Every animal must die. — Andrew4Handel

All living things do die, eventually, so in that sense, yes, every animal must die.

In the wild animals either starve to death are eaten (alive) or die of disease. How do you cope with death in a nature? — Andrew4Handel

The lion that hunts the gazelle does so out of survival. In order to live, life must consume itself. Most ethics understand this fundamental truth.

What way would you like animals to die? — Andrew4Handel

? I don't want animals to die unless they must.

I am puzzled about morality anyway because it seems in conflict with nature There is no clear moral guidance from nature or human nature about what we should aspire to if anything. — Andrew4Handel

How old are you?

Were animals able to more clearly preach against their brains being electrocuted, throats being slit, and so on and so forth, perhaps more people would listen. Perhaps not, though, as we humans can't even treat our own kind with much dignity.

You have to make college work for you, so to speak. Does that sound correct to you? — Posty McPostface

That's half of it. College is what you make of it, but that sentiment could be applied to all paths in life. Unless you are able to live reasonably by yourself right out of high school, then college is still the best option.

It's a forum of hobbyists with the occasional but very rare philosophy academic gracing us with their patience. — fdrake

And when educated philosophers do come here they get armchaired by twits, :chin:

Sorry, BB, but no, I don't have to. I'm comfortable letting things stand as they are. — T Clark

If you're comfortable being wrong, then that's fine by me, :snicker:

Sorry. You lost me. — T Clark

Your argument = animal meat tastes good, therefore it is morally permissible to kill and consume animals for their meat.

My argument = human meat tastes good, therefore it is morally permissible to kill and consume humans for their meat.

Now that you're in my trap, you must disprove my claim on its own premise without refuting your own.

Then you must also have more reasons for eating meat.

I could tell you that I have high blood sugar and need to eat a low carb diet, which is true, but that would be disingenuous. I like to eat meat. I like the way it tastes, smells, and feels. I don't have moral qualms about using, killing, animals for human purposes. — T Clark

Just to be a rascal...

"I could tell you that I have high pedophilic urges and need to practice a low abstinence lifestyle, which is true, but that would be disingenuous. I like to eat children. I like the way they taste, smell, and feel. I don't have moral qualms about raping, killing, children for my sexual urges."

I dunno why you're so upbeat when I won, :hearts:

Oh boi am I in luck, I've always had a fetish for owl feet and anal.

Why do you insist on attacking an exaggerated version of my position? — Sapientia

Because this, below, is a complete madness:

One reason it's irresponsible is because it risks sowing deception in vulnerable people. If I were a naive American citizen, I might hear that kind of thing from my president and either develop beliefs based upon it or have my beliefs reinforced. These beliefs might well be deceptive, counterproductive, reflective of a set of misplaced values, and so on. Examples could be the belief in a God which doesn't exist, the belief in an afterlife which doesn't exist, and corollary beliefs, such as that this illusory God and afterlife are of greater power or importance and of higher value than reality, or that the prosperity of the nation is dependent on God's blessing. — Sapientia

You've gone from 0 to 9,000 here. If you think that believing/disbelieving in a God could ever be a reasonable product of saying "God bless America", you've fled off the pot too soon. If anyone here is exaggerating, it is you who thinks people alter their whole lives around mannerisms.

It's not accurate to claim that Christmas is now a secular holiday. For many, it's very much a religious holiday, especially in America of all places. — Sapientia

It's a secularized holiday for everyone and a religious one for others. Christians still put up trees and wrap presents like good little consumers.

I disagree. I don't think that's more influential, but I see little use in labouring the point. — Sapientia

You MUST at least admit that they're equally influential, otherwise I'm at a loss for words.

Let's not forget that, in your own words, one of those professed Christians is about as religious as the salad you were eating. — Sapientia

I don't doubt that, but Obama's lack of religiosity doesn't preclude the phrase from being one of good will.

But what is said is where the problem lies. It's the content that's problematic. I'm not taking issue with goodwill gestures, otherwise I'd be arguing against many other expressions in addition to this one. It doesn't have to be nightmarish to be objectionable. That it's inappropriate and controversial is enough for it to be a concern, even if you're a Christian. And, given that there's no God to be blessing anywhere or anything - unless you can provide these elusive good reasons - why is it okay for the president, of all people, to be saying such things? — Sapientia

If God does not exist to you, why does it matter that the word is used if it holds no true meaning? If there is no God to bless anything, what harm is being done, exactly? If you say that the harm comes not from God but whoever is appealing to the idea of God, then the issue still goes back to the one above - namely, how do you go from "dude says x" to "listening dudes of x will convert"?

No, that wasn't what I was referring to. If you retrace the discussion, you'll see. I don't see why I should have to keep clarifying myself just because you can't follow the discussion. — Sapientia

Retrace it for me, as I see no other point coming from you.

The exaggeration from you is becoming tiring. Do you think you could tone it down a bit? And the language is not innocuous, it's intentionally loaded in the case of Trump. — Sapientia

In the case of this one guy, out of thousands, millions of other public servants. Ooooooookay.

Because it is. — Sapientia

Because you think it is, yeah. Great. I can really work off of baseless assertions like this one.

No, the slippery slope fallacy is all yours. — Sapientia

Nope. You've dodged my reply by throwing the coals back at me. Try again.

Your point was that the language was neutral, not specifically that it's neutral in moral quality. I disagree with the former. No language which assumes a God can be neutral. That's a very controversial assumption, so hardly neutral. — Sapientia

You seem to think religious language is inherently dangerous and negative, which is why I qualified my statement with "moral quality." Still, do you agree or disagree that language in itself, before application and connotation, is neutral? Yes or no?

Whether it's meant to or not, it plays to a particular crowd - his own base - and provokes another, and he knows it. And yes, this will affect people in various ways and to various degrees, which could in some cases arguably count as manipulation, deception, or harmful reinforcement. I don't approve of the intentional promotion of religious or theological language in political discourse. It has no business being there. For me, mention of God is comparable to mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Force. — Sapientia

Once again, you've gone from one end to the other without qualifying how one gets there. You merely assume that people are being so wildly deceived, manipulated, and harmed. And, as I requested before, if you've no evidence for this swath of population that hinges their opinions on figures of speech, then stop claiming what you are.

Where are you getting this? Not from me. Can't you stick to what I've said instead of getting yourself in muddle from things I haven't said? It's controversial because it's the kind of thing which gives rise - or is likely to give rise - to controversy or public disagreement. That's what "controversial" means. That I also happen to think that it's wrong is not part of that process of reasoning. — Sapientia

You certainly think its wrong which is why you think it's controversial. Were it not wrong, there would be no controversy, so you are assuming that this instance of controversy is inherently wrong.

When used in public discourse, by influential and authoritative figures, which reaches a wide audience, then yes, it can influence, encourage, reinforce, and manipulate. And yes, this might not be a good thing. And yes, I'm willing to make that positive argument, and have been doing so to some extent. — Sapientia

Influence can be good or bad, just as bias can be good or bad. Instead of simply arguing that "x influences people" you've gone a step further and have argued that "x influences people negatively." What evidence do you have to support this claim? For the third time I ask for such because you're deviating from an innocuous claim to a, dare I say, contentious claim. Notice that I've not argued that statements of good will are or aren't good in themselves, so I've tried to align myself to the neutral position. I feel that it is on you to prove that such language is inherently malicious in all uses and not just Trump.

Har har. — Sapientia

Those impressionable and vulnerable people you've mentioned who would convert to a religion based on the genesis of religious phraseology in speeches sounds a lot like a group of people who are blank slated vegetables. How am I wrong?

I've marked them and taught sourcing — Baden

Does this mean you've a doctorate, then? How'd you go from being a professor to being a janitor? Seems a strange turn of events for someone who seems to view himself as some intellectual paragon.

Yes, we're not only talking about Trump, but Trump is a good example of the approach of which I'm critical. Take, for example, his pledge to replace "Happy Holidays" with "Merry Christmas". — Sapientia

Christmas is now a secular holiday, and has been for a long while, so it's not particularly insulting to say "Merry Christmas." I say "Merry Christmas" and I'm not a Christian. What's this make me? A terribly influencing, malicious firebrand? Me no think so...

Like I said in my first comment in this discussion, if phrases like "God bless America" must be said in a cynical and pragmatic sense, then that's that. Obama could only change so much, as his frustrated attempt to change gun laws showed. But ideally, I would rather things were different. — Sapientia

Although it besides the point of this thread, I will say that Obama did very little to combat gun violence. He was able to keep up the facade to most of America that he was working toward better gun legislation, but reality begs to differ. And, quite ironically, Trump has pledged more and actually done more with regard to gun legislation than Obama ever did, *shrug.*

If Obama was Prime Minister over here, I very much doubt that he'd be saying "God bless the United Kingdom", but I can imagine Trump saying that. Trump is obstinate, outspoken and provocative. "Make the United Kingdom as great as America, with our god-talk and our guns!". — Sapientia

I guess, but you still have, "God save the Queen/King." And that's your bloody national anthem - being much more influential in the public space than a mannerism in speeches.

No, I think it's you who's attempting to diminish things like context, nuance and connotation. You can't just ignore the setting and background, the person who's saying it, as well as their background and possible motives, and their choice of phrase, as well as it's impact, and so on. You can't just ignore American culture, or obvious and fairly explicit appeals to a Christian base, as in the case of Trump. When Trump says it, it's not the same as when Obama says it, and neither are the same as when some guy off the street says it. Political speech is monitored, assessed, advised upon, and attracts a large audience as well as critics and commentators. Things which might seem trivial or innocuous in other contexts are a different ball game in politics, and there's typically much more going on behind it. — Sapientia

I think I understand what you're saying, but for professed Christians (like Obama, Trump, every US president?) to say a Christian phrase in an address to the nation, I don't see that as being necessarily dishonest or manipulative. Could it be? Sure. However, I simply disagree that such a phrase is inherently wrong, regardless of its use with ill intent.

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. — Sapientia

Gut :hearts:

Yes, I agree that he has much bigger flaws, but it's a flaw nevertheless. You're just trying to switch focus. It's a superficial tactic which could be employed in virtually any discussion. Should we talk about children starving to death in parts of Africa? Or should we stick to the topic? — Sapientia

The topic, at least between us, has been how harmful religious terminology is or can be within the public capacity, which is why I said that it's not much of an issue if what is contentious here is how harmful something is. Were I to be kept up at night about how Trump or any other of my presidents reflect on me and my country, a phrase like "God bless America" would likely not prove nightmarish. In other words, I suppose that I am more concerned with what is said, rather than how it is said. To reference Obama again, he might have spoke out against gun violence, but things he actually said that led me to believe he was working tirelessly to help alleviate gun violence was nil.

That's a misreading. I was saying, in response to your original wording, which suggested possibility, that the mere possibility is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not they actually do. So, I ask again, if you're suggesting that they actually do have good reasons, rather than that it's possible, then what are they? — Sapientia

If what reasons you are after include why one might say "God bless America", then I believe that I and a few others in this thread have already done so. And to my own argument's credit, my principle defense of the phrase is that it is an act of good will.

I doubt that a survey has been done on it. I don't know what evidence you'd expect me to provide. I think it's noncontroversial that the president has influence over a portion of the citizens of the country of which he's president - especially his supporters - and that's what the inference is based upon. And it's not just a single phrase I'm taking into consideration, but the use of religious language by political figures who reach a wide audience, with Trump as a good example. I don't think that that's unreasonable. — Sapientia

Okay, but you originally focused on those who were not of his base. If saying "x" reinforces his base's outlook, fine, but if you think that saying "x" tears down the livelihoods of those outside of his, Trump's, base - that's a madness, in my opinion. As I've said before, I can't any sane person changing their whole life based upon a mannerism in a speech. And if they do, it's more that person's fault for being insane than Trump's probably innocuous language.

How is it not what? And that's a silly reading. — Sapientia

How is it silly? You set up a slippery slope fallacy where when Steve hears "x", he has, thus, immediately committed himself down the road of religious and political fervor all because of Trump or whomever else's religious language.

That's crazy. — Sapientia

Language is fundamentally neutral in moral quality. Do you agree or disagree?

We know that, in the case of Trump, he is in favour of the use of religious language in political discourse based on what he's openly said. We don't need to read his mind. — Sapientia

That may be true, but it doesn't therefore mean that Trump's use of religious language in political discourse is meant to con or manipulate anyone.

Well, I said that it's obviously not simply a mannerism of goodwill, otherwise there would be no controversy - from which you can't logically derive that if it's controversial, then it's wrong - which you seem to have pulled out of your arse. — Sapientia

?? If something is controversial because it is wrong, then that which is wrong is also wrong because it is controversial.

I also said that the use of religiously loaded language in a secular role is inherently inappropriate, and that's based on the dichotomy of secular and religious, church and state, politics and theology. — Sapientia

This still assumes that religious language, such as in "God bless America", is and always must be a loaded gun, so to speak. That is, once fired, the loaded religious language of the above always seeds the roots of religious whackery and insanity... <---- and it is this leap that I'm not willing to jump with you on.

Not fair - that is, your assessment of what you think I'm assuming. — Sapientia

So you do assume that there are blank slated vegetables sitting in recliners waiting for mannerisms in speeches so that they might crusade or jihad against secularism, is that it?

It's not, because, like I said, these phrases and the context in which they're used are not equivalent in every possible case. — Sapientia

As I understand it, your argument if taken to its limits must include all forms of loaded language, or any bit of language that could be construed negatively or as being inappropriate. If so, then such can include all language, not just religious language.

It has begun.

Moses, the original Bitter Crank. How does that make you feel, Crankus?

Christ. If Sappy and I can be nicer to each other in another thread, y'all hysterical, bored adults ought to be, too.

~

I think it was Wayfarer who said that, "all paths lead back to the Donald," and I'm now thinking that, "all paths lead back to the Jordan B."

No, it's not an appeal for theocratic domination. Your bringing that up is a red herring and an appeal to extremes. What it is, however, or rather, what it reflects, is a conscious decision on behalf of Trump to conserve - or even to up the ante, so to speak - the status quo role of religiously loaded language within American political discourse, which in turn supports his agenda. It appeals to his base. — Sapientia

I presumed that we weren't only talking about Trump but every president and all elected officials. As far as I know, every US president has said, "God bless America" in a public capacity, including those like Obama who are about as religious as this salad I'm eating. And, seeing as Obama's base was and is not the predominately Christian and conservative population, Obama could not have intended to nefariously build his base with "religiously loaded language" which is as harmless as blessing someone after a sneeze. Your logical reply might be that Obama, instead of building his existing base, intended to add to his base by saying such things, but at such a point you can plug in whatever reasoning you like. Unless it is unequivocally clear or expressly stated that "x" is intended to manipulate in a dishonest manner, then whatever you believe "x" to be outside of its face value is pure conjecture.

Okay, that is pretty funny, but not quite the same. Different phrases have different meanings and connotations, and they're not all on an equivalent level. And we're talking about the president of the United States, here. That's a job role which carries a far greater responsibility. — Sapientia

As I understand it you have here tried to diminish the importance of what phrases actually mean with what you think it means based solely on who is saying it. When Neil deGrasse Tyson says "God bless you" after a sneeze everything's jolly - he's not meaning to impose some perniciously religious thought upon us. When Obamarama says "God bless you" after a sneeze, or in a speech, somehow he must, therefore, mean such a phrase to be taken in as a form of religious indoctrination upon his listeners. How you are arriving at such a distinction is what I fail to see.

No, I don't want to take away his personhood, I want to take away his presidency through legitimate means, and I want to express my opinion on his unsuitability for that job role. I hope he either gets impeached, if grounds for impeachment exist or come about, or that he only lasts a single term - whichever comes first. — Sapientia

Okay, but you must realize that saying "God bless America" is no justification for his impeachment. And for Trump, of all his flaws, him saying "God bless America" is so widely unimportant it beggars my belief that anyone can really care so much about it.

Right... The guy who openly suggests that his debate opponents have "blubber for brains" and begins a reply with "Newsflash" says he can smell the condescension... — Sapientia

Yes, this is how I can recognize the smell, :wink:

So, what, pray tell, are these "good reasons" that the other side have? Or were you merely stating that it's possible? (An irrelevance I haven't denied). — Sapientia

If it's irrelevant that the other side has good reasons, it also is irrelevant that you do.

One reason it's irresponsible is because it risks sowing deception in vulnerable people. If I were a naive American citizen, I might hear that kind of thing from my president and either develop beliefs based upon it or have my beliefs reinforced. — Sapientia

I would eat my sock if there are people who hear "God bless America" and slam their fist on the table and shout to the heaven "Praise be! Allaaaaaaaaah!" I don't think it happens. If you do, show me the sauce that supports your position, otherwise I will continue to believe that religious conversion happens through other means.

These beliefs might well be deceptive, counterproductive, reflective of a set of misplaced values, and so on. Examples could be the belief in a God which doesn't exist, the belief in an afterlife which doesn't exist, and corollary beliefs, such as that this illusory God and afterlife are of greater power or importance and of higher value than reality, or that the prosperity of the nation is dependent on God's blessing. — Sapientia

May be, might be, could be - all of this is hip firing to me. How is it not? As I'm reading it, you're suggesting someone is going from hearing a phrase to flying planes in buildings.

Missing the point again. It's not about what's allowed, which is secondary at best. It's about what one in such a position ought to do, which is a separate issue that can be discussed apart from what's allowed. Obviously, it doesn't follow from something being permitted that it ought to be done, as I presume you'd agree, so I hope that that's not your argument. But if not that, then what is it? That it's just a goodwill gesture, and therefore there's nothing objectionable? But that's a false premise, as I've already noted, since it is more than that, being an example of religiously loaded language. — Sapientia

How a political official conducts themselves is not an exact or objective science. It's up for debate, as we are doing now. You may think you're right, as I think I'm right, but that doesn't mean that president "x" ought to act either way based on some absolute appeal. Besides, I think religious language is fundamentally neutral, like any language. Its context and how it is used - that's where things can go up or down on the spectrum. However, I don't think it is always clear what that context is and how to judge it. As I've said somewhere above, unless we know what's going on in someone's head, it can often be very difficult to read between the lines.

The part in bold is false or misleading. It's part of it. If you deny that, then I'd question what world you're living in. The president is widely, and rightly in my view, considered to have a greater obligation than most to abide by such norms and standards of society. He or she is expected to be an exemplar and to lead by example. Trump's rhetoric typically flies in the face of that, and I hope that the repercussions hit him hard. — Sapientia

I'd say that decorum changes with the times. Trump or anyone else doesn't have to do "x, y, z". Ought he do "x, y, z"? Perhaps.

What's that I smell? Can you smell it, too? — Sapientia

You're being selective again. What adds to the justification is that it's inherently inappropriate to begin with, so not only is it bad form to use that kind of language, but doing so will also give rise to certain undesirable consequences. — Sapientia

I'm not convinced that you've proved religious language in the public space to be inherently inappropriate.

Waiting with your eyes closed, apparently. Or maybe it's just your mind. — Sapientia

Again, see my response just above. If you can make it clearer for me to understand, please.

Straw man / red herring. — Sapientia

How is it? Explain what you meant in that bit, then.

That history you mention lacks relevance or is being used fallaciously. Should we bring back burning heretics at the stake?

And even if I were ignorant of that history, which I'm not - I'm likely more informed than the average person - it obviously doesn't follow that I'm "West-hating". — Sapientia

If it is true that you are sufficiently informed about the history of Western civilization, perhaps don't assume that there are blank slates waiting to change their life based upon mannerisms and lingoes. Is that fair or not fair?

I've elaborated above. — Sapientia

Hmmmmmm...

It's about inappropriateness, and it shouldn't be so difficult to wrap your head around why I find that objectionable. Do you talk loudly on your phone in the cinema? Evangelise in the workplace? Do you see no problem with doing stuff like that? There's a time and place. If you want to talk of God's blessing, then do it in Church, or save it for elsewhere, but don't normalise its use in political discourse, where it doesn't belong. — Sapientia

This still assumes that saying such a thing is intrinsically wrong, or as you've already said, inappropriate. Yet, if it is that one cannot use religious language either as a politician in the public space or as an employee in a private firm, then "bless you" to sneezes is as grave as "God bless America" if the determining factor is simply words containing a religious meaning.

I submitted my reply too early, and realised only afterwards that I'd left that part unaddressed, so I went back and edited my reply. — Sapientia

Alhamdulillah.

Believed-to-be, sure. But more than mere belief. Belief with good reason. — Sapientia

I can smell the condescension from here, Sappy, but good reason doesn't preclude the other side from having it either.

It's not about ability, as you frame it above. Of course they're able to do so. It's about responsibility, as I mentioned in a previous reply. The point is that it's irresponsible, and that it's irresponsible because, like I said, it gives undue prominence and recognition to a fictitious God (or "arguably fictitious", if you prefer), and because it risks influencing an audience without warrant. — Sapientia

Ah, yes, the classic, "restate what I already said as if I've already explained what I meant." How about you tell us why it is irresponsible to use religious language and what sort of risks are involved - if not theocratic dominance - that are so seemingly unwarranted and dangerous. If you can't answer, then your objection is meaningless.

If we were talking about a position of authority within an organised religion, such as the pope, in the context of a community of that religion, then the first point about prominence and recognition would of course not apply. But we're not, we're talking about the president of the U.S., in the context of the whole of the U.S., which is a secular republic. — Sapientia

Aye, a secular republic that allows for its elected officials to use religious language as an expression of an idea - in the context of the OP, the idea being good will. Concerning the Catholic Church, the Pope carries such a degree of power that doctrine, in part, can be dictated. In other words, a Catholic ought not express certain ideas without them being met with doctrinal criticism (think heresy, blasphemy, etc.) In a democracy like the US's, no elected official or governmental body has the same degree of power that the Pope does. A Catholic ought not say "x" on the basis of their being Catholic. One cannot say that an elected official ought not say "y" on the basis of their being an elected official because decorum and use of speech does not define what it means to be a political representative.

The citizens of the U.S. are open to influence, as we all are, although some more than others. Those who are particularly susceptible to influence may well have their values, behaviours, beliefs, and so on, altered as a result of the use of this kind of language, and that is something that ought to be a concern, as it might not be to their benefit. — Sapientia

The fuck kind of vague hokus pokus is this? It doesn't follow that because "x" influences people, its possibility of influencing people negatively is justification enough for "x" never having been said.

Add that to the inappropriateness of that language to the role in question, which is a state role, not a religious role; and a public role, not a private role; and you end up with a decision which is both inappropriate and irresponsible - two words which sum up much of Trump's rhetoric, in fact. — Sapientia

I'm still waiting for you to show me why religious language used not as official policy is irresponsible.

You mention a "full right to freedom of expression and religious thought", but that misses the point. Nothing I've said has any implications about the freedom of religious thought. And with regards to freedom of expression, my point, in a more general form, is no different, regardless of job role, whether we're talking about the president or a police officer or a flight attendant. Job roles have responsibilities and expectations, and if you don't meet those responsibilities and expectations by checking what you say and how you act in such a way as to be in line with those responsibilities and expectations, then that can and should effect your suitability or fitness in that job role, and there are other freedoms which can effect whether or not you remain in that job role if you fail to comply. — Sapientia

You'll have to direct me to where it dictates that public servants, elected or no, cannot use religious language, especially when used to get across a perfectly secular notion such as good will.

It's obviously not simply a mannerism of goodwill, otherwise there would be no controversy. We're talking about the use of religiously loaded language in a secular role. It's inherently inappropriate. — Sapientia

It does not follow that "x" is wrong based solely on the fact that there is controversy surrounding it.

Your setting up of caricatures is a childish distraction. You should be directing your criticism at me, and I do not fit the caricature, as I'm certainly not "West-hating" - a baseless and frankly ridiculous charge which does you no credit. — Sapientia

I think it fits quite well, frankly, as it doesn't appear as though you've figured out how Western democracies have arisen over the centuries. Hint: not by political correctness neutering the discourse of opinion.

I'm surprised you have to ask. Are you really asking me why the content and nature of that which influences and affects us is of importance? — Sapientia

How is it important in the context of its wrongness? Or, why is it so spooky and dangerous? Surely you realize that influencing people's minds is a fundamental ingredient in political and indeed all social life. What you appear most bummed about is those with whom you disagree influencing others, such that they might think in opposition to you.

No, it's not an appeal for theocratic domination, but your bringing that up is a red herring and an appeal to extremes. Try to stay on topic, please. — Sapientia

If it's not an appeal for theocratic domination, then once again, what the hell is your qualm? You seem very much insulted by religious language, in any context apparently, and I'd like to know why. Please, how about you stay on topic and answer questions. You've lured me out from under my bridge, so go on and give me some meat to tide me over, otherwise I'll stop responding.

Lastly, I am rather amused by your flat out ignoring of the twitter exchange I quoted. Perhaps you realize the silliness of your word policing but you can't let o'le Heister steal your cart again. I don't blame you. Wisdom must try and show itself to be true, after all, even if it fails...

Here, go fetch, boy.

There's not absolutely nothing wrong with that — Sapientia

Baseless assertion.

as it gives a fictitious God — Sapientia

A believed-to-be fictitious God, sure. But is a religious politician unable to reference their belief in words that don't reflect official policy? If they can't do so, then you've stripped politicians and others who are elected governmental officials from exercising their full right to freedom of expression and religious thought.

which is not recognised as such by many, undue prominence and recognition in political discourse — Sapientia

As another in this thread has already remarked, a phrase like "God bless America" reflects an intention to will the good of the country. That is, if you think that a mannerism of good will is something to be loathed, then you certainly fit the West-hating leftist caricature, one who despises the privileges he now enjoys - privileges built out of a religiously-toned political discourse, *gasp.*

which is of importance because of its influence and affect upon a wide audience. — Sapientia

Important how? Is an appeal to God's blessing of a nation an appeal for theocratic domination? No, I don't think so. If anything, the kind of domineering hand you see reaching into the secular space by religious folks is the same hand you have raised under the veneer of political correctness.

It's both inappropriate and irresponsible. — Sapientia

And why is that? Truly, it is strange how insulted you are by what are, to you, illusory words referencing an illusory and fictitious God. Are you afraid of the dark, too, Sappy?

Here's a hilarious exchange from Neil deGrasse Tyson's twitter from the other week:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, "His passing has left an intellectual vacuum in his wake. But it's not empty. Think of it as a kind of vacuum energy permeating the fabric of spacetime that defies measure. Stephen Hawking, RIP 1942-2018."

Jean Claude Van Gitabushi, "Actually, Resting in Peace would indicate an identity existing beyond death that would be able to "rest" or have a sense of peace. I'm surprised that someone who so often corrects others on science would embrace such a religious viewpoint."

Neil deGrasse Tyson, "Wait, there’s more. I say “bless you” to sneezes. I say "goodbye" (from God-Be-With-You) to those who leave. I say “Godspeed" to astronaut friends about to launch. And I gleefully use BC & AD. (p.s. I’d bet you use the term “sunrise" even though you know Earth is what turns.)"

He's the president, not the pope. — Sapientia

He's a man who is his own person, and as much as you'd like to try and take away his personhood, you can't.

Such a philosophically astute response, Heister. — Sapientia

You'll have to give me more than, "you're wrong because people don't believe in God."

What do you expect, you accused him of having blubber for brains? — T Clark

Just spitting on his badge. His inability to ignore an ad hom proves my latter point all the more. It's too bad our forum oligarchs weren't elected, otherwise my vote would be sailing other seas.

You're wrong. — Sapientia

*panics*

There's not absolutely nothing wrong with that, as it gives a fictitious God, which is not recognised as such by many, undue prominence and recognition in political discourse, which is of importance because of its influence and affect upon a wide audience. — Sapientia

Okay, phew, *breathes*. I thought you had me there for a second, *wipes sweat from brow.*

Such a philosophically astute response, Baden. Have you tried writing a book?

The point is that the President should represent everyone and therefore be neutral on gods. — Baden

Newsflash, politicians are people too, Baden. Being elected to political office doesn't take away one's own right to represent themselves. So, whether it be my local rep or Donald J. Trump, if either choose to say, "God bless America," then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Political representatives are elected to represent, not to be their constituents' bitch. And differentiating between official policy and personal opinion really isn't that difficult. But unfortunately, modernity has spawned a wide swath of people with blubber for brains who are too busy cringing and getting triggered to think critically about non issues like this one.

Can we meaningfully compare being alive to being dead? — Purple Pond

Can you compare the nothingness before you were born with your present existence?

So add up all the joy in life and subtract all the pain — Purple Pond

The hedonist assumes that one is able to complete such a list and that mere pleasure thought-to-be-good is pleasure that is actually good. If you disagree, then the hedonistic lifestyle won't work.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Sufferings_of_the_World

Why don't people think and act the way I want them to? — Pseudonym

Interesting criticism from someone who is anti religious freedom.

Common — Agustino

I think I understand where the confusion is coming from now. I never said TBB created the universe, I said 'the universe was created as a result of the big bang.' Not that the big bang was the sole and only causal factor in the creation process. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I see, and I had a sense that this is how we've talked past each other. However, my intention here has just been to distinguish between creator > TBB > creation, and not to conflate TBB with the creator.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by this? can you explain a little more? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

"Just" that TBBT is understood in relation to creation and not the creator. If you attempt to place TBBT in a metaphysical territory that is more grounded in notions of a creator than the created, then you've in essence made the instance of TBB outside of the creation it helps, as vehicle, to create. Instead of creator > TBB > creation, the series follows more like creator ≥ TBB > creation. I'm unsure if I've made myself clear, and I apologize if I haven't. I just wanted to reemphasize the struggle many intellectuals have with TBBT when the idea of a creator is thrown into the mix. I think most astrophysicists realize that there's more to creation than just the TBB, but science cannot go beyond the confines of creation in its quest to understand creation. This limitation has obviously bothered many popularizers of science who hate how they can't touch theology and much of philosophy, but it remains true that science can only answer so much - TBBT can only answer so much.

To that end, and to actually answer the OP, I still don't believe in miracles. I suppose that I must allow for them being possible, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to throw out what conclusive science already exists and say I believe in them. I don't, and I won't until I'm convinced that they do.

When you say that TBB created the universe, you are immediately saying that the TBB is the creator of the universe. The creator creates the created, thus the created is created by the creator. The issue, once again, is where one places TBB. If I understand what you've been arguing, it is that you have placed TBB outside of itself, which is a mistake. Rather, TBB ought to be placed within itself, as creation. As I see it, this leaves the door open for a creator much more so than if were to believe that TBB created the universe.

Yeah, and then you have some people who like "cheese", and some people who don't, even though one might be thinking of crayfish and the other might be thinking of celery, and they have an argument online spanning eight pages, and the whole time, they're talking past one another.

A recipe for disaster. — Sapientia

Exactly. And the funny thing is, Agustino prolly doesn't even realize that he's employing a deconstructionist defense here, which as we all know is an integral part of conservative and theistic apologetics....wait....... :brow:

Definition of creation: the actionor process of bringing something into existence.

You sure about that? If a meteor hits a planet, does the impact not create a lot of energy?

When a star implodes under its own weight, does that not create a black hole? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

What you're getting at here is creation within creation. TBBT doesn't, and can't, account for creation's creator, which is why astrophysicists have either tried to build upon TBBT or conclude that, somehow, existence becomes from nothing. Perhaps charle's point is that creation isn't itself the creator, so suggesting that TBBT is creative in and of itself would be a grave mix-up.

Yep, and just a few posts afterwards, I claim that the definitions are inadequate and I'm not interested in definitions. — Agustino

If definitions are inadequate, how the fuck are we supposed to figure out what miracles are?

Bro: "Do you like cheese?"
Dude: "I'm not sure, what is cheese?"
Bro: "I can't tell you, and there's no point in telling you what cheese is."
Dude: ".............."

Good traditions are important, bad traditions aren't.

Phew, I'm glad that we agree. The pathological paranoia that many have with white males is a serious problem that should be treated with the gravity it deserves, :fire:

I was just trying to figure out your logic. Assert baseless shit > mock those who call out said shit > ???

How do I know that you aren't a pathologically self-loathing bigot?

I have male biology, so my sex is male. I also view myself as being a male, so my gender is male. On forms, in sports, etc. - sex is more important to know than gender.

If gender can be chosen through a conscious decision, why do transgender people choose to be the gender they are, even though that leads to them being discriminated (among other cons)? — BlueBanana

This question is still separate from your original, which doubted that one chooses their gender. Choosing their gender and why they choose their gender are two different things.