because if you don't, you're screwed. — Carolyn Young

I believe in materialism, and determinism, and no spiritualism of any kind. But I don't feel screwed.

Piaget's hierarchy of moral thinking says that at the highest level, your decisions are based on what's right and wrong for humanity. How different would the world be if pure reason and morality were the basis of all thought and decisions? — Carolyn Young

For one thing, we would have already solved the overpopulation crisis, with all its acoutrements. Just hold back on having babies.

Most religious societies -- these days, that means the Submitted -- place god though on the top of 1. oriented goals and 2. moral compass. So the Submitted, much like the Christians for thousands of years, are producing babies head-over-heel, (literally), because that's what the scriptures dicktate.

Only a liar or a madman would claim he was the Son of God if he wasn't, reasoned Lewis. But Jesus clearly wasn't a liar or a madman — Ciceronianus the White

You can't argue against logic like that.

It would certainly drive any son to madness to have the Father as his father.

I wanted to gag my dad with soup-spoon, and I became insane, and he was only a demi-god for crying out loud.

In no context except bashing the Bible would anyone expect a prophecy to be unambiguous or clear in any sense. — BlueBanana

i have never seen a prophecy claimed outside the bible, other than those of Nostradamus. And this claim also stands for his predictions.

The reason all prophecies are ambiguous or unclear is that they are all lies inasmuch as the claim is that the prophet knows the future. The more ambiguous and unclear they are, the harder to prove that they are shmafu. That's PPH101 material (first year prophecy school teaching.) This applies to the Bible, to Nostradamus, to anyone who has claimed to have made a true prophecy.

Maybe the reason you figure no context outside the Bible prophecies is asked to fulfil this stringent requirement is that you are not familiar with other prophecies.

Some other prophecies:

1. The world will end tomorrow. (Claimed by 29,393,582 prophets between year 9 AD and year 2011)
2. The world will not end tomorrow. (Claimed by 293,392,588 prophets between 332 BC and 2020 AD)
3. The world will end or not end, tomorrow or at a later date, it entirely depends. (Claimed by 837,729,599 prophets between 2085 AD and 3937 AD.)

Seems pretty straight forward to me, especially when a "prophesy" concerns an event predicted to occur within a specified time-frame (and/or in a specified location). In the case of New Testament Gospel accounts of Jesus' Second Coming prophesy, he specifies a time and implies a place by specifying who will witness the predicted event. Here I quote (forgive the length & tedious repetitions): — 180 Proof

I see what you mean, 90%content (180 proof). However, perhaps Jesus, or rather, verily I say unto you, that Jesus came back about 50 years after the prophecy was sung. He came back, looked around, said "fuck this shit" and turned around and went back.

I would have done the same thing if I were Him.

"We don't need another hero," must have been written all over the Empire by the graffiti artist "zeitgeist".

And a good leader knows when the people don't want a good leader to lead them on.

The trouble with thinking instead of reading is that you are bound to repeat the errors made by others. — Banno

The same holds true for readers.

Certainty is a type of belief. It is not a type of truth. — Banno

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "certainty". It is a relationship between belief and truth, not simply a belief.

Conceivably nothing we experience or conclude from our experiences have relations to reality. Conceivably all we experience and all we conclude from our experiences are a direct contact with and opinion about reality.

We call truth a perfect match between experience and opinions about reality.

There is no certainty (see my first paragraph) that reality is what we do or don't experience.

Therefore there is no certainty that we know the truth. We may, or we may not.

My mother's sister, an old Jewish woman, now dead, taught me the art of Jewish humour, which is wise and sometimes totally self-depracating. (That's a lingual improvement just for show; (forgot the word that covers that meaning); it was started as "decrapating", but some learned and better-knowing people of political correctness adjusted the consonants some centuries ago.)

She even tought me the song, a modern one, big in the nineteen-seventies that went something like this:

"The Tamils hate the Hindus, and the Hindus hate the Muslims, and the Christians hate the heathens, and the Heathens hate the buddhist... but everybody hates the Jews."

I find this extremely funny, but only until, of course, when I actually encounter someone or some expression that spreads hatred against Jews. Then my blood boils.

But the modern Jew-hatred can be traced back to Israel as being the darling of the USA. There are tons of reasons why people hate the external politics of the USA and by extension, the state of Israel.

And of course Israel was teetering on the verge of extinction in the Yom Kippur war, and it should have perished if you only count the military power that came agaisnt it. By some miracle, and because they were defending their homeland, they repelled the attackers.

And every Jew is vehemently blood-thirsty when it comes to the question of Israel. It is understandable if you think that a nation had no homeland for two thousand years, then they got it back, and all of a sudden some want to take it away from them yet still again.

Then there is the Palestinian and resident Arab population that hate the Israelis and vice versa. For this I don't blame the Palestinians alone. Israel ought to have behaved better there. And now that relationship has developed into an eternal, never-ending feud, not war, not terrorism, but blood feud. Both parties believe in the truth of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", and therefore they are forever knocking each other's eyes and teeth out, most times verbatim, and other times only figuratively.

This is an untenable situation that has been created for Israel and for the Palestinians, by both sides. And both sides have the right and the wrong reasons to fight. And it can't be stopped now.

And of course the world always sides with the underdog. Israel is the guilty one now, is everyone's opinion now. But in 1972 Israel was the saint, because it was the underdog then.

You just can't win, can you. "You" meaning the general you.

Darn brown-skinned, tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, long-haired, sandal-wearing hippie! — Artemis

"Old Sam, he couldn't belielve he and Jesus war both Jews... he a Jew? how can be? With long hair, and a Mexican name?" "I said, hey, Abe... take a walk on the Kosher side... I said, Hey, Abe, take a walk down Fairfax... etc." -- Gefilte Joe and the Fish, "Take a Walk on the Kosher Side

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyO18WIztts

And the lyricsh for those who are hasidically challenged:
Yakov quit the westside AZA (*Aleph Zadik Aleph).
Went 'cross town and joined YMCA (*Young Men's Christian Assoc).
Soon bacon and pork he began to enjoy.
Took off his yarmulke, the yid was a goy.
I said hey Yakov? Take a walk on the kosher side.
I said hey nudnik! Take a walk down Fairfax...
And the members of Hadassah go...
(harmonizing)

Herschel was shocked when he heard the news.
He couldn’t believe that he and Jesus both were Jews.
He said "how can we be the same
when this longhair’s got a Mexican name?"
I said hey Hersch! Take a walk on the kosher side.
I said hey kid! Take a walk down Fairfax!

Abe Horovitz wanted to star in picture shows
so he straightened his hair, capped his teeth, and fixed his nose.
Changed his name to Lash LaRue,
and talked of the pride of being a Jew.
I said hey Abe? Take a walk on the kosher side.
I said hey whatever your name is, take a walk down Fairfax.

Little Katz was taking his bar mitzvah lesson.
Across the street a shiksa was undressin'.
Then one day to the rabbi's surprise
Katz was showin' her where he was circumcised.
I said hey Katzie...take a walk on the kosher side
Hey, nudnik? Take a walk down Fairfax.

Burned from my personal copy for historical purposes only. And commentary... please with the commentary, already!

How would we go about proving for sure whether the book of Daniel was written at the time of Nebuchadnezzar the 2nd or at a much later date? It appears it would be highly beneficial to those who hate religion to say it was written much later. — christian2017

I don't have an answer for you, Christian2017, but I have a question for you to ponder:

How would we go about proving for sure that the book of Daniel was written much before the time of Neuchadnezzar the 2nd or at a much earlier date?

You can't establish any degree of certainty on solipsism vs. accepting that what you experience is actually the physical world.

For your information, I don't read. I think. You should try that too, sometimes.

god must be atheist has become googly-eyed.

PfHorrest, your thinking is way too complex for my comprehension. Maybe facts are, too, but I haven't yet noticed that.

---------

Libertarianism is an Ayn Rand version of individualism, I know that much. It has nothing to do with liberalism or with conservatism. It advocates complete independence in economic matters to the individual. It is the stupidest economic craze ever invented by a stupid, no good philosopher.

Whether or not it is considered 'pragmatic' social contracts and natural rights are very flawed concepts. — KristopherCussans

The way I look at it, social contact, natular lights, are pragmatisms, dressed in a pretty pink dress.

Basically, we feed the poor and the incapable and give them some spending money to prevent a situation whereby they have to attack us and take our food to eat, our clothes to wear, and our wives to six.

We call the motivation "social contract", and the minute alms we throw to the starving and to the helpless, "natural rights".

It's like the movie "Repo Man" wherein a repossession agency calls itself (by its official name), "Helping Hand Samaritan Agency" and like the Christian Bible, where the incredibly sadistic and evil god, precisely documented, is called infinitely good.

Is that who we are then? — Brett

Yes, some of us. I, personally, prefer scratching my back to talking about it. Same with having sex (with or without a partner.) Show me the food! and let me eat it.

That's of course not what we are. What we need is perfectly depicted by Maslow's Pyramid of Needs. If you are not familiar with it, the Internet is full of references.

The idea is that in a dark room not only don't you have access to scratching, but you don't have access to all other things in life as well.

But I still need to know what you meant. — Brett

Insanity, madness, can take on many forms. "Being aware of only one's own self" is one form. Being aware of the world, other people, life, animal welfare, etc. can be part of many other forms of mental illness.

A good read about what mental illness is, and its diverse forms, is called DSM -- diagnostic statistical manual. It has had many editions with constant revisions of the contents. I recommend it if you want to learn about madness, and how to become mad. It's sort of a "Dummies' Book on How To Identify Mental Illnesses".

Why would we not be content in a dark room with ourselves? — Brett

The assumption is that you are not allowed to play with yourself. No food sensation, no touch, no hearing, no seeing, no tasting, no defacating, no peeing, no itching, no scratching, no stretching, no bugyborekolas, no gurgling, no singing, no talking, no nothing.

degustation sitting — StreetlightX

is that like lap-dancing? I have never heard of "degustation". Degas, yes, I've heard of him, he was a painter; Gus, too; station, too; but the whole thing just does not congeal for me.

I must consult Miss Congeniality to make it congeal.

Mistaken question mark. I’ve no idea why I did that. — Brett

Madness, madness, madness. (-:

How is your game going, PfH? I thought it was supposed to build a play-dough universe of solid, unerring, unassailable, elementary numbers. Such as 1, or 2, or... or 3, for instance. Not any of those newfangled numbers like, i, e, or pi.

But the thread evolved into arguments of conceptual pontifications, it seems.

Why can't people just play along? People lost their child-like sense of play-dough. What I blame is an insidious ugly thing, called "maturity".

I don’t understand that? — Brett

I'm sorry... was that a rhetorical question, expressing incredulity over my giving you too little credit of understanding mental illness, or else was it a statement with a mistaken question mark? Now I don't understand you.

"The poor are struggling. We must introduce social programs." - person.
"Cry me a river, liberal!" - Republicant.

??? If liberal meant rightist, this saying in bold would never have got coined.

PfHorrest, Why do the Republicants call the Democrats "libtards" if liberal was not associated with leftism but rightism? I am not arguing, but I don't live in the United States (I only vacation on Earth from Neptune when I get a chance... the carbofluoric acids are EXCELLENT here, and the bars have very healthy atmosphere), and I am only going by cultural / language snippets.

Is this also what madness is, to be only aware of yourself? — Brett

Madness, insanity, can take on many forms and feelings. What you said is like saying that "if you break a bone in your body, randomly selected of all bones in your body, is it not like to break only your leg?"

If the official story is true, the strike was to protect American diplomats, servicemen and interests in Iraq. That seems to be a sufficient reason to attack. The official story is rarely true, however. — NOS4A2

"To protect our people there, we started a war with a country." Jesus, why are Americans so stupid? "In order to protect my car from your vandalism, I'll spray paint your house." "In order to protect my children in your school, I'll shoot the principal." "In order to protect my interest in your company, I'll destroy its main building." ETC.

I am not dissing you, NOS4A2, it's not your opinion, but the official line is the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire adult existence. It is a much bigger lie than I have ever suffered under Communism, and believe me, they knew how to lie.

Yes it could have been executed better and more people could have been informed about it. — BitconnectCarlos

Think of the bookmakers. Death toll is a large unknown at this point. Which American city will be targeted with a nuclear warhead? I shudder to think it will be Los Alamos. If that city goes, the whole planet goes. They have hidden weapons of mass destruction under the sand in the Arizona desert. I think the only thing that can stop that war now is peace in the Middle East.

Theory by StreetlighX noted.

BitconnectCarlos is skeptical. I welcome your skepticism if it for sure leads the USA into peace with Iran.

More answers by god must be atheist:

8. Some idiot forgot to send money in for the renewal of the service.
9. It's Saturday and the operators went on strike.
10. The simulator operators died of boredom.
11. Too much skin-art on porn stars... simulator operators no longer get stimulated
12. They followed prez Trump's activiites, and they paniced and turned off the machine and pulled the plug
13. The electricity bill was getting to be ridiculously high.
14. It's the forteen-billion years of religious observance of not running simulations that started yesterday.
15. Some human rights activist poured hydrochloric acid into the core of the machine.
16. Another simulation was more interesting and less expensive.
17. Due to overproduction, the number of simulators in operation exceeded the number of simulation operators.

Why we don't live in a simulation?

I shall attempt to answer the question directly.
1. Because we are not lucky enough.
2. Or else because we are too lucky.
3. We can't afford to.
4. We "live"? You call this a life?
5. The simulation rejected us.
6. Some smart alec computer programmer simulant turned the code, he fiddled with the basic command set, and did some other changes, so now the simulation lives in US.
7. Mass emigrating into the simulation was blocked by the Hungarian troops at their border.

He came dancing across the water
With his galleons and guns
Looking for the new world
In that palace in the sun.

On the shore lay Montezuma
With his coca leaves and pearls
In his halls he often wondered
With the secrets of the worlds.

And his subjects
Gathered 'round him
Like the leaves around a tree
In their clothes of many colors
For the angry gods to see.

And the women all were beautiful
And the men stood
Straight and strong
They offered life in sacrifice
So that others could go on.

Hate was just a legend
And war was never known
The people worked together
And they lifted many stones.

And they carried them
To the flatlands
But they died along the way
And they built up
With their bare hands
What we still can't do today.

And I know she's living there
And she loves me to this day
I still can't remember when
Or how I lost my way.

He came dancing across the water
Cortez, Cortez
What a killer.

-- Neil Young

I appreciate your sarcasm, — 3017amen

I was not sarcastic. At all.

If the soul is everlasting and never dies, then the third law of thermodynamics necessitates an outcome equal to the state you herebysowell described.

I live outside the USA, and it seems, also outside the world, because here Liberal as a political movement means "leftist", and conservative, "rightist". Liberal can also mean "centrist". But never right-wing, and never extreme left wing.

I don't think I should worry about it too much. Words mean not much any more, and communication is defunct in most instances. Because, basically, there is no inherent value in communication any more, other than "how do you code that", "what's for dinner" and "No, I'll never do that, you sick pervert."

Thanks, Coben. I stand corrected,

So neo-liberal is the opposite of old-school liberal. What a language! Newspeak. Each word means something and also its own exact opposite. George Orwell, 1984.

But it does not obliterate the fact that I was ignorant. Thanks for the enlightenment, Coben!

Example: if one say's that Christian philosophy (i.e.; OT/Wisdom Books and the inspiration of Jesus/NT) helped America, would they be wrong? — 3017amen

No, they would not be wrong. OT and NT helped Europeans colonize America greatly, because Christian policy enabled a practice to completely eliminate by blood bath all native Americans because they were just "wild" people, not Christians, whose lives were at par with a dog or a pig, in the value systems of the typical Colonist.

Is this what you meant, 3017amen? Because this is what and how Christianity helped the ideal that facilitated the settling of the Americas by the Christian Europeans.

I'm not following you on that. Are you saying that the social contract as found in Christian philosophy/Judeo Christian old testament wisdom books is irrelevant? — 3017amen

Endarkenment.

I tried to read your opening post, and I can't see any point you make in an effort to establish the value and validity of social contract. You speak which president changed the word from god to creator, and you speak of Hobbes and Locke and fear and hope, but to me the whole script does not say anything on its own. A steel worker in Pennsylvania and a corn farmer in Iowa may want to keep their guns and make a decent living but are their lives really influenced or affected by Locke's 150,000-word essay?

I also should have thought that social contract was not a moral, but an economic and security necessity. It can be a moral necessity, but to decide policies on moral grounds leads to a quagmire of directions to go in political and fiscal structures, and to a lot of angry shouting and calling each other names in parliamentary (Congressional) debate.

Altogether, it seems to me, that you, the author of the OP, has put a lot of thought into this, but got sidetracked by research and by the influence of the imagined magnitude of philosophy that allegedly direct policy. There I found very little, or no, connection between human rights, natural rights, and social policy, mainly because you completely neglected to write about part of your topic: the current state of social policy that is a reflection of an alleged social contract.

Economic mobility has decreased since the middle class has begun to diminish, which is directly related to the adoption of neoliberal economic policies. This exploits working populations by expropriating would be benefits to them in the form of tax cuts for the rich. Exploitation, and this generates massive wealth at the top. — removedmembershiprc

I wonder why you called this movement "neoliberal". It's exactly the opposite to liberal ideals. You describe a movement of making the poor poorer and the rich richer -- in its most basic -- and that is not liberal, that is conservative, fascist. I really think you have such bias built into your outlook and it's a knee-jerk reaction by you to blame the liberals for all ills, even when an ill is in diametrical opposition to their movement.

Okay, I got something out of it.

If everything is red in the box, and everything is non-red in the box, that is reductio ad absurdum as long as something is in the box. But reductio ad absurdum also means that no such thing is possible. And lo and behold: the box is empty, therefore "everything is red" and "everything is non-red" is satisfied with no object, therefore with nothing, so there.

I eventually had to do something to try to agree with you, PfHorrest and Banno. But your reasoning did not penetrate my capacity for logic.

This reductio ad absurdum, however, proves the same thing, so I believe you now, although the steps you took to arrive at what you were trying to say are still beyond me.

I'm not into these dictionary games. — iolo

Using words outside the meaning of dictionaries is a dangerous precedent. What if I tell you, "The cable car is in good shape, it will never fall down" when you put your children in it, and if it does fall down, PROVIDED WE USE A CONVENTION OF BEING ABLE TO USE WORDS OUTSIDE THEIR DICTIONARY MEANING AND STILL CALL IT PROPER COMMUNICATION (which you, iolo, advocate here), then I can claim that I meant "the cable car is in bad shape, and it will fall down" and you have no discourse, since you entered into a convention that states that the language convention is invalidated.

I'm not into these dictionary games. — iolo

Again: for a lecturer of English or in English this very sad. In my opinion a teacher should stand out by using words in their proper meaning. By being PROUD of using a word outside its meaning, is not really what a teacher I want my kids to learn from ought to do. Very sadly, more and more teachers are in the habit of doing precisely that -- teaching wrong things.

Because you called your opponents' arguments "dictionary games" you obviously are trying to downplay the importance of correctness. This is a weakness in two ways; on one hand, you emotionally downplay without using an argument, so it's an ad hominem falacy (appeal to the humanity of the opponent); on the other hand, you reject the validity of your opponent's point without a supporting argument.

as an old 'English' lecturer I prefer to use language as it comes naturally out of instructed usage — iolo

Perhaps yes, but your past still does not give you the right to alter the meanings in a way that is not commonly accepted practice or not part of the communal convention of meanings.

What I see here is that you created in your mind an equivalence of communicating with god with the word "prayer". I put to you that "prayer" is a form of communication with god in which the praying person asks god some favour. Forms of communication with god that do not involve requests are not prayers, and I put to you that using that word thus wrongly bastardizes the word, meaning that the word used is used for a meaning it does not have.