But our minds are private. You can't really get away from that, so if it is a mistake that we think we're our own little dudes, then it's not that surprising, is it?

One can be aware of their own mental states and still profess an attitude of pure realism. How is that? — Posty McPostface

Does a professed attitude really suggest certitude? I don't think so.

Italy has a similarly strange mixing of peoples in the past millennia or two. Arguably more diverse than Britain.

Well for one thing if a solitary artist or thinker produces work that is read by others, that is a form of engagement. On the other hand if we think and feel creatively we interact with a whole society in our thought and feelings, even if we never leave the house. — Janus

Alright, but at some point one must engage, or had to have engaged, in bodily interaction, no?

what we do on here' would that count as "bodily interaction"? — Janus

I wouldn't say so. Certainly not literally.

By 'social engagement' I am not necessarily speaking about bodily interaction, and much less about frivolous bodily interaction like going to parties and the like. If someone has a rich creative and/or intellectual life, then they will be profoundly socially engaged, even if they do not bodily interact with people much. — Janus

What do you mean by social engagement without bodily interaction?

Feedback — Hanover

Good luck, Wos (Y)

That's the same thing worded differently. That he instinctively desires one thing is just the same as he trusts that it's good. — Agustino

My point has been that mere belief in x or y being good does not make x or y good. As I said, the baby trusts that a bottle of bleach is good to suckle, before realizing, no, no that's no good.

The ideals invite you to trust them, just like your mother invites you to trust her that the milk she gives you is good. You trust the one, but not the other. Why? Because in the meantime, you've learned to distrust. — Agustino

This perhaps depends upon what one's first experience is. Not every child's first experience is set up for the trusting of something that is in fact good. The mangled-born Spartan baby born is thrown on a hillside after his cries were ignored. He never got to receive the good post-trust. He is born, and then dies.

Want to live, need to flourish? That's what I'd get on board with, :)

Because the fact that drinking the milk will eliminate the discomfort of hunger is not an a priori given, but must be taken on faith. If the child did not have this faith, they would refuse the mother's breast, and would not drink the milk. — Agustino

You assume the child trusts that it's good, not merely that he instinctively desires it. If you gave him a bottle of bleach he'd suck it. The trust, therefore, in his mother derives first from the instinct to suckle.

Yes, this unremarkable, mundane and uncontroversial kind of faith is the same as religious faith. The only difference is the object or person of that faith. — Agustino

They're the same but different??

In what sense are they different in practice, apart from the faith being directed towards a different person/object? — Agustino

A baby's trust in its mother is not the same as one who has faith in some religious ideal. The ideals tell you that they're good, and you ought to trust them, the baby trusting its mother is blind.

He has an instinctual faith which is aided and encouraged by parents to, for example, drink milk from his mother's breast in order to deal with the discomfort of hunger. — Agustino

And how is this religious faith, or faith in something unseen?

Exactly, he cannot doubt, he can just trust that when his mom throws the breast in his face and puts it in his mouth, it is good to suck on it. And by faith he sucks on it, and behold, he sees that it is good. — Agustino

Yes, this is the unremarkable, mundane, and uncontroversial kind of faith.

We're not born with anything in the absence of society - we need society and a favourable environment to guide us. — Agustino

What does this have to do with what you quoted from me?

How can she think of God if she cannot even solve basic problems of thought, such as which comes first, belief or doubt? — Agustino

My point is that neither of you seem to be distinguishing between ordinary trust/faith and religious trust/faith. They're similar in definition, but different in practice.

How so? — Agustino

Because it'd be presuming belief in others.

This is the Biblical definition:
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” — Agustino

When you're born, you know nothing. So what "evidence" and what "knowledge"? To even gain the first little bit of "knowledge" you must have faith. — Agustino

How can the child just born have any assurance or hope or conviction in the "things" not seen? The only sort of faith that the child has is in what he can see - the doctors, the nurses, the nervous father, the mother and her bosom. The babe in swaddling clothes doesn't come to some articulately and consciously reasoned, utilitarian decision about whether or not he ought to doubt his urge to suck his mother's teet. While it is true that we all are born to trust - to have faith - we are not, however, born with religious faith. One learns, or comes to know, about what God is said to be. God as a concept is not a predicate to one's doubt.

God may apply to you before you believed in him, but for the disbeliever, you cannot attribute that same hindsight to them.

That seems to be MU's argument as I see it.

Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.

I may very well think, as a non-physicist, that quarks are pink balls or whatever, but that's irrelevant. To have a conversation with a physicist, I must accept his definition. So likewise, to have a conversation with a theist about transubstantiation in this case, the atheist must accept the definition of transubstantiation that the theist provides. This seems entirely natural. — Agustino

You can define it, but I don't have to believe it. One issue in this thread is the suggestion that defining it entails believing it to be real, which is dubious.

Namely, that being concerned with ethics is indicative of sound mental health; but, not a causal factor in facilitating it. Sounds kinda strange now that I re-read it. — Posty McPostface

Why isn't it? You can be the most moral person in the world, but if you don't realize what good you do do, then your mental health won't be any good. However, if one does realize that they're doing good, that they're kind, helpful, thoughtful, etc., then I very much think that one's conscience will impact their mental health for the better.

The problem here is precisely that atheists don't want, by sheer will, to agree with the definitions provided by the theists. — Agustino

Agreeing to the theist's definition of terms is a slippery slope when the definitions themselves allow for zero disagreement once accepted. If an unbeliever is foolish enough to agree terms, then they've already lost and will only proceed down a rabbit hole.

Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator. — Harry Hindu

This type seems to sum you up quite well, but I'm sure you won't see that irony.

If the premise is that music isn't as good as it used to be, then you've not a very expansive music taste.

By that logic an older human has been around the block many times and failed to do any better with each try.

The only thing religion is good for is illuminating what the religious feel comfortable accepting without thinking. — Benkei

Really?

I think it's out of the subconscious desire for love. We want to be consoled of our silly thoughts and so we often attempt to console others so that they might treat us well too.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I'd characterize narcissism like that. It isn't so much that the narcissist doesn't want others to be treated as well as them, just that they require a continued and constant supply from others. In other words, the narcissist allows for you to rule your own kingdom, so as they can rule theirs too. The catch is that if they want you, they will take you.

Also, is your title supposed to read, "Shouldn't you treat your friend as you would yourself?" If so, then I gotcha. If not, slap a posted note on my brain so I understand, please!

I don't think it would apply to a compassionate Buddhist or a narcissist or even a murderer or criminal. Why is that also? — Posty McPostface

Are you saying that someone wouldn't treat a narcissist better than themselves? Getting seduced by someone like that occurs all the time, in real life as well as online in places like this. People get conned by flowery language and fake masks, but this doesn't mean it's right to give more than you receive in a relationship. Equity is important to keep tabs on, especially in a friendship. If you're giving more than you're receiving, even if you're not being manipulated by a narcissist or psychopath, it's probably not healthy however you cut the mustard.

Consider masochists for a moment. A masochist might want themselves to be treated worse than how they want others to be treated. This makes little sense, but I'm sure that those sorts of people exist. Even so, I think that's different from someone who is treating other people very well but is getting nothing in return. That seems to be the crux of your topic - correct me if I'm wrong.

When you have the answers and know the truth, the Bible makes complete sense. — Steve

Can one ever have the answers or know the truth, though?

Because much of scripture has been misunderstood you won’t make the right conclusions based on what you learn at Sunday School. — Steve

How might I make the right conclusions, then?

To answer your question, you have to know what to believe and what you are being saved from. — Steve

I think Christianity provides a pretty straightforward framework for know what to believe and knowing what salvation entails. Do you disagree? If so, why?

I have to wonder how many here have sifted through the hundreds, thousands of pages of Christian theology that pertains to one of Christianity's most essential mysteries. Getting through many of the scholastic theologians who articulated transubstantiation the most clearly is an absolute chore. Everybody here seems to be winging it as it goes.

totes different then — Akanthinos

:’(

Sexual intercourses are negotiations, not overt coercions (well, hopefully) — Akanthinos

Need butt to talk about butt.

Language is where the sexual game is now located. — Akanthinos

The body is still number one.

That they're aware of their bad behavior? Being moderators, I expect them to uphold the site guidelines better than anyone, and yet...

In my experience some of the mods and others here aren't adults with such a capacity.

OK, so why don't we take a vote? It might be (or, it most certainly would be) non-binding, but it might have a beneficial effect. Then again, it might not.

A new thread, and a poll listing the moderators. Click the button of those that you think should not be moderators. — Bitter Crank

10 moderators all voting for each other sounds like a terrible idea. They're already "voting" for each other in this thread!

I'm all for official toleration. That's why there is informal social control, which is what I'm trying to do with the tools I have. On the other hand, there are moderators who shouldn't be. They don't have the temperament and respect for the people they moderate. — T Clark

Hey, are you admitting that you're a moron like me? X-)

There is no end to the problems caused by people obfuscating. You are calling a spade what you see as a spade, which is what honest people ought to do. — Bitter Crank

Oh I know, I'm just shooting in the dark here, hoping that people check their privilege and their behavior.

As I say to my close, personal friend Baden from time to time — T Clark

If this is the case, please take him out to coffee, and if he blows you off, beat him over the head and steal his account.

A more effective strategy for moderating the comments on this board than appealing to the moderators for relief is to moderate your own behavior and simply not post comments like the one above. — Hanover

Moderating one's own comments is precisely what moderators here have not been doing. I can moderate my own if I do not receive shit from moderators who seem to have an untouchable position.

My only concern is with sexual jokes and innuendo's given that the audience can be composed of teenagers, kids, and adolescents. I mean, what kind of impression are we trying to give? None? — Posty McPostface

Agreed.

I look at the list of comments you provide. They are inconsiderate, arrogant, snotty and smug. They are also bad philosophy. On the other hand, I don't see any of them that should be deleted. Be that as it may, I have made the case before that moderators should be held to a higher standard than regular posters. Otherwise, the credibility of the forum is undermined. — T Clark

I agree. I don't think they should be deleted, but the issue remains that the deletion of posts isn't consistent, and has been such that moderators who insult others can do so, while others like me for instance, cannot without being reprimanded. Either we all get to jab at each other or not at all. There shouldn't be some vague, subjective criteria, or lack thereof, which mods can appeal to that lets them get away with what the rest of us can't.

Be careful what you pray for, as the saying goes -- you might get it. — Bitter Crank

I do pray that we either get to be insulting here, or we don't get to be. That's it. None of this, "I have a special ding dong next to my name, so I can do whatever I want! You, pleb, cannot be demeaning, but I can!" It's mildly infuriating when I get smacked for reaching for a cookie by an older brother who takes the whole fuckin jar of baked goods. That ain't fair, sorry!

I also don't agree with much of what MU is saying here.

Pardon, but retract what? That you're an ignoramus?

You're trying to argue with two people who haven't read or understood the theology. Good luck changing their mind...

I still think that you, the other guy, and people who think like you lack the imagination to see that the way you see the world is just that, the way you see the world, not the way the world is. — T Clark

Careful saying things like that. Everyone knows the mods here are always right and that we mere peasants can't articulate our opinions!

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you. I guess I was trying to express a kind of frustration, a sense that - occasionally - I find myself haunted by the possible pointlessness of existence. Very often I am intrigued and excited by many ideas, but now and then - after much reading, discussion and deep thought - I feel as though I am no further forward than before. Sure, I have a much better appreciation of the problems, but no concrete answers.
Maybe there are none. Perhaps it's the way philosophy is often phrased as a question - it suggests that maybe there are definite answers to be had. Without these answers, or the genuine possibility of one day finding them, we are left with the word games you mentioned.
Most of the time I find philosophy helpful and spiritually uplifting as you suggested. I guess I'm asking where you turn on the occasions when even philosophy feels empty! — Oliver Purvis

I think what you're getting at, from my perspective at least, is that philosophy can help provide a working body, but you, we, must still figure out why we are as we are. Traditionally, when philosophy hits its wall, religious thinking arrives to offer a way around. I think a problem with such a way around is someone forgetting the philosophy that might have gotten them there. I think both philosophy and theology can coexist, but it's tricky.

Additionally, perhaps you can still find meaning in your life if you live by an ethic. For example, I attempt to live a life guided by honesty and love. At present, I'm not religious, yet I am able to think and feel my way through the day-to-day because of my grounded morality. For me that is what helps create meaning and helps answer the "Why?" that philosophy can't always answer.

Just my couple cents, take them as you will, cheers (Y)

You can think it's bullshit. I think it's bullshit. But it's not the historian's job to call bullshit. Philosophy does that!

History doesn't change. — Michael

What we know as history does.

Whether or not we have enough evidence to discern whether or not it happened, which is to say whether or not it is historical, does come under the remit of a historian. — Sapientia

No, it does not. The historian analyzes what he has, not what he does not have. If he has no evidence suggesting the contrary, he ought not suppose that it did not happen, merely that it is not conclusive that it did. I'm sorry, Sappy, but you're wrong here. There's no way around it, and you can get offended all you like, but if I must qualify myself here, it is with me having a degree in history and have spent much of my life studying both history itself and how we study history. You can argue my acumen on philosophical matters, but here is where I'm not going to feign ignorance.

Also, I might remind you that I qualified my first reply here with good historians. I don't deny that there are historians who overstep their bounds, but they are bad historians. And I'm not alone in this.

You're not understanding at all. What I'm saying is that the claim itself is what historians analyze as part of a historical narrative, not whether or not the Christian resurrection happened yes or no. If Agustino is claiming that the Christian resurrection happened, not merely that it is claimed to have happened, then he could be right, but he could also be wrong. History isn't as set in stone as many seem to think it is.