If you read through the Wiki link Stevenson serious doubts have been raised about his work.

According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million.

If there's any truth to that it's far worse than any religious fanaticism I've ever heard of. — praxis

since you've already lost the argument — Apollodorus

To begin to assess this we need to look at who some of those sources are. "Some sources" according to the Wiki article this statement is taken from turns out to be two sources: James L. Nelson and Todd M. Johnson. Neither of them are experts on Soviet history. The problem is that these "sources" do not explain where the numbers come from. Why is it that only "some", meaning two, sources make these claims?

Believing something that is not true does not make a person a liar. — Athena

The claim was made that "the right of others to hold their own beliefs" is being denied. This is simply not true. The accusation is made here and elsewhere whenever the accuser's own views are challenged and cannot be adequately defended. As if to question with these views is to deny the right to hold them.

I won't speculate as to whether the accusations of persecution are actually believed or are merely rhetorical, but I think it should be viewed in light of the repeated claim here and elsewhere of having won the argument. It has not, the argument has been evaded and this is just another evasive tactic.

In other words, is the mind capable of self-refelction? — TheMadFool

This is a problem taken up by Plato and Hegel. For them it is not a question of whether we are capable of self-reflection, but of the otherness of what is thought to be a self-same unity. In taking itself as its subject matter it is both what thinks and is thought about, subject and object. But where Plato saw this as an aporia Hegel thought he had solved the problem.

Following Plato, Plotinus attempts to unify by dividing.

I think he was referring to David, the painter. — Janus

You are probably right, but his argument is still weak. Not only Michelangelo's David, but the Greek sculptures show attention to anatomy.

Aristotle dissected animals. Galen dissected animals. It was not, as he claimed, something that started during the Enlightenment.

There may be some exceptions but yes.

I think the question is interesting and possibly headway can be made. — bert1

How can headway be made? By what means can consciousness after death be measured?

Does that mean that I am afraid of death and desire immortality? — bert1

I don't know. You might be in a better position to answer that.

Does philosophy have a valuable function do you think? — bert1

I think it does, but there is a lot of stuff called philosophy. You can even find it at the cosmetic counter. And to think I went to school all these years ...

Regarding figuring out the nature of the world I do think philosophy is all we have to tackle consciousness in a theoretical way. — bert1

I think neuroscience is a more promising approach, but I don't think this excludes philosophy. The question of what happens to consciousness when we die, however, is not, in my opinion, a theoretical pursuit in either the ancient or modern sense of the term. It has no basis on which to stand. It is nothing more than a way of soothing the fear and desire for immortality.

I know. Sometimes I don't follow my own advice, but when I don't I end up smelling like the shit I am trying to clean up.

I agree that there is so much which we cannot know for sure. — Jack Cummins

It is not a matter of what cannot be known for sure, it is a matter of what we can know nothing about at all.

Speculation is fine as long as one does not mistake it for some kind of higher truth. It is all too evident that just this kind of mistake occurs around here all too often.

@tim wood

When someone creates a god ex excremento the best we can do is try to avoid stepping in it.

Some people just love to talk endlessly about something they know nothing about. Since it is untethered to any reality we know anything about there is not to restrain such pretenses of profundity ... except intellectual honesty. But such honesty would put an end to the illusion of having said anything meaningful. And so, truth is an unwelcome intrusion on the frictionless fantasy some call "philosophy".

And I cannot know for certain that the Battleship USS New Jersey has not just materialized in my back yard. Isn't ignorance, especially compounded with stupidity, g-r-e-a-t! — tim wood

The discussion has reached a critical juncture. Only a few questions and details remain:

Is the Battleship USS New Jersey omnibenevolent? Is it God? Of course we cannot know that it is not, so let's just say it is. God materialized once before and legend has it he was God's son, and, in defiance of logic, God himself. But logic is logos and logos was there at the beginning, and so, we can now be certain that the Battleship is God and God's son, Christened from the beginning.

A Holy Trinity, God, the Son, and the Battleship USS New Jersey. But there is another Trinity. So, a double Trinity, a Sextuple.

Atheist towards what precisely? Everyone has different beliefs, opinions and nuances towards the same “god/gods” both in a religious context and in a more metaphorically life pursuit sense. — Benj96

The same word does not mean the same god/gods. From Salman Rushdie:

If you were an atheist, Birbal," the Emperor challenged his first minister, "what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?" Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, "I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them." "How so?" the Emperor asked. "All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own," said Birbal. "And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.

The Enchantress of Florence

once upon a time, depictors of the human body cared little of anatomical accuracy, but cared much about conveying in their works the spirit or soul encapsulated within the body they portrayed. After the Enlightenment, artists began studying anatomy in order to better represent the human body, its exact musculature, dissecting corpses...this change in itself is an indication of the alteration that philosophy (science) exacted upon aesthetics: more emphasis on physical exactitude, at the cost of psychic representation. Only compare Rembrandt with David. — Todd Martin

Your romantic notions of a golden age of scientific ignorance are at odds with historical facts.
Michelangelo lived 1475-1564, David was sculpted between 1501 and 1504. Rembrandt lived from 1606- 1669. It seems likely that what you are calling the Enlightenment was actually the Scientific Revolution which preceded it.

According to your theory the anatomically exact David would have been created after the work of Rembrandt, but it was created about 100 years before Rembrandt was born.

I think that it is probably about being aware of our own limitations. — Jack Cummins

What is often not appreciated is that Socrates' knowledge of his ignorance was not simply a matter of knowing that he was ignorant.

On the one hand, it seems unwise to measure wisdom without being in possession of what is being measured. On the other, it seems unwise to therefore abandon the idea of wisdom.

It is not simply that he used the opportunity for a photo op, he cleared the area to make way for that opportunity. The Secret Service and Park Police acted under the direction of Barr with a sense of urgency and immediacy. This was much more than just a plan to put up a fence.

An important statement from the report:

We also found weaknesses with the operation to clear the park, including the U.S. Secret Service’s deployment before the USPP had begun its dispersal warnings ...

The SS had no interest in erecting a fence. They acted to clear the way for Trump.

The square was cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence. — NOS4A2

The timing is suspicious. The methods are suspicious. Barr's role is suspicious. The actions of SS are suspicious.

A report from the WP the day after the photo-op:

When Barr went to survey the scene, he was ‘surprised’ to find the perimeter had not been extended and huddled with law enforcement officials, the Justice Department official said,” according to our report. The official added that Barr “conferred with them to check on the status and basically said: ‘This needs to be done. Get it done.’ ”

So, there was a plan to erect the fence. The Trump administration saw this as a photo op. The Park Police may not have been aware of Trump's plan until meeting with Barr, but Barr expected the area would have already been cleared and demanded it get done. We don't know what would have happened if Trump had not used this as a photo op, but the immediacy with which Barr ordered them to act was irresponsible. Any investigation that does not look into the role his administration played is an incomplete report.

From the report:

... we did not seek to interview Attorney General William Barr, White House personnel, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officers, MPD personnel, or Secret Service personnel regarding their independent decisions that did not involve the USPP.

The report clears the USPP. It says nothing about Trump's decision to appear, how this was coordinated, or what measures were taken to assure his safe passage. It simply states that the USPP played no role. But the USPP was not the only policing agency involved. The report does not exonerate Trump, as he claimed, at best it exonerates the USPP.

You can argue that science is good based on the prosperity of the masses, but if the higher accomplishments of the soul are compromised by its success ... — Todd Martin

You have not established a causal relation or shown that science and art are incompatible.

In other words, “the music is nothing if the audience is deaf”. — Todd Martin

d

And this is exactly what is wrong with your post. It says a lot about you but nothing about music after Beethoven or literature after Keats.

The report is limited to the US Park Police. Several other law enforcement agencies were involved. The report says nothing about them.

From the NYT:

But the report’s author was careful to warn it was not to be seen as a definitive account of the day, in part because so many other law enforcement agencies were involved. The inspector general, Mark L. Greenblatt, noted that it was not in his jurisdiction to investigate what the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies knew and who may have ordered them to use force to clear the park.

“It was a fulsome review of everything in our jurisdiction,” Mr. Greenblatt said in an interview. “The unfortunate thing is not everything is in our jurisdiction.”

The report said Mr. Greenblatt did not seek to interview Mr. Barr, White House personnel or the Secret Service, among others, regarding decisions that did not involve the Park Police.

Other agencies involved that day included the National Guard, Capitol Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Mr. Trump issued a statement on Wednesday thanking the inspector general for what he called “completely and totally exonerating me in the clearing of Lafayette Park!”

In an interview, Mr. Greenblatt said he did not appreciate the comment.

“That’s uncomfortable for me,” he said. “We are independent from any political administration. This is not at all comfortable footing for anyone in my community.”

It would have been great to have been able to fully commit to Plato there, to reject Aristotle's critiques. Because, of course, Aristotle is not as fun to read. Instead of a series of polished dialogues we mostly have cluttered, meandering lecture notes stapled together. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a view of Aristotle that has recently been challenged; that his writings are neither doctrine nor lecture notes, but dialogic. He is in dialogue both with earlier writers and with the reader who is provoked to think these things through rather than accept them as either the truth or Aristotle's opinion. Like Plato's dialogues they lead to aporia. Rather than answers Aristotle guides the reader through questions.

No evidence of what? There is plenty of recorded evidence of what happened and when it happened. The report did not dispute that. Given Trump's nonstop lies, nothing that comes out of his administration is credible.

Right.

This is the inspector general's report. Not a report by investigative journalists. It is well known that Trump had previously fired two confirmed and several acting inspectors general.

Here is what he says:

“If we had found that type of evidence,” Interior Inspector General Mark L. Greenblatt said, “we would not hesitate in presenting that, and saying that was influencing the Park Police’s decision-making to clear the park. Just so you know, if we had found that, if we had seen that type of evidence, we would absolutely have reported that, without a doubt.”

Who believes this lie?

Since this thread has already veered wildly off topic, the following is not out of place.

A very brief look at our inherited beliefs:

Many ancient poets/lawgivers claim gods rather than themselves as the authority for what they say; and appeal to revelation rather than reason.

In Judaism adherence to the Law is a matter of choice.

According to Paul, man is powerless against sin. Morality (a term he never used) necessitates not only divinity but belief, acceptance, and faith because man must be saved from sin.


One reason more highly educated people may reject this is that a liberal education is at its best a liberating education. An escape from Plato's cave. Plato replaces the stories of the gods with stories or the just, beautiful, and good. But Christianity then takes what is fundamentally a story that rejects revelation in favor of reason and turns it into a story of revealed truth.

Going further it attempts to reconcile reason and revelation, thereby making reason the handmaiden of revelation. The struggle between the claims of "Athens and Jerusalem", that is, reason and revelation, continue to this day.

Religion filled in the gaps of our ignorance...

That's why.

End of story. — creativesoul

This is not the end of the story. The question is: what does it fill it with?

In my opinion, religion is at its best when it leaves the gaps open. But most seek religion because they want answers. The answers they accept do not replace ignorance with knowledge but with ignorance of their ignorance. Faith is mistaken for knowledge.

Vaccination doesn't stop you from being a spreader. — baker

You state this as if it is a fact. It is not. How effective it is at preventing the spread of the virus is still under review. One thing is clear, where vaccination rates are high covid rates have decreased significantly.

A person is not a statistic. — baker

The safety of the vaccine though is.

For the person who ends up with bad side effects, it does not matter if they are in the statistical minority. — baker

All drugs potentially have bad side effects. It is a matter of risk/benefit analysis.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone.
— baker

That is not the way medicine works.
Then why talk about it this way, as if it does work that way? — baker

You have misunderstood what it means for a drug to be safe and effective.

Still, medical lays are being fooled by the medical system there is such a thing as "informed consent". — baker

Informed consent is not all or nothing.

then why not have them decide about medications, including experimental ones? — baker

This is all regulated by agencies such as the FDA.

Political considerations include such things as freedom and compliance.

You should have something to say for those for whom the vaccine wasn't safe and effective. And there is a number of those for whom it wasn't. — baker

I cannot evaluate this without specifics. Were there underlying medical conditions? What was the cause of death? "a number" is statistically meaningless.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone. — baker

That is not the way medicine works.

The answer to that has more to do with politics than vaccine safety and efficacy.

In medicine, a person can give no informed consent if they don't have a medical degree. It all comes down to trusting one's doctors. — baker

It is not clear whether you are denying the practice of informed consent or questioning the concept. The former is well documented. The latter is more problematic. Even people with medical degrees may not have the specialized expertise needed to be fully informed about a particular procedure. An internist does not have the knowledge or experience of a neurosurgeon.

Trusting you doctor can mean different things, but where there are viable options most will not make decisions for you.

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences? — baker

Mandatory where? Mandated by whom?

It wasn't for those who had to be hospitalized afterwards or even died.

What do you have to say to that? — baker

I have nothing to say to that without specific details and statistics.

I use these terms / distinctions a little more precisely:

(A) relativism denotes that all truths or paths are equally justified — 180 Proof

That is not a more precise use of the term, it is a stipulated use. Not all relativism accepts the claim that all truths are equally justified, but rather, take the position that all justification is relative. There is no fixed standard by which we judge an invariant world. These are the conditions in which we judge.

Joseph Margolis has written extensively on this.

http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft2779n7t4;query=;brand=ucpress

http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft209nb0kk&brand=ucpress

http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft6t1nb4gf;query=;brand=ucpress

Unfounded assertion on top of unfounded assertion does not amount to more than a bunch of unfounded assertions.

Your notions of meaning and existence do not correspond to anything other than what you imagine they must be, as if, because you have convinced yourself of the truth of such matters therefore that is the way things must be.

And the only proper response to this is hysterical optimism and total faith in medicine? — baker

Based on the numbers it is certainly reasonable and well deserved optimism. Nothing I have said reflects a total faith in medicine. But I have much more faith in medicine than faith in placebos to fight the virus.