Baden
9.9k
@Xtrix Frank Apisa
You're both just fine with this?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-tara-reade-deserves-to-be-heard-katie-halper — Baden
Because of such disinformation I will rule out all Chinese debt. Aren't a lot of so called enemy nations pursuing some religious cause against America? A lot of enemy nation citizens have shown their hate publically for America. There are a lot of hate groups. This has cause a massive social problem, thus no more debt. — ztaziz
"There is more to Occam's Razor than meets the eye" is a perfectly meaningful statement. :chin: — TheMadFool
Baden
9.8k
Sad neither of you can support your position. It's all just, other side bad. Read more maybe. I bet there are others who can give cogent arguments for what you're proposing. — Baden
Baden
9.8k
↪Frank Apisa
What's absurd to me is to expect the left to vote for a right-winger who doesn't support universal healthcare and on foreign policy leans more imperialist than Trump. Not only that, but who's fully integrated into a corrupt system where both parties compete for special-interest money.
If you ask yourself who Biden's major donors are, what their price for supporting him is, and how much that price gels with the left's priorities, you should realize there's virtually no overlap there. So with Biden, not only does the left not get what it wants (like with Trump), it's actively responsible for not getting what it wants. It's the difference between being punched in the face vs punching yourself in the face. In only one of those cases can some honor be salvaged. — Baden
frank
4.7k
↪Baden Getting Obamacare back on track is a good start. We have to move forward together. A socialist-leaning president wouldn't be able to create a coalition. — frank
Baden
9.8k
↪StreetlightX
The point about leverage is well made. The Dem establishment has given Anerican progressives a choice between self-castration and four more years of Trump. Essentially, cut your own balls off or we all eat shit. The best response to that is probably, "no, you eat shit and keep eating it until you realize you need us and give us what we want." Progressives/the left ought to organize and unite behind a third party. — Baden
This weekend I'll return to work. Before I do so, I'd like to hear your comments about Russell's criterion for evaluating ideas:
From a synopsis of an essay---- "Mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell proposed: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.” Or in the context of the essay—
Let's figure out how the universe began by using the real information— the physics— that we actually know about it, instead of an unverifiable hypothesis derived from the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders." — Greylorn Ell
As to your opening: In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:
An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.
These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical.
— Greylorn — Greylorn
As to your opening: In the Western world we operate in the context of two fundamental theories about how the universe and ourselves came to exist:
An almighty God, who had no origin, and no obvious need for a universe, suddenly created it.
A physical singularity spontaneously came into existence, containing all the principles of physics and the potential for ordinary matter to manifest self-awareness, then, without cause, blew itself up. But instead of the pile of rubble produced by ordinary massive explosions, this one resulted in a nicely ordered universe complete with well-defined principles of physics, and places conducive to the development of self-aware biological life forms.
These theories are equally stupid, and functionally identical. — Greylorn
↪Frank Apisa Imagine that there are only two types of fruit; apples and oranges. Someone holds up one of them and declares that it is an apple. I can deny that statement without making any affirmation in any way. I don’t have to then declare that it is actually an orange. This is Atheism. Agnosticism would deny that the object is neither an apple nor an orange. Theism affirms that it is an apple. Now, that being said, if I investigate the matter and then come to the conclusion that it is an orange, so be it, but doing so isn’t a necessary condition for denying that it is an apple. Following this analogy, my question is does Antitheism simply deny that the apple is not a specific type of apple? So that the Antitheist could still believe that the person is holding an apple, just a specific type (red delicious let’s say). — Pinprick
But tell us: it seems to me when I've seen interviews with her - not very many nor for long - that she seems a little odd and strange. To you also, or not? — tim wood
I do have an explanation for the origin of creators. It is natural. I've published it, but the book did not find its way into the minds of readers intelligent enough to understand it. — Greylorn Ell
Precisely. This is why Atheism is not a belief that no no Gods exist. It isn’t a belief at all. — Pinprick
Frank,
Please accept my apologies. I did not include any reasoning-- figured it would be obvious that if "gods" created apples, we know the origin of apples, and that they are not natural. — Greylorn Ell
Humans created automobiles, so we can figure out that cars are not natural-- they would not have come into existence without intelligent engineering. Same as for apples. — Greylorn
That brings us to the more interesting question. If the gods are natural what natural process created them?
Greylorn Ell
8
If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural." If they exist, they are as "natural" as apples.
— Frank Apisa
Would you consider the interesting possibility that if "gods" exist, some of them created apples? And that they are therefore more natural than apples? — Greylorn Ell
Would you consider me an atheist? — darthbarracuda
Among controversial philosophical problems the one I'm relatively familiar with is the theism-atheism debate; one side claims god exists and the other side negates that belief. A key issue in this debate seems to be the meaning of "exists". Existence, its familiar meaning, is about physical objects - things we can perceive with our senses. Ergo, to use the word "exists" for a non-physical entity such as god is to somehow misuse it - importing, without a valid permit it seems, a concept from the language game of the physical into another language game, that of the expressly non-physical and so, quite predictably, we must end up disagreeing rather than not. :chin: — TheMadFool
Wittgenstein
329
↪Colin Cooper
↪Frank Apisa
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our philosophies,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings." — Wittgenstein
...if only philosophical discourse were not the province of humans.
— Frank Apisa
:up:
But it is. Unfortunately, one cannot always say "I do not know"; one is obliged to choose. To stay home or to go out? Meat or veg? Sanders or Trump? "I don't know" will not suffice here. — Banno
Banno
7.4k
I also there is nothing wrong with "believing" (or blindly guessing) in either direction.
— Frank Apisa
Apart from a certain intellectual dishonesty... — Banno
DingoJones
1.6k
↪180 Proof
See? However we may disagree we will always have Franky to agree on. :wink: — DingoJones
Echarmion
1.2k
I agree with their ideals, to a certain extend. I don't share their take on authority, nor really on the notion of freedom.
To wit, a free society is necessarily an ordered society. And while order can arise spontaneously, authority is necessary to make that order dependable. You need to be able to depend on order to be practically free.
It is, however, always a good idea to critically assess any specific hierarchy or authority. — Echarmion
TheDarkElf
43
↪NOS4A2
Are there any feasible ways to examine it more properly and be able to ascertain its chances of success? — TheDarkElf
180 Proof
992
Wow!
Okay...now I have met two people who are of that opinion.
:wink:
— Frank Apisa
Lucky for you, Frankie, a pandemic's quarantined "two" philosophically literate, thinking persons who happen to be bored enough to shed a little lumen naturale into your long unenlightened life. :razz: — 180 Proof
Banno
7.4k
It's not surprising that a nation that idolises "self-reliance" should find it necessary to enforce laws against negligence. Caring for other people is not part of the 'mercan way.
Seeing 'mercans protesting to be allowed to make each other sick... leaves the rest of humanity non-plussed. — Banno