (no-one mentioned anything about private beliefs or private religious worship). It is possible to make religious activity mandatory. — Pseudonym

I refer you back to the First Amendment.............

People, by the collected effect of their individual actions, are responsible for the laws and customs of their society. — Pseudonym

But not you, seeing as just about everything you've been saying in this thread flies in the face of the civilized principles that guide Western civilization to be different from the North Koreas and Saudi Arabias of the world.

It follows from 6 that the decision one must make about one's actions in response to one's belief about the harms/benefit religion causes society will involve a decision about how much religious practice society should tolerate (by which I mean the individual exercising the small part they play in the adjusting the direction of societal laws and customs). It follows from 5 that the range of options any moral agent has to choose from with regards to the direction they wish to exercise their small influence in ranges from "none" (no public religious practices at all) to "loads" (mandatory religious practices) — Pseudonym

Now you're attempting to veer away from discouraging religion in general to discouraging "public religious practices", whatever that means. I honestly think that you're subconsciously backtracking from a position you know on some level is retarded.

1. No-one is withholding judgement, everyone has made a decision (at least for the time being) to either act to push society in a different direction, or not act and so leave society as it is, in this regard. — Pseudonym

Pushing society in the direction that you want it to be pushed would entail the ripping apart of what has enabled Western civilization to flourish. If this discussion is pinned upon the veneer of deontology as I think it is, then I very much think it my duty to speak out against fascist-like loons like yourself.

The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision. — Pseudonym

A > B = B < A.

Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros? — Pseudonym

Religions have, at best, had a mixed consequence on the world — Pseudonym

Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. — Pseudonym

I'm sorry, as JSG has pointed out above I have mentioned the my personal view once, please accept my apologies for not noticing. The whole thrust of my argument really has nothing to do with my personal life answer and in all the long posts I had forgotten that I had mentioned it. — Pseudonym

What is your argument, then?

We are talking about failed states and their reasons. — apokrisis

Haiti has failed, and much of their failure is down to their own people failing to run their country well at all. Your sources support this, so perhaps you should reread what you linked.

You could swap "kiss me" with "blow me" and you'd still be taking a gamble if you're unsure about the other person's will.

Women generally don't want weak partners. — Akanthinos

In my experience it's more about women, and men, not wanting their other partner to be more powerful than they are. So, the concern ought to be about equity, not equality.

Haiti was a shithole, then France came, after which Haitians revolted, who proceeded to muck things up even more all by themselves.

You seem to be one of those people who imagines precolonial life in countries like Haiti to be paradises without problems. Have I the right of it or no?

lol? The links you provide prove the opposite of your argument. >:O >:O >:O

So the question is, what does someone do when their deeply held conviction is not the neat status quo theory you espouse, what if they believe that religion has, in fact, harmed society and continues to do so, but they (like any good philosopher) recognise that they very much might be wrong about that. — Pseudonym

I've not been convinced by anything you've said on the matter at hand, so I'd say it's on you to do a better job at that. You've suggested that the cons of religion outweigh the pros, but I can't recall you ever parsing such a list. Besides, your argument seems to be a tangent from this thread's OP. Perhaps you could start a new thread about religions' value, as theism and religion aren't mutually inclusive terms.

Schopenhauerians ought to stick together, you know.

Except that civilization owes itself in large part to the "religious gene." We'd have probably died out as a species many thousands of years ago had we not developed a mind for religious thinking. And, the common denominator for bad behavior is human nature, not religions in themselves.

Lots of self-loathing, neutered males in this thread. Gotta love the armchair historians slitting their wrists for the sins of cherry-picked examples that fit the hate spewing agendas of gender feminists.

For me it comes down to what I feel compelled to apologize for. If I'm in a debate with someone and I unintentionally hurt their feelings, I'll likely apologize for making them feel hurt, but I probably won't apologize for thinking that I'm right in my position, only in the way in which I argued. In the event that someone fucks up in ignorance or fear, then that person cannot be entirely in the wrong, unless you put no value in intention.

We all know Buxtebudda would upvote nearly everything Agustino would write.
— Akanthinos
Man Buxtebuddha, these people do seem really confused >:O — Agustino

So new guy thinks we agree on everything, ay? >:O Gods I hope not, I couldn't sleep at night were that the case, ;)

~

Besides, how would a voting system even work on a small forum like this? For large subreddits, it's a necessary evil, in my opinion. The community here is so small that I don't see it necessary like bigger forums where trolling and nonsense is a far bigger issue.

To find love in all things and smile.

If I may give my two cents here,

I was raised in such a way that the thought of touching someone in an inappropriate manner would have been understood by me as being out of line and wrong. I've kept that roundabout instruction with me as I've gotten older and indeed I'd be horrified if I ever thought it wise to inappropriately touch someone. Unless I am messing around with my brother, or perhaps if I were married or in a romantic relationship, everyone else is off-limits with regard to any touching outside of a hand on the shoulder or an air-kiss on the cheek in greeting or goodbye.

In other words, I keep my hands in my pockets unless it is safe for me to offer a hug or a kiss or a comforting hand on a colleague or loved one's arm, leg, or shoulder. In civilized society, this sort of bodily respect ought to be an unwritten rule, as what follows from bodily respect is emotional and intellectual respect, too.

I just want to say that I every time I glance at the the read title I read, "Cannibalism is impossible."

I doubt these me2-people are unable to tell the difference between rape and unwanted sexual advances. — Benkei

Matt Damon would beg to differ, lol.

Not that I have seen. Sidestep as you like, though. *shrug*

Yes, as they all mean different things and you seem to be using a few them interchangeably.

Phenotypical characteristics are superficial and you can find more in common with a person from the other side of the earth who is a different size, shape or colour that you can with your own brother. — charleton

>:O

1. Positive: such rules tell us how to think and act. For example, be kind, love each other, help the poor, etc. In short, do good. — TheMadFool

Which society are you alluding to? I've never heard of this one.

2. Negative: such rules forbid some thoughts and actions. For example, don't kill, don't lie, etc. In short, don't do bad. — TheMadFool

What rules?

The law, if I'm correct, is mostly about type 2 rules (negative rules). Judicial systems don't impose positive rules of society like they do negative rules. — TheMadFool

So how does that fit with this?

1. Positive: such rules tell us how to think and act. For example, be kind, love each other, help the poor, etc. In short, do good. — TheMadFool

Yet, we see so many people engaging in criminal activities and so few involved in practicing the positive rules of society. — TheMadFool

Are you suggesting that those in whatever society you're talking about commit more crimes than they don't?

1. Even in the presence of encouragement to do good and the law not barring such activities we find so few good people. — TheMadFool

What encouragement?

2. Even in the presence of laws preventing bad actions and the discouraging of evil we find so many bad people. — TheMadFool

Laws, criminality, good, bad, evil - what are your definition of terms, here? You appear to be making certain assumptions about the application of several words without disclosing what you mean, so I find it difficult to follow your thesis.

Is a thing a fact? If so, doesn't that make everything things and facts?

Does Witty say that a fact is certain and true?