One can lack intelligence and be wealthy. — creativesoul

Sure.

Trump is proof of that. Smart business men do not go bankrupt unless done intentionally as a means to not keep their word, not pay their debts, and/or not lose their business. — creativesoul

No, Trump is totally not proof of that. Nor did he intentionally go bankrupt. And by the way, losing a business or two isn't abnormal for a good businessman. Even Henry Ford went bankrupt several times. It doesn't follow from that that he was dumb, or not a good businessman.

Dumb business men can tremendously increase their wealth by virtue of having the right people in the right places. — creativesoul

This is false. Look, you don't know what you're talking about, and that's fine, but I can tell you for sure that dumb businessmen can absolutely not increase their wealth. Having the right people in the right places first of all requires intelligence - intelligence to choose them, get them in the right place, and intelligence to motivate them and keep them (as well as intelligence to check that they are not screwing you). Rich people have many around them who want to take their money away, or make easy money off them.

I don't argue by virtue of googling til I find someone I agree with to make my argument for me. — creativesoul

No, you should listen to what the guy has to say about it. I'm not arguing based on the fact that someone agrees with me, I just gave you a source which has a nice argument for it, so that I don't have to re-state the same thing. Your refusal to even listen to it is pathetic.

Trump lacks intelligence. He did not lack knowledge regarding how to find people that could be paid in order to get what he wanted. — creativesoul

I beg to disagree with you. If you think Trump lacks intelligence, you're extraordinarily naive:

Wayfarer, I see you're back on track with the anti-Trump campaign! X-) Maybe they should make a pill for you to calm down, and get over Clinton's loss. Trump is not a great President in some regards, but he's definitely better than Clinton and her cronies.

Donald Trump is living proof that intelligence and wealth are not connected, for he is a prima facie example of quite the contrary. — creativesoul

Trump may be immoral in some regards, but he's certainly not stupid - that's definitely out of the question. If he was stupid he would have destroyed all the fortune left to him, not grown it, nor would he have become President.

Please note that this is not the first time that TheWillow jumps to defend TimeLine. It's not surprising, granted that both of them are post-modernists.

The idea we can measure truth by someone's willingness to defend a statement or engage in conflict is only rehtorical posturing. Even is someone drives by and drops the statement "X is true", it cannot be dismissed.

So called "burden of proof" is is a fallacy . — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're missing the point though. If in a discussion someone refuses to support a claim, then, for the purposes of that discussion, they are conceding the point. This is a necessary part of those rules which are presupposed in a discussion, otherwise we could not have serious discussions in the first place. People would just claim they're right, without actually showing it.

Fighting is not a measure or truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nonsense. I'd take Ludwig's word over yours any day:

A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

One moment, let me get my pen and paper and tally up how many moral people each religion has produced...is that what you're asking? Cause I can't do that. And neither can you. — Heister Eggcart

No, that's not what I'm asking. When you first popped around the forum, I remember you accused me of talking to you as if you were a peasant. Now it seems you've become the big boy and are talking to me as if I'm an idiot >:O

This is essentially a thread in itself. I'd be happy to respond if you flesh out the question here. It's like asking the same about Christianity. Saying "Catholic>Methodist" doesn't really tell anyone anything. — Heister Eggcart

The only reason I'm asking you is because you yourself have referred to certain strains of Buddhism. These are your own words. You didn't refer to Buddhism as a whole, but to certain strains. After Christianity of which I know the most because I am a Christian, Buddhism is the religion that takes second place in terms of my knowledge. So what strains are you referring to? Zen Buddhism? The Thai Forest tradition? Tibetan Buddhism? It's not that hard to answer, since you yourself were thinking of certain strains when you wrote that, not of Buddhism as a whole. So I presume you don't think highly of all forms of Buddhism, but only some, just like for example you don't think that well of certain Christian denominations.

I'm a high-energy, aggressive, impetuous, competitive person. — T Clark

And at one and the same time you lack self motivation. Something ain't adding up.

The only thing better than a good idea is a bad idea. — T Clark

Ooooh, the wisdom!

It isn't the truth that matters, it's what we can convince people of. — T Clark

Riiiiight, it's all about the propaganda! >:O

Deleted — Heister Eggcart

>:O LOL poor TimeLine, I think she's a good person at heart, but it's just that arrogance and pride blind her from being more compassionate.

I do respect TimeLine, despite most of her writings nowadays being nonsense. She's not a bad person, at least not willingly one.

Thus, it's actually an indirect argument for abortion, not for the immorality of procreation. — Thorongil

Yes, I thought exactly this, so thank you for clarifying this directly. I realised as I was writing it, but felt too lazy to bother changing the terminology granted that schop1 was using this terminology himself. But I did notice that my argument could then be taken and used as a pro-abortion argument, by claiming that no one is harmed until they're born (taking birth to be leaving the mother's womb) and I totally disagree with that. So thank you once again, well spotted! :) (Y)

I disagree. I think no harm can happen before conception. Plenty of harm can happen before one is born. — Thorongil

You disagree, but I agree with you. It depends where you place the moment of birth. If you place the moment of birth at conception (and I would probably agree with that, or at least I would place it close to conception) then yes of course a lot of harm can happen while the live baby (who is hence already born, otherwise he couldn't be alive) is in his mother's womb.

In my discussions birth does not refer to the moment the baby is separated from his or her mother's womb, but the moment it is alive. I would place that moment at conception, or at least very soon afterwards.

????????? — Heister Eggcart

TimeLine's posts always read like they were generated with a POMO-essay generator, like this one. A bunch of writing which has no beginning, no middle, and no end, much like a tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING! Damn Shakespeare, he knew it all along >:O

because I have never trusted neither loved anyone enough. — TimeLine

Do you think not trusting and not loving anyone enough is a virtue? :s

You do a lot of that. I'm not the only poster who could tell you that. — Heister Eggcart

Well, I don't know about that, but statistically, you are the only one ;)

Again, a "better life" means one that is more moral than what came before. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on morally upright people. I shouldn't have to name you Buddhists, including Buddha himself, for you to see how others can live good lives. — Heister Eggcart

Ehmmm... Number one, I think you should read the darn question again lol... :P

Number two, I've never suggested in this thread that people of other religions cannot live good lives, so I don't see why you're bringing that one up.

Number three, you yourself said previously that "certain strains" of Buddhism lead to a better life - so I'm asking you, what strains of Buddhism are you talking about? What Buddhists have you read about or know (excluding Buddha for now, because we're talking about the followers of a religion not its founders) that are so living?

How many "Buddhists" really want to come to terms with the basic tenant, "life is suffering"? Few. — Heister Eggcart

Sure enough, but what the hell does this have to do with the question I've asked? :s >:O Do you just mean to suggest that Buddhism is losing adherents because not many people want to accept that "life is suffering"?

You sound kind of outraged to me. Although it seems like a kind of empty, rhetorical outrage to distract from the fact that you don't have anything substantive to offer. — T Clark

Given the kind of judgement you've shown in this thread, I think it's quite safe to say you're absolutely wrong, and the worst bit is that you don't even know it. Your self-righteous attitude does nothing except prove this even more.

Effectively, what you're saying when you say the child is caused to exist, is that existing things (form and matter) are so conjoined so as to give rise to a new substance (which is the child). But notice that this isn't ex nihilo. It's not as if the non-existant child is affected and made to exist, but rather that existing things are so affected to constitute the child. So your causation example forms no exception to the general principle I've outlined before.

Right, I was just talking :-} :P :

• Do you say that these strains of Buddhism produce more of what you've identified as "the better life" than Christianity?
• Which are these strains of Buddhism, and can you offer some examples of people who exemplify this better life?
• What's your take on the coming disappearance of Buddhism as per the statistics I've presented? — Agustino

I asked you these three questions.

Because I believe forcing someone to be in a (practically) inescapable position to do something or not that is ongoing is harmful. — schopenhauer1

What's the inescapable position? :s Life isn't an inescapable position. Things in life can be inescapable positions, but certainly not life, which is the stage which makes all inescapable positions possible in the first place.

Breathing, is usually automatic. Perhaps you should have used eating. Eating is optional — schopenhauer1

So what if it's automatic? It's still a necessity. For some people doing the laundry is automatic. Apparently not for you. That's what your real problem is, that you invest so much energy dealing with such basic chores of life.

When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy. — schopenhauer1

Again the chair doesn't exist before it's actually made (the form of the chair exists, and the matter from which the chair will be made, but not the chair). The chair is a combination of matter and form to speak in Aristotelian terms. A child in this case would also be a combination of matter (the body) and form (the soul), and a child begins to exist at a certain point in time. Prior to that point in time, the child did not exist. So yes, the child was caused to exist by an external force, so what? More correctly, the matter and form of the child were conjoined in one substance by an external force (notice how both form, and matter existed before by the way). Being caused to exist cannot be a harm, because all harms happen AFTER the moment of birth, not before. No harm can happen before birth. To suggest otherwise is silly.

However, exposing new people to unwanted, unpleasant work in order to survive and function properly (though necessary once born) is not good for the interest of a future possible person who will have to endure it. — schopenhauer1

So a person apparently has interests before they're even born... good one.

I'm still waiting for you analysis of this Eggcartus:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/78859

Your outrage is hollow. — T Clark

Why would I be outraged? :s

Please elucidate, specifically, how I have "disrespected every single woman in this thread." Checking my posts, I can't find anything. Or are you counting the times I assumed that women were men? That was presumptuous on my part, and I think it reflects an unexamined bias. I don't see how that makes it disrespectful. My mistakes didn't change the substance of my posts. — T Clark

I'm just stating a simple fact that you've been the most disrespectful in here to pretty much all the women in this thread, calling their thoughts creepy (multiple times, by the way, and to multiple women), shouting rhetorical and imbecile question at them like "Are you married? Do you have a wife? A sister?", telling them that from your precious experience what they say comes from people who don't like women very much and other such bullshit. Really, if you want to know the truth, I think you should be ashamed of your behaviour, and the fact you don't even admit to it doesn't do you much good.

then indeed why have faith? — Heister Eggcart

Because you love God, and you believe in the things promised by God. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"

And you need to believe that the non-existing, unborn child is worth procreating and is worth being given a life, otherwise your decision to have a child is at best arbitrary and amoral, like picking your nose. — Heister Eggcart

The decision to have a child, is similar symbolically to the divine decision to create the world with its myriad forms in it. It emanates out of love, in this case the creative love that exists between a man and a woman.

But you do claim to know that your faith is worth having. Why? — Heister Eggcart

Which faith are you talking about? My faith in God? And how can faith be a matter of "worth having" or not. It's not like you do a cost benefit analysis and then decide, yeah, sounds like a good idea, I'll have this faith.

Why else would that be the case were you not also assured in the knowledge that life is worth living? — Heister Eggcart

Because I believe that God wouldn't place man without a reason here.

Do you need me to clarify? Otherwise you just mean to say "invalid" or "wrong". Incoherent means it's not clear.. Which would mean it's best to clarify first.. — schopenhauer1

Incoherent means something more than it's not clear. It means that it's nonsense.

Obligations force work to be done that would not otherwise be done — schopenhauer1

So? >:O That's as silly as complaining you're forced to breathe! I don't understand why you assume that obligations or work are something bad, a harm, or the like. That's absolutely arbitrary.

it is a necessity and therefore a forced task — schopenhauer1

Breathing is a necessity too, why don't you quit it for awhile? :s Not all necessities are bad. You're making a totally mistaken assumption. You have to justify why a necessity is something bad in the first place.

Oh this little rhetorical wordplay again.. I've gone through this in so many variations.. So I'll say that when the child is born, that is forcing someone, as once a child is born, they exist due to your previous actions. A new child exists and is therefore harmed. — schopenhauer1

It's not word play at all, it's just pure logic. When a child is born, nobody gets forced because 1 second prior there was nobody, no suddenly there is somebody. Who was forced? Forcing can only start after the child is born. Mere existence also isn't a harm. I don't understand where you're taking this stuff from. Things like being raped, being beaten, being tortured, starvation, disease, etc. these are harms. Existence isn't a harm.

What would be the worst that would happen by not manifesting souls into physical bodies (not that I believe that)? — schopenhauer1

They couldn't know themselves truly and completely? To know something you have to set it against its opposite. To know immortality, you have to set it against mortality. To know joy, you have to set it against suffering.

Again, not that viable.. Surely a person's life trajectory is not as malleable as you claim. — schopenhauer1

It is absolutely viable. Have you tried it? Have you tried training yourself to do something useful for others that would allow you to work independently? People's life trajectory is a lot more malleable than they would initially guess. If you look back 10-20 years ago, you'll be amazed you are where you are today.

This is the perfect example of forcing people into obligations which is harmful. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand your point. You haven't proven that all obligations are harmful.

LOL. Ah, so you're banking on your child thinking like you, agreeing with you that life is worth living. Thanks for rubbishing your faux neutrality in the other thread >:O — Heister Eggcart

No, I nowhere said that I'm banking on my child thinking that life is worth living. I did however tell you a fact, namely that most children (while they're children) do in fact seem to think life is worth living. As for neutrality, I don't have any neutrality to hold. I believe life is worth living, but I don't claim to know that. It's a matter of faith.

But you definitely don't have a child thinking that life is worth living, >:O — Heister Eggcart

No, I don't currently have a child because I'm not married, nor would I have a child right away (that would be something to be discussed and decided together with my wife) but I don't see why that's funny. Most children do in fact seem to think that life is worth living.

The OP was about forcing people into obligations by procreating them into existence. — schopenhauer1

The OP is incoherent.

So let's see. First of all, you presuppose that obligations (and responsibility) are somehow a harm. I think this is absolutely wrong-headed.

Then you also say that by procreating them, you force something on them. But wait a second. Do you believe in souls? If you don't, then the person starts existing when they are born. How can you force something onto someone who isn't yet born? All the forcing starts only after birth, not before birth, so again, logically speaking this has absolutely 0 to do with procreation.

And if you do believe in souls, then there may be a purpose for bringing them here.

(as dropping out of system is not viable and only sounds doable in philosophy threads). — schopenhauer1

Depends what you mean by dropping out of the system. If you don't want to work a traditional job, then learn the skills required so that you don't have to do it anymore. You're not precisely forced to go your whole life working a traditional job... If you don't want to do anything useful for your fellow human beings, then yeah, don't expect to get them to provide for you, that would be absurd. Those who can do something useful for others, should do it. Those who can't do something useful for others - because say they're physically, or mentally handicapped, they should be provided for and taken care of by those who can do something useful.

Blaming the victim.. you are so compassionate you will FORCE others into "X" harm and then say "Buck up kiddo.. life isn't going to hand you shit".. — schopenhauer1

Okay, can you explain who I will force and into what harm I will force them?

but why force others into it? — schopenhauer1

Who am I forcing?

By being born we are forced into into agreements with society to survive. One major example is work. While employed, you are obligated to do everything for the employer that is necessary. If you quit, you may find yourself with no economic means to support yourself so you are obligated to continue (if you don't want to burn savings, go poor, homeless, etc.) until you find another job which might continue the cycle. I say it is immoral to knowingly throw more people into the obligatory forced agreements of the economic system or any system that requires obligatory duties be performed. — schopenhauer1

Well this all is predicated on the assumption that you have to work in a traditional job your whole life in order to survive, but that's false. You can teach yourself new skills, which may enable you to start your own business or work as self-employed - for example. Yes, you will have to do something useful for others in order to survive, but that's only normal, human beings are social, and we all need to contribute. If you don't want to contribute anything, then that's a character defect, which you need to work on to fix. Compassion is a natural human virtue.

Also, procreation has nothing to do with this.

Perhaps I wouldn't have misunderstood if you had not been conversing with Agustino, who is not shy about expressing his disrespect for women. — T Clark

:s This is just false. I have a lot of respect for women, there's no problem there.

And I don't think you should be the one telling me anything about disrespect to women, granted that you've probably disrespected every single woman in this thread, by assuming the worst about them, not reading their comments properly and so on. Really, it's quite pathetic. You're the one talking about respecting women, when lo and behold, you've probably been the absolute worst at it in this entire thread.

If Herr Heister Eggcart can't know that all human life isn't worth the suffering, then by extension I would assume that Monsieur Agustino can't know that human life IS worth the suffering. — Bitter Crank

You're right, if you read my posts, you'd see I've already acted in this manner.

Is life on earth worth the suffering? — T Clark

I wouldn't claim to know the answer to that. — Agustino

Yes, I'm talking about all human life too. How do you know that all human life isn't worth the suffering on Earth? How can you possibly know that? Being just one among many billions of lives on Earth certainly gives you no grand insight about the purpose of the whole thing. Do you think you are in the position of judging all of human life, and determining that it's not worth the suffering?

Clark's question is different from, "is life worth living or continuing?". — Heister Eggcart

Realllllly?

Is life on earth worth the suffering? — T Clark

It seems to me he's asking about life on earth as a whole.

Because I'm a life suffering on earth. — Heister Eggcart

So how is that sufficient for you to be able to know whether the whole show (not just you) is worth it?

Fuck no. — Heister Eggcart

That's a strange position. Can you justify that please? How do you know? How would a mortal human being of limited intelligence, a speck of dust, know whether life is worth the suffering on earth or not?

The Lord Speaks
38 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
31 “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth?
34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom
or gives the rooster understanding?
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?
39 “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?
2 Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?
3 They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.
4 Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
they leave and do not return.
5 “Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied its ropes?
6 I gave it the wasteland as its home,
the salt flats as its habitat.
7 It laughs at the commotion in the town;
it does not hear a driver’s shout.
8 It ranges the hills for its pasture
and searches for any green thing.
9 “Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
Will it stay by your manger at night?
10 Can you hold it to the furrow with a harness?
Will it till the valleys behind you?
11 Will you rely on it for its great strength?
Will you leave your heavy work to it?
12 Can you trust it to haul in your grain
and bring it to your threshing floor?
13 “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
though they cannot compare
with the wings and feathers of the stork.
14 She lays her eggs on the ground
and lets them warm in the sand,
15 unmindful that a foot may crush them,
that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
she cares not that her labor was in vain,
17 for God did not endow her with wisdom
or give her a share of good sense.
18 Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
she laughs at horse and rider.
19 “Do you give the horse its strength
or clothe its neck with a flowing mane?
20 Do you make it leap like a locust,
striking terror with its proud snorting?
21 It paws fiercely, rejoicing in its strength,
and charges into the fray.
22 It laughs at fear, afraid of nothing;
it does not shy away from the sword.
23 The quiver rattles against its side,
along with the flashing spear and lance.
24 In frenzied excitement it eats up the ground;
it cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.
25 At the blast of the trumpet it snorts, ‘Aha!’
It catches the scent of battle from afar,
the shout of commanders and the battle cry.
26 “Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom
and spread its wings toward the south?
27 Does the eagle soar at your command
and build its nest on high?
28 It dwells on a cliff and stays there at night;
a rocky crag is its stronghold.
29 From there it looks for food;
its eyes detect it from afar.
30 Its young ones feast on blood,
and where the slain are, there it is.”
40 The Lord said to Job:

2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the Lord:

4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
8 “Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
12 look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?
41 “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
for you to take it as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
6 Will traders barter for it?
Will they divide it up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
or its head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on it,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
the mere sight of it is overpowering.
10 No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
its strength and its graceful form.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15 Its back has rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.
22 Strength resides in its neck;
dismay goes before it.
23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
they are firm and immovable.
24 Its chest is hard as rock,
hard as a lower millstone.
25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
they retreat before its thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron it treats like straw
and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make it flee;
slingstones are like chaff to it.
29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is its equal—
a creature without fear.
34 It looks down on all that are haughty;
it is king over all that are proud.”

I'm sure you would make your own arguments if you actually cared. And then I might actually respond to them. As it stands though, I'm not at all interested in being sent around the internet at the speed of your google searches; read your own source material and compose an actual argument... Please... — VagabondSpectre

:s :-}

So you say it's a religious connection. That's your conclusion. What are your premises and evidence? — VagabondSpectre

The fact that they buried their dead, the religious paintings, the fact that they had rituals, shamans, and all the other stuff we can now identify as being associated with a religious impulse.

I thought you were talking about god but I guess you were talking about something even more vague... — VagabondSpectre

Yes, you thought that because your reading comprehension skills are very poor. I was very clear that I'm talking about the divine/transcendent. As for what the divine/transcendent refers to, it refers to anything spiritual, anything which shows evidence of pushing beyond the merely material realm. Burying one's dead for example is a sign of respect for them. If they had no spiritual impulse, they wouldn't give a shit about burying the dead and showing respect to them, because why would they? They are dead, they're no more, what's the point of respecting someone who doesn't exist anymore?

I'm sure you know that Islam was "spread by the sword" during a certain period of time, but how do you feel about the Christian crusades or evangelical missionary works? In very ancient times there was no conquering monotheistic god to speak of, that shit came after the end of paganism in Rome. — VagabondSpectre

No, these religions were successful because they gained, rather quickly, a critical level of followers. Even if there were no Crusades, Christianity would still be a huge religion. As would, by the way, Islam. Sharing the religion, not necessarily through conquest, is part of ALL religions, pretty much. A follower of a religion has something good, he is likely to want to share it.

In very ancient times there was no conquering monotheistic god to speak of, that shit came after the end of paganism in Rome. — VagabondSpectre

Exactly, and religions still existed and flourished without it :) My point isn't about the idea of One God, but of the transcendent.

Yes that's according to me. (Sorry Wayfarer!). It's by your own words that I reason this though; you speak of a coming desire for the divine or the transcendent where hedonic pleasure won't be sufficient. You even referred to it as a natural human drive; something psychological. So even by your own admission and description, you are just following the natural drives that your mind is geared toward, and following what it is geared toward makes you happy. — VagabondSpectre

Hedonic pleasure is never good, not that it won't be sufficient. Hedonic pleasure is any pleasure which is made into the highest good, and isn't aligned in its proper place.

Happiness is different for different people, but we can all agree that pain and pleasure have at least some relationship with it. — VagabondSpectre

That depends what you mean by "pleasure".

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them — VagabondSpectre

Right, it seems they made a distinction between the natural laws (including what is known in philosophy as natural morality) and God, who is above those laws.

Why did they explicitly make it so that no religion could ever become a state religion (or gain favored legal status over another religion) if America was to be founded on Christianity? — VagabondSpectre

Because people of other religions were free to make their home in the US? Because religion is different from government? :s This position by the way is a very Christian one - render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.

Joking about fucking someone's wife is different than joking about offering blowjobs, which is also different than your wife joking about offering blowjobs. — VagabondSpectre

First of all, "joking" about that when millions of young girls are watching and looking at you as their model is completely unacceptable. Second of all, Madonna has been married in the past, and more importantly she has 6 children, so yes, I think her joking about that is just as terrible as your wife joking about that would be.

You make it sound like any joke which is vaguely offensive to anyone's sensibilities is a bad joke. You sure you haven't been drinking that political correctness cool-aid? — VagabondSpectre

No, that's not what I've suggested. I've suggested that demeaning sexual jokes of a vulgar kind have no place in the public arena.

In short, who determines what "sin" is? — VagabondSpectre

Tradition, reason, natural moral laws.

So you like your women with successful professional careers, the ability to choose if and when they have children, and the freedom to marry another woman if they so choose? — VagabondSpectre

Women should absolutely be able to have successful professional careers if that's what they want. Women should choose ALONG WITH THEIR HUSBANDS when to have children, and they should be "free" to live with other women, but not marry them, as marriage is a religious institution and is hence bound by religious laws which define it as being the union between a man and a woman.

No you're right... How dare that woman offer blowjobs... The end is nigh. — VagabondSpectre

Promiscuity whether it comes from men or women, is indeed a serious moral problem of the modern world.

That's because I sell actual carrots. You just allude to this magical invisible carrot that will satisfy you forever. You peddle the promise of ultimate gratification, ultimate fulfillment, while I offer a basic but genuine staple of human life: enjoyment.

If you want to beat me in sales, it's not too late to change products... — VagabondSpectre

Religion has already beaten you in sales, by FAR! You better pick it up faster if you ever want to catch up.

The law was written by the British government but it was informed by prevailing religious views amongst it's people. The bible describes homosexuality as abominable and would have definitely contributed to why Christians have had such lasting negative positions towards homosexuals (we can look at the lynching of gays in America as an anecdotal starting point). — VagabondSpectre

Number one, the Bible did not actually describe homosexuality as abominable, but rather homosexual sex. That's an entirely different thing. Number two, there is a difference between religion and government, which is biblically supported.

One value of democracy is not that it absolutely prevents arbitrary (and wrongful) religious moral standards from holding sway in society, it's more so that it permits us to escape those religious moral standards, as a society, as the people change and progress more quickly than their religious doctrines. — VagabondSpectre

Well only a madman would call rising divorce rates well into 50%+, and rising promiscuity and sexual immorality as progress. You are aware that poor men and women, the most vulnerable in society, and their children, suffer the most out of these developments right? Many women in today's world, especially if they come from a poorer background, cannot find a man who respects and values them.

but Jesus himself stated that the ancient laws were still good. — VagabondSpectre

Sure, but only with reference to the Mosaic Covenant. Christians don't have a Mosaic Covenant with God.

And it's not as if it makes much sense that god went into extraordinary detail about the moral standards expected of the Jews but then later on changed his mind about what is moral. — VagabondSpectre

It absolutely does, because first of all those additional laws were meant to be advice for the Jewish people at that particular time in history, not forever. The essential, unchanging laws are represented by the 10 Commandments, the Noahide laws and natural morality.

I know you believe homosexuality is sinful, but do you also believe that they should be put to death for it? — VagabondSpectre

No I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe homosexual sex is a sin. The two are different. One is being sexually attracted to members of the same sex, while the other is engaging in sex with members of the same gender. The act itself is punishment enough (I'm a virtue ethicist). In addition, it's not up to us to punish people for sin, so long as that sin doesn't cause any other social sins which impact others. God will render justice unto the end - as promised, the punishment for sin will be death, regardless of what that sin is. But the vengeance will belong to God, not to human beings. "The vengeance is mine, saith the Lord".

You suggested we've abandoned charity. We clearly have not. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, the fact that there's millions of charity organisations doesn't mean we haven't abandoned charity. The existence of such organisations has little to do with the virtue of charity.

HA! Why can't women just be there without some necessary role of subservience to men? — VagabondSpectre

Who told you women are subservient? I just told you that the Bible says that women are helpers to men. Helpers are not servants or slaves. Helpers have an equal position to the one helped, or higher.

You do realize that most modern Christians side with me on this right? — VagabondSpectre

:s if by that you mean that Christians don't believe that women are slaves to men, of course! We absolutely don't believe that. Women are highly valued in Christianity.

Regarding promiscuity, how often is it the cause of divorce? I wonder if something like a rise in the cost of living (which subsequently now on average has both parents working full-time jobs to make ends meet) might have an effect on their relationship or if the subsequent time spent apart might even be a factor contributing to promiscuity itself.... I wonder... — VagabondSpectre

Very often. Promiscuity prior to marriage is also very important, because old habits die hard. If you don't prepare to respect and save yourself for your spouse (or at least do your best to), then clearly you're not going to be able to keep your marriage intact either.

Economic factors do have a role to play, but it's not fundamental. If people were virtuous, they would not be promiscuous, regardless of external circumstances. It's an excuse that many like to use to justify their sin.

P.S, if you are truly selfless then give away all of your posessions. W.W.J.D? — VagabondSpectre

I would, if I thought that's actually the way of doing the most good.

Yes because according to you prosperity is a function of religiosity. — VagabondSpectre

Not only a function of spiritual well-being, but that's also very relevant.

Man actually needs something other than bread to live on. I agree: they need a circus; games. — VagabondSpectre

Bread and circus is just a means of controlling and enslaving a peoples. Not a way of maximising their well-being. And don't forget that the Romans were religious, by the way.

Right, but we both know that's not the real reason why you posted that :P

Is everyone generally submissive to the alpha male? — 0 thru 9

The concept of an "alpha male" is part of the problem. What the hell does this concept mean? There is a man who all women should want. Why? So they compete with each other and kill each other?! :s How can a civilised society still use this concept?

But, by the way Hanover, social injustice does not necessitate that a University chooses professors based on sex, you do realise that right? You do realise that someone shouldn't be chosen as professor even if they're less capable to fulfil the role just because they're female right? That's precisely the definition of sexism in fact, which it seems that a few of you don't know. And this is a problem with the LGBTQ+ minorities as well. Why should a black lesbian female be given priority over a white heterosexual male when applying for the same position? They should be chosen based on their competency, not based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. Women's studies, affirmative action, etc. are a terrible plague, which exacerbate, not diminish, social inequality.

On balance, overall, have things improved or gotten worse? — T Clark

Very difficult to say, and it depends what times you're comparing. Say 1950s to today? I don't think we've improved, we've gotten much worse I think. 2000 years ago to today, then yeah, we've probably improved.

I might think, although I'm not sure, that you would think the loss of spiritual strength is more important than the improvement in physical conditions. — T Clark

Physical conditions are important, but without spirituality they're meaningless. Survival is not the goal of life, survival is merely a necessity for being able to achieve that goal. So just improved survival isn't a good in and of itself.

Is life on earth worth the suffering? — T Clark

I wouldn't claim to know the answer to that.