But there are Christian groups who also think the end of the world has something to do with Israel. I don't know the details. — frank

Just don't get Gotterdamerung, Armageddon, and ragnarökkr mixed up. Armageddon is the final battle between good and evil before the Day of Judgment. The biblical hill of Megiddo on the plain of Esdraelon, south of present-day Haifa in Israel, has been reserved for the big event (no date yet). Not sure what will happen to the real estate market afterwards.



I got the picture from an article on Armageddon in Business Insider. Who knew that the end of the world is within the purview of the corporate news magazine.

You can read all about it in the Book of Revelation, at the end of the New Testament. Is the book inspired scripture or coded rant? It has some really great lines in it, but I think it more coded rant than inspired word of god. Just my opinion but memo to Pope Francis: Get rid of it,

The question is about whether the American attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was moral. — frank

Frank, I'm just not sure how much can be accomplished by a discussion of the morality of war in general, particular battles, specific weapons, and various policies. You've heard of "the fog of war" -- how facts and rumors mingle, how chaos prevents a clear view of what is happening, how propaganda becomes indistinguishable from reliable reports, and so on.

"The Japanese half of the Axis was better than the German half" someone may have said earlier. Well, maybe or maybe not, Japan's army still occupied vast stretches of territory at the end of the war. We were on their doorstep, but It wasn't as if they had been driven back to the home islands. Truman was a murderer, banno says. Atrocious things were done to innocent people on all sides under the leadership of all sorts of ranking politicians and generals.

No doubt it is an easier task to decide who and what were moral almost 80 years ago. I don't believe 'moral' and 'immoral' were so clear in the middle of the war.

Christ, we have barely begun a new war and there is already a wide divergence about the morality of Hamas's and Israel's actions. The fog of war is gathering amidst a great deal of pontificating and Monday morning quarterbacking. Hiram Johnson, a Republican Senator from California, said that truth is the first casualty of war; he was talking about WWI. Truth is still shot down as soon as it enters the crosshairs.

Do I know what the truth is here, what is moral and what is not? No more than anyone else, which is why I am doubtful about what we can accomplish here. That doesn't mean I don't have preferences; I'd rather live in Israel than in Iran or Saudi Arabia. I prefer that people not commit murder, wholesale slaughter, wanton destruction, and bring about general ruination. But... sooner or later, people do those things and think themselves quite moral.

the honorable thing to do would be to fight street by street without heavy weapons and avoid deaths and injuries. — FreeEmotion

I have neither served in a military nor been trained in military strategy and tactics, but it's clearly absurd to think that one can carry out urban warfare, fighting street by street, and avoid deaths and injuries. Hamas has dug in (fairly literally -- lots of tunnels). Even IF every civilian had decamped to Egypt, the fight to eliminate Hamas would be bloody for both sides.

I believe the human intellect is great enough to devise a plan, not only to circumvent high tech border devices, but to come up with a peace plan that all agree on. — FreeEmotion

It isn't that human intelligence is insufficient to come up with an agreeable peace plan. The problem (in many cases) is that people have interests which may be contrary to other people's interests, and those differences prevent agreement on peace plans. The state of Israel is a successful state. It's not going anywhere. Most likely the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not going anywhere either. They can not both have exactly what they want.

In one way the answer has to be "Of course they contradict each other!" Received religions posit a creating God who is the first mover, the first cause. All things were made. Science posits a material universe whose material processes, over very long periods of time, formed everything that is."

In another way, the difference between religion and science is that a creator God employs material processes to create everything that is. Fiat Lux = the Big Bang. "DNA is the language of God" somebody said.

A believer, like all other people, can hold two contradictory ideas together in the same place. "God created the universe" on the one hand, and "Life is the result of the way chemicals and physics interact." So one can sing the beloved hymn that starts out...

Of the Father’s love begotten,
ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega,
He the Source, the Ending He,
of the things that are, that have been,
and that future years shall see
evermore and evermore!

but continue to believe that we live in a chilly deterministic universe governed by physical laws.

Some people will have no truck with religion and there is no reconciliation possible. Other people will have no truck with science, and there is no reconciliation possible with them either.

Of the two poles of opinion, the exclusively religious view which rejects science is clearly the most dangerous. When one throws out the bath water of science, one also throws out the baby of logic. The world ceases to be a place to which analytical thinking can be applied. Throwing out the bath water of science also shreds one's ability to think clearly about politics and society. Religion without grounding in the secular world (despite enjoining us to "judge not lest you be judged") tends to be pretty judgmental and is usually guided by a collection of reactionary ideas.

An element of the Hamas attack that supports the idea that it was home-grown in Gaza (and not cooked up in Tehran) is the use of motorized hang-gliders. This is the sort of ingenious idea that comes out of severely straitened means. A military with ready access to conventional weapons and vehicles just wouldn't consider using something as weird--as untried--as unheard of--as an armed man on a paraglider powered by a small engine and a large fan.

Granted, that wasn't the sum total of the means of attack. Most of the Hamas soldiers / gunmen arrived on foot. Out of fashion but still effective.

So now it's just a giant mess. — frank

Sort of like life itself!

You say that

Jewish guys beat up Palestinian guys and leave them for dead. None of that ever gets into the headlines and it's been like that for decades. — frank

I wonder if things would be better if the good Jewish people would take over the government. — frank

Who are the good Jewish people you would like to see running the country? That's not a rhetorical question -- really, who/how? I've no doubt that there are Israelis who could do a better job than Netanyahu, but I suppose the dominant coalition in power keeps that from happening.

One can be pro-Israel and still admit a difficult, maybe insoluble problem: the Zionist movement and the creation of Israel as a state displaced the people who had been living under the Ottomans for several hundred years, and under the British a while before 1948. Palestine has changed hands every few centuries over the last 2500 years, so the current transaction fits the long term pattern -- a pattern in which absolutely no one is going to find any comfort.

I anticipate that Israel will continue to prosper and will have powerful allies, but I'm not sure the Two-State solution will every come to pass, or if it does, that it will solve many problems.

Surely the months of social turmoil over Netanyahu's judicial deforms served as distraction and cognitive interference for pretty much everyone in Israel - civilian, military, and intelligence. Today's attack on Israel likely has been in preparation for much longer than the Judicial scheme has been stirring things up, but Jewish social unrest in Israel was certainly a help to Hamas.

But as long as the US keeps pouring in the foreign aid, why would they care about costs? — Manuel

Isn't that sort of the same relationship as Hamas has with Iran (probably involving less cash, however)?

Israel is just on another level, though I've read that, when it comes to the Iron Dome, most of it is PR. — Manuel

I don't have any information about how much is real and how much is PR, but apparently Iron Dome missiles (several models) cost between $20,000 and $100,000. Even averaged out, each rocket in the defense system -- effective or not -- costs a chunk of change.

Just how low-tech is the Qassam rocket?

The utility of the Qassam rocket design is assumed to be ease and speed of manufacture, using common tools and components. To this end, the rockets are propelled by a solid mixture of sugar and potassium nitrate, a common fertilizer. The warhead is filled with smuggled or scavenged TNT and urea nitrate, another common fertilizer. The warhead's explosive material is similar to the civilian explosive ammonite.

The rocket consists of a steel cylinder, containing a rectangular block of the propellant. A steel plate which forms and supports the nozzles is then spot-welded to the base of the cylinder. The warhead consists of a simple metal shell surrounding the explosives, and is triggered by a fuse constructed using a simple firearm cartridge, spring and a nail.[15]

The cost of the materials used for manufacturing each Qassam is up to $800 or €500 (in 2008–2009) per rocket.

The Qassam can be improved, but improvements require more engineering knowledge and complicated tools, like lathes instead of welding equipment.

There are 45,000 acres of land under cultivation in the Gaza Strip growing fruits and vegetables. I don't know how much fertilizer is smuggled in for growing food and how much is used for bomb making. Sugar too would have to be imported. Then there is the scavenged or smuggled TNT. Sheet steel is used for the body of the rocket. Nozzles are welded onto drilled holes in the bottom plate. The nozzles improve performance, but are not canted to cause the rocket to spin -- which would improve accuracy, but requires much more skill in manufacturing.

Should you know of some some group interested in launching a hostile takeover -- say an artists colony wants the land of a nearby feminist commune -- this should give you some idea where to start.

Thanks for the links. Very helpful.

Does anyone have any information on how much Hamas's unguided missiles cost to make, load, and fuel? (they are unguided, right?) How much do they weigh? How much explosive payload do they carry? About what percent of the rocket launches actually hit buildings and cause extensive damage? Granted, their rockets don't have to hit anything critical -- a rocket blowing up nearby dirt would be -- just guessing -- nerve racking enough.

The distance between a point in Gaza to a point in Jerusalem is 50 miles / 80 km. It's 44 / 70 km between Gaza and Tel Aviv. So, a pretty good range for a sort of home-made rockets. Gaza factories probably have to operate for a couple of years, or so, to produce enough rockets to make an "adequate showing".

But then they have more than one model -- some are better than others.

Presumably Iran is the source of the cash / material that goes into the rockets, and I assume the stuff is smuggled in through Egypt above or below ground -- no big ships in Gaza's ports with missiles stacked up on the decks.

I haven't heard (as of 1:00 p.m. Central time) how well the Iron Dome defense system performed. The rockets in that system are said to cost between $20,000 and $100,000.

I do not have an answer. — EricH

I don't either. But...

I don't look at European arrival in the western hemisphere as "an occupation", which sounds too much like a military program to me, as when Germany Occupied France and several other countries.

It just isn't a human trait (or custom) to discover a new continent richly supplied with all sorts of good things and just leave it alone because somebody else got there first, especially a somebody else that didn't seem to be exploiting it sufficiently. King Leopold was very happy to get his hands on the Congo because the natives had little interest in latex, and he knew there was a growing market for it among other good things. Japan was perfectly aware that China had been next door for thousands of years, but at the time they needed a lot of what China had, and they took it.

All that displays extraordinarily bad manners, but that's the way people are -- sometimes. We behave fairly well when we're reasonably happy and not too resentful about other people. That can change fairly quickly.

The rest of the world didn't let Germany and Japan get away with it. They were bombed into submission. The armies of the just (AKA the Allies) had long since claimed a lot of other people's territories and there wasn't anybody around strong enough to take it away from them or make them give it back, Lucky us! However, the Axis powers came fairly close.

Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property?

Having an enforcement mechanism is a related but separate issue. — EricH

There are LEGAL frameworks that establish a basis of ownership. Wherever colonists landed in North America (and everywhere else), they transferred the European system of land ownership. When Israel seizes Palestinian land, they lay LEGAL claim to the property, usurping the Palestinian LEGAL claim.

If colonialized natives had a system of property ownership, it was set aside (ignored). If they didn't have a system of property ownership (the case in North America) then the land was freely available in the European legal system.

A legal system means little if there are no courts and proceedings whose jurisdiction all parties accept. Under normal circumstances, the colonializer will provide the courts which will be heavily biased in their favor.

A MORAL framework might stay the hands of colonizers, but that's unlikely if the land in question is very valuable to the colonial power, and if the colonialized people are unable to enforce their moral framework.

The upshot is that forced acquisition of land ownership have been the routine and customary method of expansion for millennia. You know, your explorers find some nice land and they claim it on behalf of the sponsoring king. Later colonists will be sent in to exploit the value of the property, If the natives become restless under the new management, then heavies will be sent in to show the locals how the new system works: We are here and it all belongs to us now. If you object too much we will shoot you. Get used to it. Who you gonna call?

In our current enlightened era (the last few years) a few beneficiaries of the European colonization of the Americas have felt guilty enough to rename a few lakes using the native words. Extremely guilt-plagued individuals have donated a little land to a tribe, or given them some cash. These are nice but feckless gestures. Feckless, because the natives are not going to get back more than a symbolic portion of the land back that they once lived on (without title).

A morally sound solution would involve a substantial redistribution of land and wealth, but even if that happened, what natives lost is too profound to be 'fixed'.

Force is the essential ingredient when it comes to shifting ownership of national lands. Hitler took a lot of various national lands, and by force the national lands were taken back -- at great human cost, both ways. Britain claimed a huge amount of land occupied by others, as did several other nations. They didn't abandon those holdings for moral reasons. Force was applied, to the British and other colonizing nations.

President Ronald Reagan 1980-1988 had a hand in the USSR's failure some commentators say. He didn't introduce military competition between the US and the USSR, but he did spend very heavily on stuff like the Star Wars Initiative (The plan to send Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader in to destroy the Kremlin) and other military projects, which compelled the USSR to spend more than they could afford to spend. The 'guns' in the budget reduced the amount of 'butter' for the Soviet people. Of course we were spending far too much (in my opinion) and couldn't afford it either, but they didn't ask me.

There was a program on PBS in the early 90s on how Russians felt about the demise of the soviet state. The post-soviet quality of life took a dive for many Russians, which probably colored their reactions, but many cited good things that the soviet system delivered. One of the things that was discussed was that there was an accessible bureaucracy to handle the complaints the people had about housing, streets, transit, markets, and so forth. It was accessible and reasonably responsive,

Joseph Stalin, may his soul rot in hell, was malevolent despot a good share of the time. He imposed famine on Ukraine in order to crush resistance to collectivization. He ignored all sorts of intelligence about Germany's planned invasion, and almost lost the country to Hitler. He had wiped out the military leadership, which had to be rebuilt to mount an effective defense. We can thank the soviet system rather than Stalin for the victory.

Another socialist enterprise worth discussion is Yugoslavia under Tito. One of Tito's achievements was to keep a lid on the various bubbling ethnic resentments which boiled over after Tito's demise. Tito's regime may have been the most effective of Eurasian communist states. North Vietnam might also be mentioned -- they beat us at our game, after all, no small achievement. North Vietnam may not have been a paradise, but it beat North Korea all hollow.

'State capitalism', where the state is the largest (or only) company of which everyone is an employee describes both the USSR and China (plus NK and Cuba). There is nothing about that arrangement which is particularly socialist or communist (per Marx). As such, were (are) they successful? The USSR is kaput, but China is successful. The USSR was able to marshal its resources to turn back and defeat the Nazi invaders, no small accomplishment.

In addition to despotism (thinking of Stalin) the major problem in the USSR and China were episodes of very bad management. Bad management happens under every kind of economic / social / political system, and it is a major contributor to bad outcomes. The great weakness of state capitalism is the potential for bad policy without effective resistance.

Capitalism is no less plagued by bad management, but has a better chance of effectively dealing with failing companies. That said, comparing allegedly communist countries with capitalist examples like the USA reveals plenty of failures here, too. Lots of wealth by abysmal distribution. On the other hand, there's nothing utopian about capitalism. It's designed around accumulation of wealth.

Lots of good points here.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism, pure socialism, pure communism, or pure democracy. Social and political organization is generally a mix of various systems. The Scandinavian countries have elements of capitalism and socialism in a democratic political system. That might be as close as we get to socialism. Even the uber-captialist country, the U.S., has a large social welfare system, so we're not pure evil. (Jamison and Zizek said it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.)

I don't count the USSR or PRC as communist or socialist, despite their names. Cuba gave it a go but did so in a particularly disadvantageous environment (enforced by the US). Venezuela?

Is it worth succeeding at "socialism" or "communism" if the people are impoverished? Is capitalism a success if the people are impoverished? (Sure, because capitalists don't care if you are starving,)

For me, all fiction is about prizing the logic of metaphors-which is the logic of narratives in general–over reality, which is irreducibly random and senseless — Ken Liu

I haven't read anything by Ken Liu, but were I to find what you quoted as a blurb on a back cover, I'd give it a pass. Too high concept.

I'm not a creative writer either, but as a reader it seems to me that complex characters are much more interesting than simplistic ones. Indeed, characterization is close to the heart of a writer's job along with plot and dialogue.

Life sometimes is just there to be appreciated and be glad that you are here on this journey. — simplyG

Good. I agree. We can live life this way to the extent that we can obtain innocence. I imagine this is the way life is experienced by animals for brief moments of time when they are not hungry, are not being actively preyed upon, the weather is nice, no threats are in view. We can, perhaps, experience life in innocence for much longer periods of time than a squirrel or goose.

Unlike 'the lilies of the fields, we have to strive to regain innocence. Our normal social selves are, biblically and secularly speaking, as innocent as the driven entrepreneur. We are busy getting and spending, laying waste our powers, and all the time hashing over the meaning of it all.

Why do we try to look for some sort of extravagant meaning ? — simplyG

Why indeed?

The purpose of man is to exist — simplyG

Apparently that isn't a sufficient reason. Were existence more difficult for us all (not just one), and survival less certain then perhaps "existence for its own sake" would be enough. For quite some time life has been relatively easy to maintain, which gives us time to think about many more meanings,

The Universe isn't meaningless because it has inherent meaning (as far as I know) but because somebody (like me, like you) said it has meaning. We gave it meaning, like "The universe reveals the majesty of God." "The Universe reveals the glory of matter and energy." Or, "The universe is a tiresome infinity of tediously repetitious forms."

We can not claim that the universe is meaningless for the reason that we, meaning mongers that we are, are in the universe. Even whining teen-age nihilists can not escape meaning by claiming that life is pointless and the universe is meaningless. In one narrow way, meaninglessness, vacuums, emptiness, absences, vacancies, etc. are loaded with meaning--maybe gray, dry, dusty, stuffy meaning, but meaning none the less.

It could well be that the colour red in another country means go rather than stop — simplyG

At some point, probably during the Cultural Revolution, somebody in the People's Republic (Mao? Foo Yung?) decided that RED = STOP was contrary to socialism, so ordered the change to GREEN = STOP, RED = GO. It didn't go well. NOT because "red" inherently means stop, or "green" go, but because the meaning of red and green (for purposes of traffic) were too deeply integrated into behavior.

human life doesn't have meaning. It isn't a referent for something else — GRWelsh

human life has value, but only because we value it. — GRWelsh

If human life has value because we value it, why wouldn't human life have meaning because we give it meaning?

Your life has 'you' as a referent, doesn't it? When you say, "I am" you are referencing yourself. You are not a zero, null, nothing.

We generate / shed / excrete / ooze / produce... meaning. Meaning is not some sort of irreducible 'element'. Meaning is always debatable. Even road signs are debatable. Just what does "YIELD" supposed to mean at this weird junction? Who goes first when it says "4 WAY STOP". "STOP" on the other hand, leaves little room for debate. There are various ways of disobeying a STOP sign, but the meaning is extremely narrow and specific--as long as STOP isn't modified: "We will stop soon"; "stop before you get to the end".

I have a much bigger problem with "meaninglessness" than with meaning. "Meaningless" is a major put-down, insult, dismissal. "His book is meaningless." "Her life is meaningless." "It was meaningless sex." No! There's no such thing as meaningless sex, meaningless lives, or meaningless creations. I hesitate to say there is no such thing as meaningless work, because it seems like I have done "meaningless work" on several occasions, but I suppose it meant something to somebody somewhere.

A "hash number" may seam to be meaningless -- just a string of digits and letters -- but it might represent or be connected to something very concrete and meaningful, like a railroad car loaded with organic whole wheat flour, or maybe just the railroad car itself.

One of the forms of 'bad child rearing" concerns language. Children are exposed to many millions of words by the time they reach the school house door. The more words they hear their parents speak (television does not count) and the more positive words their parents say to them, the better. White and middle class children are the beneficiaries of higher and positive word usage. Black and poor children hear their parents speak fewer words, fewer positive words, and more command words. Clearly cultural and education background matters.

Children who receive the least (and least positive) language from their parents generally do considerably less well in primary school, and often fall further behind language-rich children as time goes on. Once the language deficit has been created during the first 5 or 6 years of life, it is very difficult to remediate.

Fortunately there is something that can be done. Researchers have shown that when poor mothers are taught to speak more words to their children, use more positive words, and use fewer command words (like, "shut up", "sit down", "stop that", and so on) the children's language skills develop better.

This isn't a quick fix. Teachers need to periodically work with the parents and their children for an extended period of time, not just a few weeks or 3 months--more like 2 or 3 years. It's expensive, but there does seem to be a pay off. The children receiving the education enrichment did better when they reached kindergarten or first grade.

Every parent should be knowledgeable about factual child-development science, thus they’re more enabled to rear their children in a more psychologically functional and sound manner. — FrankGSterleJr

Lots of good ideas in your post. Who is against good parenting?

I think we have all seen parents carrying out horrible child rearing practices at one time or another. Maybe we were the unlucky child or the horrible parent. We usually don't know whether the bad practice is a reflection of the parent's upbringing, stresses acting on the parent, regret that the child was born in the first place, or what. We have also seen parents carrying out very good child rearing practices, as well (even without instruction on child development).

A large percentage of parents manage to raise reasonably happy, healthy children without child development instruction.

I am not entirely sure what to classify as "good" and "bad" parenting. Beating children is bad; what about being overly permissive? Subjecting children to various risks by putting them to work as children is a bad idea, but what about parenting that is overly protective? Is so and so's parenting too rigid, too disorganized, too religious, too anti-religious, too what?

Children who I observed being abused (by overly harsh discipline, for example) grew up to be healthy, caring, gentle adults. How?

Parent - child relationships are a critical influence of course, but then people go on to experience other influences--good, bad, and indifferent. "On average" people tend to reach adulthood as reasonably effective, reasonably happy, reasonably healthy adults. A substantial number don't, of course, and a substantial number experience above-average lives. Lucky them.

I've heard of some high schools offering child development instruction. Good idea, along with drivers' training, money management, and the like.

What do you guys think of the Mexican aliens? — flannel jesus

Apparently many people are ready to believe in the existence of UFOs which presumably contain aliens, and more. Erich von Däniken wrote a popular book about alleged aliens in 1969 -- Chariots Of the Gods, which makes all sorts of claims about alien activity on earth over millennia. A significant number of people have taken it as FACT. On Halloween, 1939 Orson Welle's radio production of H, G, Well's FICTIONAL story, War of the Worlds freaked out millions of people--despite repeated statements before and during the broadcast that this was a FICTIONAL DRAMA not reality.

"Jaime Maussan, a ufologist and journalist, told Mexican politicians under oath last week that nearly one third of the mummified objects' DNA was unknown."

Allegedly there was some human DNA present -- which is highly suggestive of human authorship of the ancient artifacts (if that's what they are). Why should we assume that "DNA" would be present in an alien's body? Did somebody discover that aliens from another star system evolved DNA? Not that I know of. How does Maussan think that human and alien DNA would get mixed up together?

I didn't read anything about the hard structure of the objects, Bone? Stone? Clay?. Plaster? Previously unseen material?

IF this had been actual alien tissue, THEN I would expect that the facts of the examination would spark intense scientific inquiry and public discussion. This has not happened. Conspiracists will claim that the alien evidence suppression conspiracy has once again deprived the public of the TRUTH.

There was never any outright rejection, I just stopped. — T Clark

Blessed are they who just stopped.

I progressed through a long complicated withdrawal from religious belief. I'll spare everyone the tedious details. Better a quick chippy choppy on a big black block. Get it over with. Move on.

The human mind "wants" explanations for the unknown, and meaning for events — Agree-to-Disagree

True! For the most part, we don't just shrug our shoulders and move on after seeing something remarkable and previously unknown. Unfamiliar bird, an explosion, odd new weed in the lawn, objects falling from the sky, strange weather -- no matter what, we want some sort of explanation. And we want to know what it means. The explanation may be plausible but wrong, and we will be reasonably happy with it. The meaning may be spurious, but if it meshes with other meanings we will accept it -- at least until holes begin appearing.

and god provides these. — Agree-to-Disagree

"God" has explanatory power for a rather narrow set (or sect) of people. Some people distrust scientific knowledge (or know little of it). If, for theological reasons one requires divine action in all events, then "God willed it", "God wanted that to happen" whether it was a nice rain or a devastating flash flood. "God is in charge of the world."

The threshold for assigning divine responsibility can be pretty low. A flat tire might be divine intervention. That the tire was worn out would have nothing to do with it, of course. God willed it.

God still might work as an explanation for existence, if one doesn't find the Big Bang grand enough on its own merits. It isn't that we now understand EVERYTHING; but rather, we live in a model where physical events have physical causes of some sort (well, most of us, anyway).

I think illness and injury are critical tests: When the devout believers in divine rule get sick, do they resort to prayer as their only option (Christian Scientists, for example) or do they pray they will get well while they are sitting in the doctors exam room? For most people, even fundamentalists who think God is all in all, get their oil changed, check their tires, get an annual physical, insure their property, and so on. God may rule, but God isn't going to fill the gas tank.

I do not know -- we can not know -- beyond all doubt whether or not gods exist. A very large majority of people think gods do exist, and are active agents. Why?

As a former believer, it seems like the question "Do the gods exist?" is a function of the effectiveness of institutions.

"God" is a product and a service of religious institutions which purvey god-belief, rituals, theology, communal gatherings, and so on. Many individuals and families participate and support religious institutions everywhere. The viability and vitality of belief in the gods is a result of the viability and vitality of the institutions that purvey god-products and services.

Christian institutions in Europe and the Americas have lost a great deal of viability and vitality. Membership and participation losses have been extraordinarily large (over the last century -- not just since 2000).

Before the modern era (whatever date you like) there was good reason to believe in God/s because there were few other especially good explanations for a lot of fortunate and unfortunate natural phenomena. Crops failed? Wife died? A dicey investment paid off? God did it! As science and industry have progressed with ever deeper inquiries into nature there has been less need of God/s to explain bad -- and good -- fortune.

Religious institutions have run up against considerable resistance to the old idea that God (in the 'received religions') causes good and bad things to happen in response to our supplications. Even very conservative believers who consistently and earnestly pray to God go to the doctor when they feel ill. They may pray, but they also take their medicines and sign up for surgeries.

Conclusion: We do not believe because God obviously exists; we believe in God because we have been so taught. Were God-teaching to eventually end, God/god would fade and end as well.

The question remains. If Niki is real and is as conflicted as the threads produced so far suggest.
What do you think he/she/they gain, from remaining silent after posting an opening that purports to be seeking help from TPF members. — universeness

Googling Niki Wonoto reveals somebody somewhere doing philosophical business as Niki Wonoto; NW posts unremarkable pictures on Instagram and has posted on The Suicide Project--9/15/23--the same text that was posted here. There are other social media accounts under that name. What I saw in a quick drive-by was posts about music and ordinary pictures. I didn't sign in to the Twitter account.

Apparently NW finds some satisfaction in expressing nihilistic thoughts and seeing them displayed on screen. Why would a devout nihilist care to know what meaning others see in the texts?

Is NW "seeking help"? Apparently not. The suicide project site appears to be moderated, allowing no posts about methods, partners, pacts, and so on. It's a conduit for dark texts.

IF the NW person is the same in the accounts that I looked at (and they may not be), he appears to be at least somewhat engaged in life.

its just getting an afflicted often hopeless person to realise it. — universeness

Some people have counterproductive thoughts. A lot of afflicted often hopeless people are afflicted by their circumstances. Their social/physical environment may be of low quality; bad housing, violence, not enough food, rats / roaches / bedbugs, dirt, poverty, chronic physical illnesses, isolation -- and more, all leaving the afflicted angry, hungry, lonely, fearful, frustrated -- very unhappy for months and years on end. What these afflicted people need are immediate and significant physical changes in their circumstances. They may be diagnosed as "depression" cases and they may well be depressed, but what they really need, and what will be curative, is a better life.

Or, sometimes living with someone who has a combination of intractable problems -- let's say a terminal physical illness and is maybe bi-polar, may stress a partner very severely until they are themselves dysfunctional -- depressed. In that case, the situation will resolve (the terminal illness will result in the partner's death. But sometimes people are in relationships that are chronically stressful, but to which both are committed. That too can lead to depression and the cure may well be separation.

I don't want to diminish the importance of maintaining healthy thinking about one's choices, but sometimes circumstances have to change rather than coming up with new ideas. And yes, sometimes people are--for all practical purposes--STUCK in the situation they are in.

Maybe Wonoto is 'stuck'.

I can choose — universeness

The Free Will card is played.

I can also choose, at least as far as choosing to believing that I made a choice. I do not believe that people 'choose' to be depressed (and all the stuff that goes along with it). What we can and do choose (or what we can not and do not choose) is an intricate puzzle. We don't have to get into all that. My theory (chosen or not) is that we are born with a predisposition towards optimism or pessimism. You seem to be a solid optimist. I'm not a despairing pessimist, but I'm closer to that than being a cock-eyed optimist. Rogers and Hammerstein, 1949, South Pacific:

“I have heard people rant and rave and bellow
That we’re done and we might as well be dead
But I’m only a cock-eyed optimist
And I can’t get it into my head"

The "affective" aspects of human behavior don't seem to be a matter of choice. Aspects of our intellectual life, however, can (to a large extent) be chosen. Anyone might pick up a copy of the Communist Manifesto, read it, and chose to think of it as gospel or as heresy. Same with the Gospel, Ayn Rand, Mao's Red Book, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, Thoreau, Hegel, or... whatever. Consequences usually follow when we make intellectual choices. Enthusiasm for Thoreau's Essay on Civil Disobedience influenced both Gandhi and M. L. King thinking (one out of a billion other examples). Thoreau influenced my thinking too. So did Uncle Karl. So did the Gospels. So did a lot of texts that I could have given a pass, but didn't.

The really tricky part of this is where the affective and intellectual influences mix. Some people clutch the Manifesto to their heart, other people drop it like a hot potato. What our intellects are attracted to and which we choose to read are influenced by what we like before first contact.

So getting back to Nikki Wonoto, he, she, or it may not have "chosen" nihilism as much as fallen into it and found its odd fragrance pleasant. You don't like its odor, I don't like the smell of it, but some people do. Taste is destiny?

Chronic depression can cause many bizarre behaviours. — universeness

True. I have seen this phenomenon in myself--not so much "bizarre" behavior as self-defeating and counter-productive behaviors which seemed like a good idea at the time. Perseverating is a feature of depression for many depressed people; it's the same idea repeating itself over and over again. Of course these perseverated ideas are never positive, up-beat, can-do phrases. Quite the opposite.

Depression may lift on its own, or lives may change, or one might get therapy. The former down-beat negative ideas can fade away and the world has meaning, possibilities, and goodness again.

I don't know if 'wonoto' is depressed. Maybe he, she, or it is trying nihilism on to check out the style--the philosophical equivalent of goth.

You have nailed it.

A pure provocateur — universeness

A pointless provocateur and a nihilist poseur--a role that is altogether too easy take up. It probably seems cool to a certain lazy type, because if everything is meaningless and nothing matters, there's never a reason to let others make any demands of us, or rouse one's self into action which might be slightly tiring as well as meaningless. One just goes around whining about the meaningless of life. Talk about tiresome!

I say hit the delete button.

There is meaning aplenty to be had; life just doesn't hand it to us on a silver platter.

Anesthesia really is different than sleep. Does one feel "rested" after anesthesia? I haven't felt "rested" afterwards. It was an "empty experience". I woke up with surgical wounds and discomfort but no recollection of the surgery. But then, I quite often wake up in the morning with no recollection either -- no dream memory, no sense of the night having sped by. (On other occasions it seems like a lot happened -- memory of complicated dreams, waking up several times, full bladder, etc.

One thing about waking up from anesthesia -- there has always been a nurse on hand when I've woken up. I don't know what it would be like to wake up in a room alone in the dark, say. One would have to put 2+2 together one's self. Might be scary.

Reality must keep track of all other organisms' state and location. — Cidat

It would be nice if reality did keep track of everything, but "reality" does no such thing. It can not because "reality" is a concept, a mental object--a rather big mental object.

We are not entirely out of touch with the world when we sleep. Our brains are busy doing something (???) 24/7. Your brain "puts you to sleep" and it "wakes you up". They can keep track of time well enough to wake you before your alarm goes off (unless it has decided to sleep through the alarm).

Some animals that can't afford to have both sides of their brain sleeping at the same time put the left half of their brain asleep and keep the right side awake -- then switch.

If you were the only organism on earth, your question would be profound, Fortunately, the earth is full of creatures that sleep, perchance to dream.

I have come across some of this information elsewhere, but it's a nice video presentation.