I don’t think either are ‘choices’. They are necessary life experiences. Without them life would be … null/grey/meaningless/void.

The pessimist exists merely because of optimism not in spire of it.

I genuinely believe life is fine. The burdens are the meat of life. Without burdens we have nothing. The time to reflect between basic sustenance can be viewed with pessimism or optimism. At some point in everyone’s life they will feel both, but some will feel one side more strongly than the other.

Work hard and play hard seems like a simple and effective life rule. Life feels good when at the end of the day I can lay back and know I have achieved something.

Boredom is certainly a window into the existential crisis. Boredom is just something inside telling you to reassess your life in some way. Avoiding problems is also something people do a lot. Bad combination! The key is to embrace the so-called ‘suffering’ and surprise surprise, it practically always turns out for the overall betterment.

To strive and to overcome. Little holds more ‘joy’ in life.

You marked yourself as an ‘anti-theist’ here. The point being an anti-theist can be critical about certain aspects a theist holds.

You did not originally state ‘I am critical of and reject theism’ you merely outlined you were anti-theist.

Again though, my interest here is in how we take the term ‘anti-‘ in different contexts. We would call someone who is ‘anti-women’s rights’ something more or less like a bigot, yet when it comes to ‘anti-nazism’ we would not call them bigots because we perceive their stance and highly irrational and actively damaging.

The question is then where anti-theism can fall? I can see that some would look superficially at religious beliefs as ‘childish’ and therefore deem their stance to be opposing, as I put it, ‘irrational and actively damaging’. That is a reasonable argument in some cases, but it would partially involve actively opposing anyone who participates in and encourages such ‘irrational and actively damaging’ traditions, right?

I am certainly not stating there is a clear answer to this. I am just trying to look for a way around the clear statement that hostility towards nazis is not considered bigotry. I think my issue here is in dealing with the idea as if separate from the individual. If a human lives by certain ideals we find abhorrent then we find them abhorrent because they hold such ideals, rather than saying they are not abhorrent they just hold to certain ideals I find abhorrent.

It is precisely in this confusion that a great deal of needless hostility and patronising tones come to the fore when religious beliefs are being discussed.

A quick grab from wiki is enough to show the diversity of the term:

- “Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior. C. Hitchens (2001) writes

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."”

I would say that Hitchen’s is kind of bigoted here. He is clearly stating active opposition and hostility to religions. The details of how far he takes this are something else. As for someone like Dawkins, he is happy for people to believe whatever they wish as long as it doesn’t adversely effect others.

Then there is the bottomless argument of anyone who exists necessarily having a negative effect on someone else somewhere some how. The ‘intent’ alone seems unimportant if pure ignorance causes untold harm and damage to many people.

My view in regards to bigotry is that if someone cannot find a single positive reason for an argument they are veering into bigotry or already bigoted. The manner in which Hitchens conveys his view suggests that his judgement is made on the net effect (“- positively harmful.”).

If you don’t care about this fair enough. NP

It is something that I find intriguing and problematic.

An existential crisis is an existential crisis.

This seems to arise with age more readily. In youth everything is fresh and new, the horizons seem limitless and our potential to develop and learn in growing exponentially. It is no wonder that an ‘existential crisis’ hits at some point because we ‘slow down’ - or rather seem to.

The key is to recapture our inner child and see how fascinating the world IS (not can be!).

As children we did not really ask why we were asking why. I think it is at that threshold when the ‘existential crisis’ rears its head. The ‘why’ is approachable, but the ‘why of the why’ leaves us feeling adrift rather fascinated.

From a personal perspective something that I have become more and more aware of with age is how a life of leisure is no leisure at all. I seem to have an inbuilt code that does not allow me to ‘enjoy’ leisure unless I have earned it. It can be something simple like washing the dishes or making my bed. Once this is done I can relax and do something I consider ‘leisure’.

Is this an ‘illusion’ to feel that I have ‘achieved’ something that warrants me time to pursue more apparently frivolous activities? I am not convinced it is an illusion because if it is then what is not an illusion? Does ‘illusion’ mean anything if everything we experience is called an ‘illusion’? If ‘illusion’ is all we know then said ‘illusion’ is nothing more than our lived reality.

In terms of medicine it is kind of important that someone let the doctors know they are trans rather than just saying they are a woman. I think this is pretty obvious? Complications could easily arise for certain diseases and such if the doctor is not made aware of their patients sex above their preferred gender specification.

I can only assume you don’t take part in physical sports? There is a significant advantage physically. It is that simple.

I can tell you exactly what would happen if trans women competed in physical sports. They would break all the women’s records and rank high. This is simply a fact.

Women’s sport dominated by trans women is not women’s sport. There is a reason men and women do not compete together in nearly every sport. The men are FAR stronger and have better stamina too.

The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist. — Elric

The ‘supernatural’ cannot be proven as it falls outside of natural sciences.

Atheist is a term coined by religious folk. Atheist movements have happened to better education and healthcare.

But the term ANTI- does. Not always, but it certainly can imply hostility..

Why are you acting like I have not made that clear as day you stubborn fool.

Kant if you are serious ;)

Crime and Punishment is certainly one I’d highly recommend to most people (and have done). 1984 was one that really cut through the nonsense and conveyed a message everyone needs to take seriously though.

1) Not really. It has been tried with children but simply doesn’t work. If it was to be made mandatory then most people can perform basic logical problems if they are set in a real world context.

If you pose the same logical problem to people where one is in an abstract form and the other is in a life context then way more people get the correct answer for the ‘life context’ version.

Today most students do learn logic via computer programming. It is already a part of most curriculums.

2) School funding is not really an issue when it comes to education. What makes ANY school better is the quality/passion of the teachers. Other than that the success of schools is partially (a large part) based on cultural attitudes toward the occupation of ‘teacher’.

In many western societies ‘teachers’ are not exactly respected, whereas in other countries they are very much respected.

If you wish to learn more about this I would recommend a quick search on youtube/google regarding how Finland transformed their education system.

I cannot help it if you act dickish.

If you are anti-nazism you are utterly opposed to a nazi, right? Surely that follows?

Whilst if you are anti-racism you are not necessarily opposed to ‘racists’ only those that ‘act out’ (so to speak). Generally if someone is opposed to racism they are opposed to racists, right? Of course, the devil is in the detail of what constitutes a ‘racist act’ that impairs the rights of other fellow humans.

Then splice in anti-theism and theist. ALSO note that I admitted that these are not the same thing, but it is certainly the case that anti-theism can - but does not always - mean opposed to theists.

What EXACTLY is not philosophical here? I thought I was exploring the distinctions between where bigotry begins and ends whilst you just seem, being honest, a bit petulant because I originally implied that being ‘anti-theism’ meant such was ‘bigotry’. I have REPEATEDLY, and almost immediately, altered that initial, and blithe, comment.

Just to be clear, ‘bigotry’ is open prejudice (unreasonable opposition) against persons/peoples attached to or part of certain groups.

Of course you can argue that opposition to ‘religious beliefs’ (theistic in particular) is a reasonable argument. My argument against this would be in the intricacies of what constitutes ‘theist’ (meaning what is meant by ‘god’/‘deity’). As an idea of some overarching, conscious supernatural beardy guy/gal … I’m opposed to that too. I think it is a stretch to state that that is what all theists mean when they say ‘god’/‘deity’ - judged on the hundreds I’ve personally spoken to.

Philosophy can even be considered ridiculous, hypocritical, stupid, in its efforts to assign to quantums and neurons and structures and molecules the task of building a good relationship of man with himself. — Angelo Cannata

I do not think philosophers do this tbh?

As for the ‘consciousness’ issue I tend not to bother listening to most people who have poor knowledge of the cognitive neurosciences.

Some questions are scientific and some are philosophical. As Feynmann once said, it is stupid to answer philosophical questions scientifically just as it is to answer scientific questions philosophically. The issue is knowing/understanding exactly what kind of question is being posed before jumping in to answer it.

emojis are now philosophical points? :D

Inspired by Diogenes?

1984 (or anything by Orwell)

I wouldn’t recommend any work of philosophy as a ‘must read’ tbh. If I had to pick one I’d go for The Republic.

If we are talking purely about philosophy then I think anyone serious about the subject should tackle Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason

Does anti-facist mean ‘critical of fascism’?

Look, I stated I was hasty so saying such does nothing. ‘Anti’ is not the same as ‘critical of’ AND I clearly stated that I am ‘anti-theistic’ in SOME areas yet don’t see my singular view on how education works as bigoted.

Maybe it is possible to get you to admit that someone can be bigoted towards theists. If you can then it is just a question of where the lone is drawn.

I certainly do not regard ‘criticism’ as ‘opposed’/‘against’ anything. Criticism is just criticism, and it can be both positive and negative - hopefully both! That is usually how I spot bigotry. If someone cannot offer a positive and negative aspect then they may well be bigoted.

Ontology and epistemology are not ‘exact sciences’ (so to speak).

To suggest there should be some underlying objective foundation for reality that we can access and create a universal ethic from seems naive at best.

All ‘objectivity’ in day-to-day life is just a matter of intersubjectivity. ‘Pure objectivity’ is achieved only in abstracted demarcations (ie. Mathematical Arithmetic where there is no ‘opinion’ over 1+1=2).

The OP seems muddled btw. It seems like you are equating ‘subjectivity’ with ‘post modernism’? In reality experiences (that we have) are subjective, so to claim there is an ‘objective reality’ is not the same as offering complete truth. Science doesn’t deal with ‘truth’ in this way. Evidence is laid out and experimentation sheds light on phenomenon that allows us to navigate through life.

We don’t have any idea about any ‘physical objective truths’ of our world. We have however managed to peel back some layers that have allowed us a better understanding (predictive models) of the world we live in. Whether the layers ever end or we are capable of getting to the core is a matter of speculation.

One thing seems pretty clear though. Acting like there is an underlying mechanism to reality has helped us understand and expand more and more … but more answers have led to more questions too.

It is pretty amazing :)

It is not massively complicated.

Trans women are trans women. Women are women. Referring to a trans woman as a woman is just a way of accepting someone as they wish to be seen.

In terms of close relationships, medical reasons and physically competitive sports trans women are trans women. Outside of those areas trans women are women.

It is just a case of common sense and politeness. Most people who see someone dressed as a woman will call them a woman. Maybe there are a few scarce situations where it is not clear but that can be overcome quite easily with a simple exchange.

It follows if you are completely against any theistic believes. I admitted it is a matter of drawing the line somewhere.

Upon further consideration I clearly stated that not all people calling themselves ‘anti-theistic’ are necessarily against theists (in every aspect). There is certainly a fine line between claiming you are against someone’s beliefs and claiming you are against someone.

As I said before, in terms of education, I am ‘anti-theist’ I suppose. That is a very specific area though and one which prompted a whole movement in the US under the guise of ‘atheism’.

I am against religious ideals imposing on my, and other people’s, choices. Other than that people can do as they please and believe what they want.

If you replace the above with Nazis and Nazism, you might see what I meant more clearly? It would be silly to state that I am against Nazism but not Nazis. The difference (I admit again) is that ‘theist’ is much more broader than ‘nazi’ (which is more or less like a particular set of ideas/beliefs), and although more dubious political movements/ideologies have a lot in common with religious traditions they are not the same animal.

If you in direct opposition to theism then it follows that you are pretty much opposed to theists, right?

I guess there is a middle ground though. Maybe I jumped the gun. Staunch anti-theists are probably more what bother me and it is those who are bigoted.

Being an atheist and and partly anti-theistic is not the same as being a bigot. My mistake. In terms of education I am very much opposed to religious teaching in schools that undermine and contradict science; within reason. Example like the age of the Earth and such.

A reasonable discussion can be had within the context of religious texts. I see no real problem in debating such and think it is probably one of the best ways to open more severe religious types to a new set of tools with which to question and explore their beliefs.

Preachers here will be banned I expect as well as those unwilling/unable to know who and how to respond enter discourse with. If two people are having a good discussion about the morality of certain religious texts based on the premise that god is all knowing and right, then it is pretty obnoxious if someone else jumps in to throw insults and sully the discussion being had.

I have had discussions about definitions of god in the hundreds, online and off, because it is a personal interest of mine. The majority of religious folk I have engaged with are more than reasonable. There are some that simply don’t know how to listen though.

On this forum a think a cool off period would be better than an outright permanent ban (in most cases). That is for owner of the forum to decide though. I have only ever seen a handful of long term posters deserving of a permanent ban. Others just need a breather for a couple of weeks.

I have no problem with people being racist or bigots. The issue is when they act out such attitudes.

If you openly admit you are hostile to a whole group of people merely because they are theists I think you have issues.

Bigotry isn’t a great look.

There is a BIG difference between antitheist and atheist. Maybe you read atheist by mistake :)

‘Preaching’ is not ‘theology’ though. It seems like the boundary you are looking for is more about that?

Preaching should be banned (but a warning doesn’t hurt). I used to see that on another forum I was on. They were asked to stop or leave. Some stopped and got into discussions, others left and some kept on preaching resulting in a ban.

@Banno My general view is if they are here for theology only then they may find other parts of the forum interesting.

Exposure to different views/ideas is a tricky and messy business, but overall the benefits for some are worth the annoyance others feel imo.

@Banno I understand what you mean.

I think it should be taken as a case by case issue not an outright ban.

People do actually change, and some people are quite capable of discussing in what you frame as a theological sense and what you frame as a philosophy of religion sense too. The main issue is others judging them and not letting go of the fact that someone believes something and making that the whole reason to attack/besmirch them.

Many people here ‘blather’ all kind of nonsense that has nothing to do with religion and they are not banned. Some have even been mods!

Ontology is a whole branch of philosophical enquiry that has a long held tradition in theological circles. Should we ban ontology too?

@Banno How about banning antitheists?

Claiming that ‘god’ is the answer is not really theology.

Possibly … belief in god is not essential for theological discussion

Only if they act with hostility towards others who disagree. I would also say that many not believing in scriptures and such shouldn’t mock.

I think people people can act in bad faith on many issues not just religious ones - I’ve seen it often enough on this forum.

Theology is an area that can, but does not always, assume the existence of a deity or some overarching dimension to reality. This, for those who don’t believe, can be approached by understanding the premise is not something you hold but your comrade in discussion/debate does BUT this premise in and of itself is not under scrutiny (yet your partner in discussion may be willing to go off topic).

If your interest lies in Philosophy of Religion then you must interact with theological believers.

Like everywhere in life not everyone is worth talking to, but it is worth giving everyone a chance to express their thoughts and perhaps find something to build on immediately or in future discussions.

His point was that IQ does not, on its own, a determine ‘success’ in life. There are some physiological parallels with g and physical markers like reaction time and general health.

Psychometrics are not exactly precise and only have any means across large samples and only take into account the average differences. Someone with an extremely high IQ could find it difficult to achieve anything in life simply because they have no one on their level to bounce off so they may be more likely to be lonely. But the g factor is just ONE part of a human. Having a high IQ does not mean you will find it hard to find stimulation or meaningful relationships as other parts of your personality can compensate.

How numerous are these studies? I know that for personality tests and IQ they are decent markers because lots of data has been collected over century or more. For ‘humour’ tests I have no idea about the sample size?

Yes. And it is a good thing people question the validity of certain terms and rehash more archaic terms too.

It is simply down to everyone else to assess their points carefully, clinically and as honestly as possible. If you think it looks wrong, sounds wrong and/or you have evidence to show/infer otherwise then you should speak up or we will all have ti suffer the consequences down the line.

As for Reps and Dems … I’m not American. As for a black woman getting a job she is capable of doing, great! Maybe no one will bat an eyelid about such a thing in a decade or two, just like people don’t make a deal about black actors or scientists being black.

Here is a very basic breakdown: https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/sexual-reproduction#Sexual_Reproduction_Definition

And to repeat, if we were to define a human scientific by visual prompts alone we would not say they have 0-12 fingers because there is a degree of normative classification within biology. It is not physics.

Sex, as a reproductive act, requires (for humans) two sex cells. This is a fact. To my recollection there are no instances of an immaculate birth that have been scientifically verified for humans? As for non-functioning body parts we may as well do away with the classification of males and just call them females with non-functioning nipples?

The constant hairsplitting is a very big problem and seems to give people a reason to interpret the more nebulous science of biology as a form of social science. No, no, no. Not having it. True enough there are grey areas everywhere but they are not vast areas and to declare that there are more than two biological human sexes is disingenuous and, in some circumstances a purposefully attempt, to use colloquial wordplay alongside different scientific contexts to spout nonsense.

Defects are not the norm. We do not go around humans don’t have ten fingers simply because a tiny minority have twelve.

There are TWO sexes. There are males and females. There are exceptional cases where the lines are not so distinct (due to various defects).

Gender, like sexuality, is more flexible. But again, a women and men are generally the default across all cultures, but there is certainly more room for different terms there as the minority size is far, far larger than for sex distinctions. And the default for sexuality is extremely diverse and always has been - although shunned in most cultures at some point historically.

In terms of men and women, I think it is fine to go with trans men and trans women as well. I would certainly not simply except (scientifically) calling a trans woman a woman because it could cause problems medically and in some competitive sporting environments.

It is not massively complicated but some people wish to make it so and others wish to oversimplify it due to prejudices and hang-ups inherited from their personal experiences (or rather lack of them).

I am well aware of cases where males (in terms of chromosomes) have lived as females most of their lives whilst completely oblivious to the fact they are ‘male’ (in terms of chromosomes). I see no reason not to accept people in such cases as whatever they wish to be called (legally too). BUT these cases are nowhere near as common as people who are trans (different distinction completely as it is heavily focused on gender).

I don’t care about Blackburn’s question (and have no idea what it was). I saw you say there are more than two sexes - that is wrong. End of story.

The phenomenologist doesn’t care

It is not something that everyone has an easy time grasping and I’m only giving you a rather stunted version. I only read more about it via studies in the cognitive neurosciences. That is how I found Husserl.