Isn't anyone I posted a remark to their post going to bother honoring it with at least a reply back?

"The difference between humans and animals is that for humans it is not the survival of the fittest but "the survival of the fattest"."
-René Descartes

Although human beings are able to better control/manipulate our environment than other animals, our sentience doesn't exclude of from many of the threats that any and all other animals face so more or less we are the same contrary to your statement.

As to the issue as why some people are fat, that is a problem not really relevant to this thread although I think it could be easily resolved by understanding a combination of various issues in modern society as well as the problems with the human condition.

"Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor."
-CuddlyHedgehog

You got that right, although it might be more accurate to put it as planned economy for the elites in Western societies and Darwinism/"survival of the fittest" for everyone else.

"If I step and save you every time you're in trouble, I'm robbing you of the education you will need to survive long term. In this way, I freeze you in a child-like state. I make you dependent."

If I allow you to sink or swim, I am allowing nature to bless you with grace born of adversity. In the end you will be strong, flexible, and free (if you don't drown)."
-frank
These sentences look like they are merely cut and pasted from a couple of those stupid motivational posters corporate america likes to hang in the halls of some office since they are too cheap/lazy to bother to with hanging real artwork for their employees to look at.

Most of the poor and the working class more or less realize that nobody can catch EVERY bird that falls from the sky, but they also know there is a double standard in our society where some of us get the respect they deserve and resources needed to survive while others have neither even if they did everything in their power to pay their fair share to society as all of us are expected to do.

IMHO, it is almost always these people that are without want that believe in the so called "rugged individual" and wish the other half would either shut up and/or "go away" so that they wouldn't have to deal with the inconvenience/threat that their existence presents to them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The good is whatever ministers to life. We learn from Nature what life requires"
-frank

There is no objective "good" that we know of. Morality is the merely metrics that we use judge actions against whatever ideologies we choose to invent and subscribe to; however outside of any particular ideology they don't mean the same thing. Or another way to put it, "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it".

"Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules? And are those rules independent of the capitalist ideology or do they result from this ideology?"
-Benkei

The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only work when defined within an ideology, but really don't work when judging an ideology itself since you have to use another ideology, but of course that would be biased in a way depending on which ideology we choose to subscribe to when making such judgement. Although it may be cheating, as a rule of thumb when it comes to the question of whether an particular ideology is 'good'/'evil', I instead usually look at whether it is believed and/or used by many people and if it also has a lot of problems. Since many people believe in the powers of 'capitalism' it at least works in the way certain religious/social ideologies work, but since it both doesn't resolve certain issues that other ideologies also had before it as well as create additional ones as well, I think it is safe to safe that it is not without issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? "
"Another question: what is meant with private?"
"Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? "
-Benkei

The ideas of "states", "corporations", and "private individuals" are abstract concepts used for business and legal needs but certain organizations and/or assets labeled as one of these three could often easily be changed to one of the others (or possible either two of the other three) and more or less operate the same way. It might be an over simplification to say that it has more to do about management, auditing/accountability, etc. than ideology, but I think it is safe to safe there are other qualitative and quantitative at work here so whether something is thought of a "state's", "corporation's", and "private individual's" isn't the only thing at work here and could be even moot in certain cases where other issues are much more pressing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favor of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations"
-Benkei

I think modern "capitalism" suffers from many of same problems that ll other ideologies suffer from is that when people subscribe only it and think it is a panacea for all our problems, they tend to get upset/frustrated at the things it is not good at doing and just ignore those problem and just move on. In many ways this similar to the saying "when your a hammer, everything in the world looks like it is a nail."

"It's a philosophy forum and we try to maintain high standards. Discussions about conspiracy theories as a social or psychological phenomenon would be interesting. Discussions that take the theories seriously on their own terms are much less welcome. Conspiracy theories are examples of bad thinking and I want to see less of that here.

It's true that there is nothing in the site guidelines to suggest that conspiracy theory threads will automatically be deleted, and I know that other moderators would have let it go, but beyond the guidelines we have to sometimes make editorial decisions based on other criteria."
-jamalrob

I understand that forums that are mainly focused on philosophy may not be a good place to discuss conspiracy theories, but I believe that one is likely biased if they believe that it is a given that anything that involves conspiracy theories is wrong because they are considered conspiracy theories. Things like MK-Ultra, Operation Paperclip, the Harvest of Sorrow (which involved the deaths of around 25-30 million people) were all originally dismissed to be merely conspiracy theories and were thought to be obviously the work of some crazy people with overactive imagination; until someone bothered to look into such claims and was able to find some actual proof.

"I believe it is both. Again, the wiki entry is filled to the brim with America being the prominent example of anti-intellectual sentiment, based on-most likely-structural 'deficits' of intellectualism in places of government. I mean, if trust in God is of higher value than scientific truths or facts, then there really isn't much more that can be said about the situation."
— Posty McPostface

But "trust in God" has almost always been considered of higher value than scientific truths or facts in Western society. As a hedonist nihilist (who is somewhat partial to certain eastern religion/philosophical beliefs) I'm well aware of the some of the mass insanity by the perpetual myth of there being some big guy in the sky watching us as well as some of the dangers of the encouragement of the "magical" type thinking that such beliefs brings. However I'm leery of labeling Christianity and other Abrahamic religions as a form of "anti-intellectualism" since religion is form of ideology and one has to be careful to only go after the bad aspects of any particular type of ideology than risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

"Maybe the question is ill-phrased; but, intellectualism or more simply intelligence on the part of government officials is required to confront threats. What threats? Well, climate change for example, which Republicans simply dismiss as leftist science or science with an agenda or some Chinese conspiracy to weaken American manufacturing...?"
— Posty McPostface

As far as I know climate change deniers are supported by corporate interests that are already sick and tired of dealing with all the expenses and red tape that Washington and liberal groups put before them. I imagine if you have nearly endless amount of billions gain through corporate profit and it might be useful to use some of those billions to buy influence in Washington as well as hire spin doctors and mass media to peddle what you want people to think. While this may considered as a form of corruption by us plebs who don't have access to such money/resources it isn't necessarily a form of "anti-intellectualism" if the people doing this are doing it out of their own best interests. Instead such actions might more accurately called Machiavellianism/ruthless pragmatism, even if sometimes using such distinctions might seem moot by those of us who fell harmed/threaten by their actions.

While not always motivated by the same reasons as those who support climate change denying, much of the other people who use corporate lobbying, mass media/spin doctors, etc to get what they want are just another type of Machiavellianist/ruthless pragmatist who wish to push their own agenda even if some of the side effects are politicians who seem more stupid in Washington than those who might be there if they were not meddling in the affairs of this country.

"It's not an ideology. More of a sentiment originating from ignorance."
— Posty McPostface

As a person who tries to study philosophy, I do my best to avoid labeling the actions and beliefs of those who think differently than me as either "stupid/'ignorant" and/or "evil" even if it seems a given that they are.

I may be wrong but to the best of my knowledge human beings are guided by whatever ideology/ culture/ religion/ system of beliefs/ etc that they subscribe to and not out of ignorance;although fear is a major factor. While it may be a given that these beliefs that we get direction from often (and or very often) have short comings in them, such is a problem with the human condition and not merely that we are idiots per say.

"Well, if ignorance of simple scientific facts are dismissed based on said sentiment, then the problem is endemic, and potentially systemic, resulting in a pathology or distorted policy-making on the part of officials derived from the misguided beliefs of the ignorant. I'm sort of playing with words here; but, I hope I got the point across."
— Posty McPostface

Well the problems with the human condition could be said to be endemic, and potentially systemic but to say such things would be a gross understatement as to how bad things really are. In a nutshell you are fretting over certain issues while not exactly realizing what lays beneath the parts of the iceberg that which is a little bit harder to see.

"Well, I think we can agree that creationist or intelligent design interpretations of science are a symptom of 'anti-intellectualism', where authority is granted on neither side of the debate based on exploiting notions of 'free speech' or 'religous freedom'."
— Posty McPostface

I personally think it as much of it as fabrication as well as anything else that comes from Abrahamic beliefs; however when one questionsing other things and realize what else they believe in are merely fabrications, then things can get more complicated then they might expected them to be.

if you really start questioning all the so called "self evident truths" they hold dear, they may not find much left to hold on to.

As the Wiki article noted, anti-intellectualism is not the sole province of the United States. Some Australians to the contrary, I don't think we can blame American anti-intellectualism on Transcendentalism. The Transcendentalists were not anti-intellectuals.

I don't know all of the sources, but I am sure fundamentalism (whether among pentecostals, Lutherans, or Catholics) is one cause. An inerrant Bible with an infallibly clear message doesn't require intellectual examination. If the Bible says God created the world in 6 days flat, well, that's that. Say no more about it. It wasn't the descendants of Ralph Waldo Emerson that brought the 1925 case against one Mr. Snopes, a high school biology teacher in Tennessee for teaching evolution.

While the US has fostered a number of excellent educational institutions since Harvard was founded in 1636, but most Americans didn't need to go to college (or school at all) to make a living. There was land for the taking and most of the time an expanding economy. One could afford to have narrow intellectual horizons.

The United States, as much as most nations, harbors contradictions that do not bear close intellectual scrutiny--like, "All Men Are Created Equal". Many of our sacred beliefs are like pills that should not be chewed before swallowing whole. They are too bitter. Better to encourage the unexamined life. — Bitter Crank

I may be wrong but some of the people who are labeled as supporting "anti-intellectualism" may be simply more against the beliefs and ways of the current establishment more than they are against things like "reason" and/or "logic" as the name anti-intellectualism may suggest. If the debate is actually between established vs contrarian views, then it is a fallacy of those who support the established view to try and paint the opposition as people who argue for "anti-intellectualism".

This is not much different to the tactics use to unfairly attack John Duns Scotus and his followers; which is where we get the word 'dunce' (as well as those stupid looking red caps) from. Since John Duns teachings where unpopular with many people during that time, it might have been easier to attack his character than to bother with attacking his ideas.

To be honest I don't know much about John Duns and what his ideas were (other than it was unlikely that he really was a 'dunce'), but I do know it is often easier to attack someone's character/use a poisoning fallacy to undermine someone's else argument as well as seemly strengthen their own.

Are you just trying to point out that anti-intellectualism exists in the US or are you saying it is more of a problem here in the US and/or our day and age than it has in other places or other times? I think that the former may be a given since some form of "anti-intellectualism" (or anti whatever the majority think of as "intellectualism") exist nearly in ever place and every culture in history. However the latter which is "anti-intellectualism is becoming a bigger threat" may be harder to prove.

After all what constitutes "anti-intellectualism" if it is not based some kind of ideology/morality in and of itself (which to me sounds likely), and if beliefs are based on ideology then arguments against "anti-intellectualism" will have the same issues that any other debate between one or more ideologies/religions/system of beliefs etc. I'm not saying that you are 'wrong' to go after "anti-intellectualism", I'm just saying that if it turns out to be a type ideology vs ideology conflict than be ready for whatever can of worms that opens up. If for whatever reason the people supporting this "anti-intellectualism" do it as a kind of spin doctor/propaganda type thing than maybe it might be best to point out that these people are doing just that than to go after them because they support " "anti-intellectualism".

I don't know much about what you are calling "anti-intellectualism" but I'm somewhat leery of someone who frames a debate between to groups as the "intellectualism vs anti-intellectualism" since doing so may immediately be a kind of poisoning the well type fallacy which would make it a contradiction for those who claim to be in support of "intellectualism" if they so easily allow such a fallacy to be part of their argument. Or perhaps a better way to put it, any debate between "intellectualism vs anti-intellectualism" should be framed in some other way in order to avoid the obvious bias of labeling someone as "anti-intellectualism" could bring.

Do you agree with the relief theory of humor? Do any of the theories of humor appeal to you? — Purple Pond

I think humor is a partly a form of entertainment and/or escapism. We laugh at certain jokes because they are kind of cute or clever, much as we are amused when we see a pet do some interesting trick or action that imitates our behavior, however other jokes we laugh at because they are about something messed up in our lives and it is hard to talk about it through other means. Gallows humor is one example where people joke about violent or other unsettling subject matter in which they themselves have problems with or are not supposed to really talk about the problem at all. In this way humor might be used to either to try to talk about a problem they are trying to deal with or at least as a way to de-stress themselves by somewhat talking about it, even if the method of communication is unconventional.

(An example of gallows humor)


Since I think you sort of addressed the fact that humor as some 'entertainment' value, I think you only need to consider it's aspect as a means of communication as well.

Nature and Life seems to be pragmatically inclined, is this what you mean by "good", I am assuming that we cannot ascribe any moral value to nature or life as such. — Cavacava

"The highway to hell is built on good intentions" - Proverb

"We do what we do because that is the way that we do it" , doing that which may be "pragmatic" (ie. that which seems most useful action at the time that we do it) sometimes may be the same thing as that which is objectively good (ie that which is ultimately the best action or actions in the end) but it is almost never a given that they are the same thing.

We can ascribe "good"/"evil" to events in nature,behavior of animals, and/or natural processes but since these things are not considered to be sentient the same way that we are sentient, it is often considered foolish to think they always have the same faculty to make the same choices as we do.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that although we have more resources at our disposes than animals and natural processes we are very often at the mercy of fate as to whether we ultimately cause 'good' or 'evil' (even if we try to be pragmatic most of the time) and therefore it isn't a given that actions may not be any better than a viruses actions on it's host.

People turn to other sources to try to find something constructive. The pop-psychology industry is the most obvious example.

"My observation is that, no matter if the subject matter is negative or positive, there is very little about mainstream intellectual life in the West that is constructive. Nihilism or no nihilism, the objective rarely seems to be things like greater understanding, greater wisdom, more productive lives, etc. There rarely seems to be any objective other than publishing rather than perishing."
--WISDOMfromPO-MO

As far as I know, science (or secularism for that matter) does not claim that there is a clear cut objective/constructive way to do things so if one believes it can really provide such thing instead of a best guess of such things, they are a bit mistaken. However this isn't really that much different than the occasional doubt that some theists have about whether they are following the true word of 'God' or even if there is a 'God'.

To me, it is healthier to occasionally doubt one's beliefs than for them not to ever doubt them, but that is merely my own humble opinon.

Also it might help you to think of this kind of doubt and/or no objective 'good'/'evil' standpoint as a 'negative'/anti-construct thing and more or less merely just other kind of viewpoint much like any other.

If you understand subjective morality you realize that those that think along such lines are not arguing against objective morality or against 'good' but are merely more critical about what they call 'good' as opposed to those who assume that they are 100% sure they know what good is and/or are too afraid to admit that are not that sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A thousand years from now, maybe nobody will care about Ken Wilber. Will anybody care about Daniel Dennett? Billy Graham? Steve Jobs?

On the other hand, a thousand years from now people will probably still refer to the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Or I could be completely off base and the work of Richard Dawkins has had a positive impact on people who care about truth, justice, etc. as much as the work of Mahatma Gandhi. I don't know. I can only report my perception from my vantage point."
--WISDOMfromPO-MO

I highly doubt any of us can really predict what will or will not be important in a thousand years from now, but if the past events are any indication of the future than I believe that theist and non-theist beliefs will at some time merge enough that there isn't such a great difference between them, Also it is likely that both Eastern and Western cultures/systems of belief will also intermingle as well, or will intermingle more than they already have.

I know a few books which may have some of the answers you seek, but I'll wait to hear a response from you in case you really don't care about my opinion in which case it would be a waste of my effort to put down the information that would allow you to find them.

I'm unsure how a virus or parasite that produces more resilient offspring make it any better than those that do not. Maybe you are thinking of something different when you mention "quality" offspring than what I think you are thinking of.

It sounds like you are saying it is more like a parasite than a virus, but to me that is not that much a difference to split hairs about which the human race is more similar to.

"In my opinion, juxtaposed with the mainstream characterized above, Ken Wilber is an example of an intellectual whose thinking is inspiring, refreshing, original, thought provoking, edifying, useful, realistic, etc. without any of the negativity, arrogance/condescension, doomsaying, etc. that seems to dominate not just our intellectual life, but our entire civilization.

But then we are told that Wilber is a New Age quack with a cult following.

Anyway, who do you think are other examples?

If you disagree with the thesis here and believe that Western intellectual life is not characterized by negativity, please illustrate with examples. Daniel Dennett is really an underappreciated disciple of the gospel of optimism, maybe?"
-- WISDOMfromPO-MO

Perhaps the reason you it seems like "western intellectual life" (whatever that really means) seems so "negative" to you is that you are either too use to getting smoke blown up your backside from other sources which tend to tell you everything is just 'fine', or perhaps you are just having the usually difficult everyone trying to deal with a different narrative than what you are use to. IMHO if one wishes to avoid negative thoughts and ideas they should stick to watching TV and/or read fictional books instead of studying philosophy or any other studying of what people call the 'truth'.

Luckily as a nihilist, I'm fairly inoculated against most minor negative ideas and problems you are talking about since I commonly have to try to wrap my head around things far more unpleasant than that. If at any time things become to much for you, you can always just choose to go back to any sugar-coated narrative you find more pleasant than western intellectualism; which is what everyone else does when they become unhappy with any narrative they get tired off.

I use to think about it often when I was younger but luckily too busy to be bothered by it as much now that I'm older, but to be on the safe side I try to not think about it since it is something that I know I can not really figure out on my own. In this way I guess my position is sort of a 3 in some ways and a 5 in others but I voted 5 since it is the best answer to this problem if you don't believe in an after life.

As to the question as to whether I sometimes think I would be better put out of my misery, I would have to say that at one time in my twenties after drinking too much, and too many different drinks, I suffered what is know as alcohol and was closer to dying then I can remember at any other point in my life. While the alcohol allowed me not to feel any pain (which was very pleasant in it's own way), my inability to get up mover around, etc made me fill paralyzed which wasn't fun at all. If you can imagine what it is like trying to crawl through one of those small underground cave tunnels without any light and getting stuck than you might be able to sort of imagine this experience. To make a long story short, I don't know if this is what everyone experiences while they are either near death or it is just me, but I'm in no hurrying to find out or go through that again.

From what I do know about death, is that it is pretty unpleasant ;since often one's own body is making some last ditch efforts to save itself, and such measures are not meant to be 'fun' for whomever is residing in it at the time that this happens. Also it isn't 'instant' after the heart stops since the brain can survive for several minutes without oxygen. When they use to execute people by cutting one's head off there are some reports of a severed head being able to respond to it's own name for a couple minutes after getting cut off. I don't know what happens in such situations, but I know that nobody is in a hurry to really look into such unpleasantness either.

If you are really worried about it you might what to research something called cryogenics., which is where they basically freeze one's body (or just the head) and take a few other measures to preserve it until medical technology is advance enough to revive them. Whether or not the technology will ever be available and even if it is available will society at that time want to revive such people is debatable, but since the all other alternatives for after you die are not so good it might be considered an opition if you can afford it.

If you can watch an episode of "Dark Matters: Twisted But True" which is called " Killed by kindness" which deals with this exact question. Your question actually involves a bit of advance psychology as well as game theory so there really isn't a simple answer to it other than that we are in many ways programmed to some degree by our genetic code as well as through social conditioning and it is almost impossible to operate outside of what those two things allow us to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matters:_Twisted_But_True
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

"Oh, I understand. I'm just a bit more curious. And a few more years of studying nature you will find that evolution of the mind is continuous. It is, shall we say, the purpose of life. If you don't believe me, observe how many minds stop learning vs. how many choose not to procreate. It is what it is."
--Rich

I'm not arguing against the idea that evolution of the mind, biological entities, computer system designs, etc CAN be continuous for certain periods of time, I'm just pointing out that it is NOT A GIVEN that IT WILL ALWAYS BE SO. If you know anything about a computer hard drive you know that it is great at storing information and what not, but if you ever worked for some time at maintaining computer systems you would also know that it is a given that at some time they will fail and without a backup copy of the information on it, all of it will be gone.

The same can be said also of nearly any time of information storage retrieval system as well. Without a way to continuously protect against information loss, the existing information that is being retrieved and/or archived at any given time may not be around at some later point in time. Since evolution (and progress as well) depends on the preservation of information in the form of RNA/DNA as well as information in general if you consider the evolution of human society, a partial loss could result in a hiccup to any "continuous" evolution you might wish to reference, where as a total loss (such as an large enough asteroid hit earth or large scale nuclear war breaking out) could annihilate any progress made as well as the potential or hope of restarting it again.

Such unpleasant issues have to be taken into consideration if one is serious when they ponder on why we do the things we do.

Perhaps you don't find it interesting because you don't understand what it is saying; which would be a bit ironic since you claim to be a "curious"/unbiased person.

It may seem rude for me to say this but from what little I can infer from your comments I think it is safe to say that your arguments and position are caused by not clearly understanding the problem that is addressed in the OP and in my posts. After all either common sense and/or a few years of studying philosophy should tell you that is NOT a given that "evolution of the mind continues no matter what"; which obviously could be a contributing factor to the problem in the OP.

"We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it"

I don't get it. What's with the need to propagate ourselves through time? Not just us, but all living things.
--MikeL

Excellent question! And if you don't mind me saying so nut your one of the few brave people who visits theses forums that is willing to ask a question that might undermine our "progressive"/"enlightened" western viewpoint of the western world around us. :D

The answer to your question is either we don't or that we don't know depending on your interpretation. For things such as viruses to animals the reason they propagate themselves is not because they choose to but merely because that is what they do; much like how rain falls, lightening strikes, or how any force of nature works although living things are are a separate thing than the various forces of nature. In the case of viruses, they are not even "living things" (ie. they are garbage that is created from mistakes when copying RNA or DNA) yet they are often more resilient then cells and living things they inhabit. How it is possible for a non-animate thing to propagate itself more effectively than living matter kind of beats me.

Part of the answer may lie in the fact that we really don't have anything better to do, at least if you don't count entertaining ourselves that is. As far as I can tell how the process works is a population of beings ( animals, people, viruses, etc.) are kind of fat and happy (relatively speaking of course), they tend to use their extra energy to produce offspring. If they are not, then they tend not to or at least not as much.

While it may not be the answer you are looking for, it is PLAUSIBLE we (ie sentient beings) are willing to propagate ourselves through time even if it isn't a given there is a reason for doing so simply because it also isn't a given there isn't one either; and until we can determine whether it is or isn't we sort of have to pretend that it is, or at least pretend that it is most of the time we are going about our lives. I could go further down this rabbit hole but I think I have gone far enough to more or less most of the question in your OP.

To the best of my knowledge, it has already been determined that the issue comes from the state of particle (or whatever else is being tested) being changed by being MEASURED and therefore we have already ruled out any problem with any problem from it being OBSERVED.

It is a bit too fruit loopy to think that just our observation of something completely altering it beyond that which is conceivable through more or less physics. I mean there could be something like "magic" where our mind alters realty but it is best to rule out everything else before we allow ourselves to think something like "magic" is going on.

Nobody on this forum knows what the "real" purpose of their life is so it is very unlikely that they would be to tell you what the real purpose of what your life is. As far as anyone can tell there may not be a purpose for anything so it isn't a given that your life or anyone else's has a purpose, although it isn't a given that there is no purpose to anything either. In a nutshell, we really just do not know even if we sometimes either assume or pretend that we do.

The only thing one can do is make a best guess as to what the purpose of their life is and go from there, or at least that is until they find the need to reevaluate their circumstances.

"Hi, I'm new, I'm a deep thinker addict and I've been so for about 20 years of my 25. Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post or if my posts are not scientifically or APA/MLA/Chicago format inclined. This is a question I've pondered and struggled with for a long time, participating in a sort of tug of war with my emotions and logic. I need a sense of clarification on the topic. I think it will give me satisfaction. I need input. Do you think the soul exists as a separate entity from our body, do you think personality has to do with the soul, do you think some souls shine brighter than others or can our existence and disposition be chalked down to environment and biology?

I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on."
--Locks

While it is sometimes "nice" to imagine that we as human beings are special and have spirits or souls as far as I can tell there is nothing that makes us any different from the other plants and animals that we are lesser than us and we don't believe they are special enough to have souls.

In fact, the idea of spirits and souls goes back to the days when we didn't understand many aspects of the world around us and we use to think of the forces of nature around us where living if not sentient beings themselves. In such societies it is often taboo and/or forbidden to tamper with such unknown forces much like it is forbidden in our society to tamper with certain aspects that make us human beings. However in order for science to advance this mindset had to be put aside and it was replaced with the concept of the "process". A "process" is an inanimate, impersonal, "thing" that doesn't have any ghost like natural forces/gods/spirits/etc in primitive religions/societies. The easy example of a process is the fire created when striking a match: at first a match only has the potential to become fire but it is in an inert state, however when struck the fuel at the top combined with oxygen in the air (along with heat created by friction) to create a chemical reaction or process that becomes fire. The strange thing about "processes" is that they can seem like they are alive when they are not and they can create an aspect of something alive while at the same time not being alive itself; such as the process that allow our cells to function. Also it is worthwhile to note that concept of a process is really a paradigm shift in the way one thinks because one can not really believe in the concept of the process and also see the world in the way we did when we imagined the world to be filled with spirits.

Anyways my main point about processes was to eventually point out that WE ARE ALSO NOTHING MORE THAN PROCESSES AS WELL. You see the one thing we forgot to do (or at least most of us forgot to do) is realize that you can't see nature as merely processes and not accept that human beings are not special snowflakes in that there isn't any fantastic "magical" spirit that allows us to live any more than there are magical things allowing your computer to operate. If your hard drive crashes, it is almost all but a given that the information it contains is gone forever; that is of course if recover software and/or services can not retrieve it. When your brain is without oxygen for over 15-25 minutes it does the equivalent of crashing like a hard drive does and you along with your memories are "gone" much like the data in a hard drive is no longer accessible.

Of course I could be wrong in that there is nothing out there allowing us to have a spirit and there is more to us us than the processes that we are aware of that allows us to live and exist, but without any proof that there is anything is sort of logical to accept that the concept of spirits, magic, and similar romantic thinking to be merely a form of escapism than something based n facts.

"Good advice."
--Bitter Crank

What about me? Was my advice sort of useful as well?

"I'm wondering if there are any psych majors here that could chime in about their experience in the field? I think I've found some vocation that I could do well in and bring about positive change. I was an econ major; but, money doesn't interest me (due to depression and the nature of the job also).

What should I expect being a psych major? What are my options going into psychology as a major? I hope to help people in need of help despite knowing that the majority of my help will be in the form of the placebo effect.

Any thoughts and experiences welcome.

Thanks."
---Posty McPostface

My advice whether you continue as a pysch major or move on to something else, find something that both interests you and that you are really good at doing at try to do that the best you can. Most people end up pigeon holing themselves in a job that helps pay the bills and they don't dislike too much but never really get much further than that. I will admit however doing this is quite a bit easier said than done as such people are often thought of something like the "lynch pin" of the company or organization they work for.

Because of my ADHD and other issues I have off and on been seeing behavioral health specialist off and on for over five years now and I can tell you have have very little to no respect for them. Part of it is that I don't need to go to a headshrinker to give me a placebo effect and blow smoke up my backside (I could just take to a friend or anyone else for that) ; I need someone that can actually DO SOMETHING that HELPS. If you understand what this really means that you are already one up from over half of the people I have ever talked to.

Oh..and BTW this advice is on the house since there is no way that I could charge you even if I wanted to. :D

Computer science. Everything else as a hobby or spare time activity, as important or interesting as it may be. (Y)
--0 thru 9
Me too...or at least I use to be. :D

What is your focus? I use to be a computer programmer and computer technician, however since I'm in a IT "dead zone" and because of my ADHD I'm not really good at travelling/living out of a suitcase I'm seriously considering getting into another field.

I would become a philosopher if I thought I could make a living out of it.

"Hello.
I have been lately pondering about this theory that came to my mind last year.
After a lot of reasoning I concluded that we are all the same consciousness/mind incarnated throughout time as all the beings that have ever existed and will ever exist.

Here are my arguments:
1. The universe has to be balanced. For it to be this way fairness is necessary. Were existence not fair, it would collapse in on itself. But we know that it is impossible for existence to collapse because non-existence is a dichotomy - nothingness cannot exist, for nothingness is something and that would imply the existence of this essence called nothingness.

2. Everything must have sprung from something, and that something, I assume, is consciousness.
That consciousness must have been only one, otherwise there would be a multiplicity of realities, something that is also impossible since there can only be one reality/existence.
If there was only one consciousness in the beginning, how could it have created other consciousnesses?
Consciousness is awareness. a perspective. You and I both experience. We perceive in the same way, hence, our consciousness must be the same.

3. If you ponder about it carefully you will notice that all we are is a mere perspective that perceives and is aware.

What tells you we are not the same mind?

A counter argument for this could be that if we are the same mind it is a bipolar mind, since everyone of us is different and holds different opinions. But it can be refuted by noting that experiences shape your opinions and way to see the world.

What are your thoughts on this?"
--Markus

We are and we are not. What I mean by this as human beings we posses enough empathy/group think that at certain times we can suppress our individual desires/fears/vices/etc and be something like a natural force like a a wave, fire, or an electric current. However we are also beings which have individual consciences/sentience which also makes us different than the things that usually comprise other natural forces.
.
I don't know if you know about Bicarmeralism but I'm providing the below link so you might be able to understand why man sometimes thinks he (or she) is either able to connect to "God" and/or some collective conscience; which in and of itself is possible if enough people have a high level of empathy. I'm talking about collective conscience of course and not "God"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

Also as a person partial to nihilism I have to disagree that it is a given that things have to be "fair" and "balance" in order for the universe to exist. As far as I can tell and far as I can tell anybody else can tell, it isn't a given there is "good", "evil", "fairness", "balance", etc. Such things are only useful when you are explaining the world according to certain narratives/contexts, but there are several narratives/contexts that either don't need or don't use such references at all. If you can understand the idea that human beings may just exist like other beings who may or may not have a purpose (like certain parasites we wouldn't mind going extinct) then it is sort of easier to throw the whole notion of "good"/"evil" out the window when you need to. Also while your at it I recommend throwing out ALL AXIOMS (ie. all "self-evident truths") if you want to really be able to see the big picture of what is going on and or be able to jump from paradigm to paradigm when you need to since it is all but a given that it is our axioms that trap us in the ideologies we grow accustom to.

Well that is my two-cents for right now at least..

"The following argument seems to be a convincing argument for holding that it is more probable that God exists than that God does not exist. The argument derives from my understanding after reading Aquinas and listening to some secondary Christian resources. Is there something flawed in it?

Premise-1: Everything in the world has a cause.
Premise-2: If we trace the causes back, we arrive at the big bang, and the cause of the big bang.
Premise-3: Even if God was not the cause of the big-bang, and something natural was, still, it is very improbable that there is an infinite chain of causes going back forever.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is very probable that a non-contingent first cause exists; and this must be God, since there is nothing greater than the non-contingent first cause."


Two BIG problems with this are:

1) If "EVERYTHING" has to have a cause then it is a given that "God" (whatever he/she/it or even they are has to have a cause as well, however since "God" aka. the unmoved mover by normal definition doesn't and can not have a cause then it is a given that in a universe (or multi-universe if such things are possible) where "EVERYTHING" must have a cause then it is a given that a "God" who is also the one and the same as the unmoved mover can not exist in such a universe or multi-universe.
2)As soon as a theist or someone claims "God" aka. unmoved mover is an exception to this rule, then it is a given that it is plausible that if "God" to be an exception then it is plausible that A) "God" isn't the only exception b) there could be some kind of process or thing which is uncaused cause even if "God" doesn't exist.

In reality whether or not there is uncaused causes or there isn't it doesn't really matter since it involves stuff that is WAY outside of the field of useful philosophy and serves more as a form of intellectual and/or academic "chest puffing" for those not dealing with other matters. Centuries ago the concept of the unmoved mover/uncaused causes was sometimes used theists to help their arguments, but those who know something of medieval philosophy/logic usually understand the fallacies of such positions.

"I can answer these two questions for you:

IF you depend on a wage (payment that you have to work for to receive) then you are, by definition, working class. Most people are working class. If they don't work, they don't get paid, then they starve to death. Even if your wage adds up to 100,000 a year, you are still working class.

IF you own a small business and employ other people, and you live on the proceeds of your small business, OR if you are a professional living on the proceeds of your practice, then you are middle class. About 10-15% of the population is middle class. Middle class people don't starve to death very often. If you live off of investments and don't have to work at all, then you are upper class. Upper class people never starve. If you are in the top 1% of rich people, then you get to make other people starve.

Here are the Federal Poverty Guidelines: Some programs define eligibility at 100% of the guideline, and others define it as 133% of the guide. (Actually, the numbers go up to 400% of the guideline.)

2016 Federal Poverty Guidelines
-----100%----133%
1 $11,880----$15,800
2 $16,020----$21,307
3 $20,160----$26,813
4 $24,300----$32,319

So a single person earning $11,880 per year is flat out poor. At 133% of the poverty level, you are still poor. A family of 4 is poor at 24,300; they are still poor at $32,319.

If you were single and making $16 per hour (33,600 annually), you individually might still be a bit poor, and certainly not rolling in extra cash. If you had a wife and two children to support on $16 per hour, you'd still be pretty poor.

If you were single and making $25 an hour, or $52,500 a year, you would not be poor. You'd be somewhat well off. But if you had a wife and two children, you'd only be at 400% of the poverty level."
--Wayfarer

Excellent post! :D

I always like seeing things that involve number, statistics, although I will admit I don't always know how to read and/or use them properly. :)

From what little I know the price of many consumer goods like video game consoles, computers, etc which use too be too expensive for the average consumer have become more affordable, but certain necessities such as insurance, education, health care,, a house, etc has seemed to become so expensive that they seem to out of reach even for working class with somewhat decent incomes. While it is a given that some if not all) young adults who are on only minimum wage will struggle to make ends meet if they provide for EVERYTHING they really need out of their own pocket, to me it is a bit of a head scratchier if this is also true of those who have more experience/earn much more than minimum wage. If someone doesn't have health insurance and/or other benefits from their employer (so they don't have to pay to much out of pocket) they might really not be financially secure enough to really be "out of poverty" since they are walking a thin line with financially disaster if anything should happen to them or their family. I may be wrong but those numbers may be "obsolete" if one factors in the number of potential financial pot holes and other risks one faces in today's economy.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I vaguely remember an economic philosopher back in the 80's who talked about how US companies (both manufacturing and other) should move away from "dealing with unions" and adopt the model often used inn other countries "were workers were paid only for the value of the work they do" or more accurately whatever management think the value is of their efforts and/or whatever they can get away with paying them. Of course this guy also said in the same breath when he said this "everyone (which I imagine includes janitors, baggers at grocery stores, Micky D worker and anyone else who can only work a certain position for whatever reason but they have at least been doing it for about 5-10 years) should still be paid enough to "have a decent standard of living and be able to live with (more or less) the same dignity as everyone else does".

I think the point of his argument at the time was that certain senior government, union and or other position got paid a lot of money for doing something that in the end didn't return much value back. Obviously in some of the most senior/powerful positions (higher upper corporate management /higher upper government) someone may either be too embedded or too powerful to remove.but obviously the same can not be said of those much closer to the bottom. Also the idea of using the model of other corporations in certain countries not in the US (or in Europe either) because "they didn't believe that ALL workers where necessarily entitled to the higher pay/benefits that where typically given to those who work their hardest and make the company profitable" that was more often than not possible from everyone working as a team or family, but instead accept the possibility of some of the workers helpers being "marginal"/"much less important players" in the overall..narrative of things.

An easy way to think of it is in these other countries, wealth and social status are often a bit more exclusive and harder to get than here in America (and it is a given that these lower class people will have to work much , much harder to be able to move beyond the status they have been given) and by using the same mentality here it makes it easier to explain why the work of such unimportant people(but somehow still equal to us), and by PAYING them LESS your kind of giving them another reward of sorts by showing them the "error of their ways" if they were happy and efficient when only doing that job. As a productive member of society it is "acceptable" to do menial work at some time in one's life, but if the pay is too low for one to do it long term in order to support themselves and their family it is a given they either have to find and train themselves for better professions, such as a doctor, lawyer, etc or if they are unable to do the work or find and opening it it then it is a given they need to create their own income by staring their own business. An easy way to think of it is that it is kind of "ok" in other countries some some people to part of a group that is thought of as outsiders, untouchables, undesirables, etc and such people are not exactly part of the family we call our society, even if function much in the same capacity as the rest of us. Because of this they can divert some of the work they need to do which is thought of as either sort of unimportant and/or undesirable to do (sort of like how the son of the boss is doing important work by chatting and pow-wowing with his friends and co-workers and is EASILY worth TEN MORE as a pleb hire to work in the mail room for eleven hours racing around trying to get mail, print outs, check various system and whatever else is needed to the right people in order and the right time for them to do their job and all the while get covered in sweat nearly from head to toe doing it before the day is done. After all it is more or less a given that nearly any above average intelligence pleb who is desperate has about a 50%/50% to able to survive working in the mail room for around 6 months to a year and a half or so;which is about average for many of the high stress/high burn out rate jobs where people work in the so called trenches. It is easy to see the pleb couldn't be expected to do the same job as the bosses son, as only the bosses son has the personality skills (namely being the son of the boss) to interact with those in upper management and potentially be able to carry the legacy of having the same family running the company after the boss retires or passes away; which is obviously requires more skill than pretty much any lazy pleb bothered training for or even considers working toward. Also if for some reason someone considers the work the pleb worth more than they get paid, it is easy to point out that if the work was really worth more than any person with even average intelligence and work ethic would refuse to do it and move on to something else and the company would be forced to pay someone what the work was really worth in order to get it filled. However if the company seems to find someone to replace the position with relative easy whenever one pleb can not handle it any longer or moves on to something else, then it is easy to see that the job is one of relatively common and/or easy skill and those that take up such jobs are those who have not yet really consider or worked hard enough to learn a trade that plays an more important role in a place they work and society as a whole. Of course this whole thing about comparing the boss's son and a pleb I'm obviously being sarcastic, but I hope nobody misreads it as what I actually believe)

The bottom line is that by following this corporate and/or social model, the hierarchical pyramid in the US grew a few more tiers in the bottom (and maybe a few in the middle as well) and all the ideals of paying most people well for them to be somewhat comfortable and have some dignity went out the window since obviously if one can't find work that pays well enough to live as such then according to corporate america, Ayn Rand, or somebody somewhere they haven't properly done their "due diligence" that would allow them to find such work.

......I'm getting a bit tired (got like 4 hours of sleep last night) and I fear that have been rambling on for a bit longer than I should so I leave this part odf my post as this until I can restore enough of my sanity to be able to carry it on in a proper fashion.

. .

"Why?

I answered that question in another post today.

Two great social-scientists, P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields, have the answer to that question:

P.T. Barnum said that there's sucker born every minute.

W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break."

Between them, those two experts explain society and the way it is (and always will be)."
---Michael Ossipoff

I agree with what you say is true, but I also that such problems are aspects of the human condition and blaming people for being suckers in certain situations is almost like blaming animals for having to walk on four legs instead of two. Often when we are young we can sense that the world is messed up but in order to fit in and/or maintain our sanity we cut ourselves off from some of these senses and if the powers that be rig the system to take advantage of us because we take part in a kind of group which has this negative aspect of it, I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Our society often promotes those that act as bobble head/yes-man type mentalities and penalizes those who think for themselves or those who "don't always work well in groups". When the 1% surround themselves with too many bobble heads, it because nearly impossible for them to get a counter opinion to whatever they think and believe because they are surrounded by those unable and/or unwilling of getting a opposing opinion based upon what they are doing wrong. Hopefully I have not gone on a tangent from what you said in your post.... .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why are our world's people like that?

I suggest that natural-selection created a large class of suckers, because a two-tiered system of sheep and herders was adaptive (at least in prehistoric times).

The sheep (suckers) are matched to their herders like a glove to a hand. It's uncanily like Huxeley's "Brave New Worldl", except that there's nothing new about it. ...and, where, in the novel, it was done by drugging, in real life, it was done by natural selection.

Yes, we have a lot to thank evolution, natural-selection for. But it just happens that it resulted in a population of sheep. ...suckers.

Get used to it. Accept it."
---Michael Ossipoff

Or maybe we are already partly HARDWIRED to be sheep because of an aspect of evolution which happen in the past. Julian Jaynes's book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" he explains his theory that in our early evolution we were not conscience/self aware as we are today and instead had a "talker"/"listener" aspects instead. I'm kind of guessing the "ego" was almost split between the superego and the id, and the ego/id would try it's best to do what was expected by the "ego/superego" since it acted as a commanding voice/authority of what it "ought" to be doing at any given time.

Or another way to put it, for both the bicameral as well as post bicameral(modern people) minds, slef awareness, rationality, etc is often trickier than we normally think it should be since our minds were really never designed to function in such a way because our nature CRAVES for a more simplistic world...perhaps where enough of us are still in bicameral mode and we don't have to worry about others trying to find ways to trick and use us for their own purposes. Also this might explain a little bita bout religion as well, but I covered that in another post..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But need things have been like that?

I don't know. It could be argued that any social species is likely to end up like that, due to conditions during its early evolution.

But the Eastern religious/philosophical traditions say that there's a wide variety of worlds in which people are born--some like ours, some a lot better, and no doubt some that are worse.

Maybe we were all born into the Land of the Lost because that was what we were (for some reason) deserving of, good for, or inclined toward in some way.

I don't know.

I'd like to add that it seems to me that, if there's reincarnation, past-lives are indeterminate. This life doesn't need an explanation, in terms of a past life. Each life, such as this one, is free-standing and independent, without need of any past-life origin or explanation.

But nevertheless, if there's reincnarnation, then, among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there are likely to be life possibility-stories that would lead to this life, as their next one.

I realize that reincarnation isn't a universally-accepted fact. But this discussion of possible explanations for how things are led to it.

I mention reincarnation because I wanted to mention various explanations for how things are in this world. ...and a possible explanation for all of us being born in the Land of the Lost."
----Michael Ossipoff

If reincarnation exists I think it works in that whatever animals or plants that use the water, minerals, vitamins, etc are sort of "you" (just as "you are a sort of a representation of any being that used the same resources that makes up you at this particular moment) after you are no longer here but since there is no construct to save our memory and our mind (the main source of what makes up our conscience), I have a bit of a problem with any reincarnation that doesn't resolve this. Because of this I think it is probably best for anyone/everyone to delay going off to the great beyond, even if it takes being put into an ice cube for centuries or millenniums is need be. As the old saying goes "any port in a storm", or I at least that is the proper analogy at least.

"People had to take those loans for it to work.

I'm​ about to get kicked out of my apartment, I hear. Just moved in a few months ago. Not long after that we were all informed: new owner.

Instead of $550 per month for 1 BR it is going to be $810, I hear.

As far as I can tell, a few cosmetic changes and some new appliances will be the only difference.

Yet, those who can afford it will be camping outside the leasing office so they can be first in line to pay higher prices for the same product, apparently. The words "newly remodeled" in advertisements must be powerful.

If nobody takes the fraudulent loans; if nobody rents the nondescript apartments for more than a mortgage payment; if nobody buys the same food at Whole Foods that they could get from a discount grocery store for much less; if nobody accepts the credit cards and spends money they don't have, it doesn't work.

But for some reason household consumers never seem to be anywhere on the radar of people looking to indict and convict economic and political actors in the court of public opinion."
--WISDOMfromPO-MO

I know this doesn't help you, but right now I'm living in a house with around ten other people (plus 4 cats, 2 dogs), it is pretty cramped, and just last year me and my Mom was evicted from the apartment we lived in which at the time they tried to BOTH collect rent and threaten/strong arm us with an eviction whenever we couldn't pay all or back rent at once - PLUS WHATEVER FEES they felt like hitting us with.

One of the main reasons we couldn't pay rent was I had become disabled (or more accurately I was already disabled but had finally lost my job), but another reason was the place we lived was too expense for us to afford. Although there is no one for us to blame for the second problem then ourselves, part of the issues was we were in a bad situation and the move was a bit of an emergency move (where we didn't have time/energy to really think and plan what we were doing) and it wasn't that different than what happens to some refugees who end up in a number of bad set of situations because they are constantly trying to run from one bad thing, survive the process of running away, only to end up in other bad situation or short end of the stick in one way or another because they didn't really know what they were running into. Or at least that is the way I see it.

Personally I think the powers that be, kind of like families (other than their own of course) to kind of be dysfunctional as well as societies and governments as well. I remember in a psychology 101 class (or something like it) that gangs and certain organizations (perhaps it was military) prefer recruiting kids from ghettos and projects since they are already use to abuse/dysfunctional relationships and are more loyal to anyone/any group that can provide any kind of security or structure in their lives since they have none already.

I think the term some psychologist use for such people that are use to dealing with drug addicts/drug dealers, corrosive and/or abusive relationships, etc. and are terrified of getting out of such situations (since when you are down and out, the grass looks even meaner on the other side) is called CODEPENDENT. While I probably sound crazy saying that there is a conspiracy to make as many of us as possible to be codependent on those who abuse us, I think history shows us (such as the beginning of the cold war) that such tactics have been often used in the past both by us and in other countries. Below is a link to excerpt from "Atomic Cafe" that sort of visually shows and talks about this kind of condition:

The Atomic Cafe | 1982 | Part 2/4 (17 minutes into the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kR73wIrm0#t=17m01s
("in time of social crisis and tension, in times of changes that happen so think and fast that the individual can no longer place himself in his group,when he knows something is wrong but he doesn't know what, when he feels himself upon, in times like these MOST MEN BECOME HIGHLY SUGGESTIBLE, THEY LISTEN EAGERLY FOR ANY VOICE WHICH SOUNDS AUTHORITATIVE, they listen eagerly for any voice who can tell them what is wrong,and what to do to right it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4kR73wIrm0#t=17m01s

Unfortunately, this might also explain some of the reasons the US is sometimes to eager to enter into a war (since wars often help the incumbent party if people think it is the right thing) and/or it might help explain why someone like Trump can get into office; even though he is not typically what one would expect to become president (hot temper, single minded, etc) he also talks with enough authority/ about solving problems that for some people neck deep in it they are willing to give it a shot.


.
.

"Of course they do. Just look at the 08 crash. They made a killing on fraudulent default loans and other extremely risky investments, and then when millions lost their homes on savings, they got all their money back (even their bonuses) and just went on to rip off investors again. And they keep all the politicians greased--from Obama to Clinton to Trump--to make sure nothing illegal they do is prosecuted and all regulations are weak and unenforced."
----Thanatos Sand
I agree, but then again if you own the printing press that can legally turn monopoly money into legal tender than it might be in your best interest to make bad loans and/or bad investment choices since you can always print more money and/or bail yourself out when you need to (with the latter being hardly any different than doing the former), and if the money you are using is merely just your own bogus monopoly money in the first place then the goal is mostly just to get other people to continue to accept it while doing a slow but steady (or fast and reckless if you really want to) exchange your nearly worthless currency with something else that may have value. Even if you someone sells you worthless junk stocks and bonds every so often, it will not hurt you as long as enough other investors make some of the same mistakes as well. The big boys who own and run the Fed and the banks don't play the game to beat the market (because really THEY ARE THE MARKET), the play the game to beat Mr Joe Average small time investor and other players (whether big or small) who wish to be able to own a piece of the pie as well. As long as they get us to play their game at their table, it is almost a given they will have some sort of insider knowledge/tactics that gives them the upper hand and often in more ways than one.

Also whenever the market crashes, they're still more solvent than anyone else (since they can merely print money whenever they need to) and they can just go out and buy stocks, commodities, etc. that might have been too expensive before but it is either at fair value or even too undervalued than it should be. As a person who use to invest myself, it is hard to explain how hard it is to cough up the cash to buy under valued stocks after a crash since that is the time people are either trying to hold on many of their stocks they saw lose 50% of their value and/or have to liquidate whatever your assets are to make up for financial shortfalls (loss of job,business, etc).

I guess on the up side I think you and me might have more in common than we previously thought (ie a few days ago I thought our values were like night and day), or at least I hope that we do. :D

"Your main points seem to be:
1.You want to understand other religions (I take this to mean you want to understand other religions beside Christianity."
---anonymous66

I wish to understand ANY AND ALL RELIGIONS AND/OR SYSTEM OF BELIEFS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

In fact I want to understand any religion and/or system of belief that contradict my own than those that are not that different than what I already believe since there is a better chance of being able to better understand any other religion and/or system of belief that also contradict my own beliefs.

By doing so it is plausible that I might be able to understand a new paradigm/perception of the world that is alien to me and believe it or not I have spent a decent amount of time trying to wrap my head around Christianity although maybe not as much as most Christians understand it . I believe I have spent as much time trying to understand ALL religions/system of beliefs as the average Christian understands Christianity(ie I have spent more time reading and discussing such issues more than the average Christian goes to church or studies the bible) but I don't think it necessarily makes me better since it is more grueling to try and understand dozens of religions and such efforts may not really be productive. More or less I did it because it was what I wanted to do more than I knew it was the thing to do, but now that I look back I don't think it was that bad of a choice.

"2. Religions don't make sense to you"'
---anonymous66

Certain aspects of various religions sometimes don't make sense or seem counter productive to me, but as far as I know this is fairly common; this is not the same thing as religions do not make sense to me.

As a person who studies religion and philosophy as a hobby, it can be tricky to do anything more than just skim the surface of what some of the beliefs of the dozen to two dozen major religions or systems of belief that exist in the world. And since it sometimes takes nearly a lifetime for some of the members of these religions to understand certain aspects of their beliefs, I don't think it is any fault of my own to not always be able to make sense of them as well as their own believers do.

However even after I have said all that I personally think I have a better handle on religions and other systems of beliefs than the average person who does study them and/or does not approach them with the idea of tolerance in mind.


"3. You have an issue with Christian schisms"
---anonymous66

Just like with certain other religions certain aspects Christian sometimes don't make sense or seem counter productive to me, but this is sort of TO BE EXPECTED FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO A RELIGION BUT DOESN'T FOLLOW IT. Think of it this way if I DIDN'T have ANY ISSUES with Christianity and was in complete agreement than more or less I would be a Christian don't you think? But since I'm not a Christian it is more or less a given that there are some things in their beliefs I have issues with and/or they have issues with mine. To me that is just part of the baseline of which makes up what religious and systems of beliefs, but such things doesn't mean one can't move past them.

It is also more or less true that even Christians themselves have some issues with other Christian schisms (such as Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, etc) otherwise they would likely follow that Christian schism than their own. Also although it might be weird to say it, both Christianity and Islam are really schisms of Judaism so I would be correct to point out that the schisms from Abrahamic/Judaic often have major issues with each other (often enough to go to war/kill each other), so me being an atheist it shouldn't be a surprise that I too sometimes have issues with various beliefs in Abrahamic religons since they often have problems with themselves..

"4. You have an issue with people who insist that others must believe in their God (but you see similar issues in practices like Wicca)"
---anonymous66

Trust me, I often have problems with Wiccans as well even if I, myself often studied the occult, collected graveyard dust, played with Ouija boards, etc when I was a teen. If you could sell your soul, if there was "magic", etc maybe I could respect it more but I more or less don't To me it is just something to believe other than Christianity and allow someone to believe they are a special snowflake for one reason or another. To be honest a lot of times it is easier for me to be disgusted by Wiccans and/or atheists that are too narcissistic than with Christians but that is mainly when they are selfish and/or intolerant of others.

The one exception of this are people that believe in primitive religions (who may not have a grasp of modern science) and who's paradigm of the world allows them to believe in things like magic even if they are not some kind of special snowflake. Or the people who believe in certain basic Wiccan practices (such as "good luck charms") for merely psychosomatic/ placebo effect reasons. Placing a plastic Jesus on top of a slot machine, carrying around a rabbit's foot or four leaf clover, or whatever the Wiccan or Voodoo is ok in my book since I have myself sometimes carried small items for good luck or hope they might have some small placebo effect, but obviously they in of themselves do not solve problems and relying on magic and/or angels/"God" too much both are forms of escapism and about equally counter productive.


"5. Your gut instinct is that if a system like Christianity were fundamentally flawed, then it should have torn itself apart."

The fundamental flaw is that it has been common sense since ancient times for a person that it is impossible for mortal to know the nature of a all powerful/all knowing good being and any person claiming otherwise is a real secret squirrel (or a liar) so to speak. HOWEVER all Abrahamic religions and the bible foundations are built on the works of such people and the other parts are built on the assumption that what they said was true. This may not seem like a big issue, until you meet someone who themselves THINK THEY TALK TO GOD, AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE GOD TELLS THEM IS HIS WILL. A person who thinks they talk to God and is charismatic can be a force to contend with if what the person claims is God's will is hardly that much different than their own, as well as any organization that appears after they are gone which tries to profit from their following.

There is a theory called Bicameralism (mostly talked about in a by Julian Jaynes book called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" that talks about in our early human evolution which talks about how our mind us to broken into two parts where one was the talker and the other listener/do'er. The "talker" (which I personally think as a kind of Super-Ego on steroids, but others have disagreed with me on whether it is like the Super-Ego) either would reinforced what one of the tribe leaders said or would sometimes reinforce something told to them in the past. To the listener part, the talker was almost like a separate entity (to the point where it's voice would be 'heard') and the listener was more or less hard-wired to merely do what it said and not think for itself. I could go into more detail about this but that would take some time. The important part of the theory if it is true or even slightly true is that our minds are already hardwired/preconditioned to believe in either gods,"God", angels, spiritual animals, etc and various religions throughout time have tried tapping into older, dormant aspect of ourselves (ie the bicameral mind can not function either today or even at a certain point in ancient times when there was too many "chiefs" and/or life started becoming to complicated for this relationship to function). I'm not sure exactly what might happen if for some reason these dormant parts of the mind get tapped in a powerful way but I imagine it might be something like what Buddhist call becoming "enlighten", in the west is sometimes called "talking with God", or if a charismatic leader triggers it what is considered a fanatic. This also might be an assumption, but I believe if someone's talker/listener functions do become active again in a powerful way, they would be both more driven than average and their behavior/appearance could be ..unsettling for a variety of reasons if one has to deal with them on a one on one basis.

Again I'm unsure if it is even possible to happen but one of the best cases of this happening (if it indeed has happen or can happen) was Joan of Arc. To the best of my knowledge ,Joan of Arc was nothing more than a teenage peasant girl when she had experience where what she said was an angel gave her a sword and the angel said something to the effect that she must liberate France from England at the time where they were fighting each other during the hundred year war. I'm not sure if it was due to her personality/command presence or out of the desperation of the French or perhaps a bit of both, but when she demanded to become a general they gave it to her and luckily for them they did because she was probably THE most influential person at the time(at least on the battlefield, and in the hearts and minds of the people). I think her biggest effect on French troops was they were afraid of showing cowardice around her since she herself was fearless to the point of being reckless, and for the English troops they were afraid of fighting the "witch of Orleans" perhaps because she might be an actual witch or perhaps some of them believe what she said about the angel might be true (which meant God was on the side of French and she was acting as his agent) and that they might go straight to hell if they hurt/killed her or the soldiers she was leading.

Of course much of this is just my speculation, and it is unknown if Joan did encounter an angel or what really happen when she got that sword. One of the funny things about her change was that unlike some "fanatics" (which some thought Joan had become) who become more mindless,think less for themselves, easier to control, etc. the same couldn't be said of Joan as she appeared to be much more intelligent and rational than it was possible for a peasant girt of her age at that time. Another thing worth noting is that the church at the time, really didn't want to get involved with whether she was or was not acting as agent from God (at least when she was acting as a french general) but after getting captured she was given to the English who did everything they could to charge her with heresy and sentence her to death, and of course after her death she was the title martyr and eventually saint as well I believe. Although she didn't behave as a typical believer (her desire to free France was the same goal as her soldiers, and her talk about God, angels, etc seem not that much more than a pretense for this vision) while alive, her fearlessness/ selflessness /drive /etc was a model example of how a God fearing Christian should be, except of course with the goal of being in favor of God than fighting in a war. I believe it was also noted somewhere that since the church "goofed" in not doing anything to help her (or more accurately working against her) during her trial and execution, it showed the hypocrisy of the church in that they acted more to protect themselves than her, and since they were kind of 50/50 in whether she was either a heretic or martyr they decide they would rather risk sin in making a heretic a martyr than sin twice by marking a martyr as a heretic who they may of help put to death.

I'm probably already getting too long winded here, but many of the aspects of Joan of Arcs life kind of tie with the work done by Kierkegaard as he both wrote about Christian ethics and the problems with it as well as the church itself. It may sound weird but Kierkegaard could tie certain aspect of Christian beliefs in with rationality as well as explorer some of the irrational aspects in a semi-rational way.As I think about it right now I realize this topic is a big more than I can continue on at the moment..

Anyways I already understand why Christianity doesn't tear itself apart is that they focus enough time and energy on taking care of their flock through giving them a group to belong to and a feeling that their is meaning in their lives, which is true of many other religion including primitive ones. However just because a institution can preach to and hold the attention of it's followers (even for centuries at a time), it doesn't mean that it's core beliefs aren't messed up in any way. Although I'm pretty sure some of the core values of Christianity still work there are other core values I'm equally sure are messed up, and since I've dealt with enough hypocrisy from the church and people from it. It may be my fault because of it, but with certain things you got to trust your gut instincts, and since I often hear Christians claim their belief in God comes from their gut instincts than I guess it merely is what it is.

"Chris Hedges says it better than I can.
Here are some of the similar attitudes present in both the Radical Christian Right (fundamentalists) and the New Atheists:

Us vs Them (all religions are bad, vs all non-fundamentalists are bad).
Evil is not something present in all humans, but rather evil is only present in the "other", the one's picked out for vilification. (see above)
A utopian vision (if only everyone were to become Christians, or atheists, then the world would be a better place)
Ignorance of world history. (including an ignorance of the history of religion)
Hatred of Islam (or at least vilification of Islam).

I was attracted to atheism for a while and spent some time w/ Atheists I found through groups I met through meetup.com . From what I have experienced, it appears that Chris Hedges is making some relevant points about New Atheism."
---anonymous66

This might be an oversimplification of this issue but I'm guessing that it is plausible that this problem with radical Christian right and new atheists is a bit of a hasty generalization "If" the amount of people that really have these views are overestimated.

I'm pretty sure that there are atheists that are jerks as well as Christians so it is more or less a given that any religion or system of beliefs can produce "bad apples" (or perhaps these people only claim to follow certain beliefs but don't in their day to day lives), but the loud obnoxious people in a group shouldn't tarnish the reputation of everyone else that follows such beliefs but tries to be tolerant and not a jerk or at least not as much of a jerk.

Of course this is just IMHO and some jerks in a group may spoil it for all in certain situations, but as I rule of thumb I believe it usually isn't the case.

"That's why I speak out against New Atheism."
---anonymous66

Ok, what do you feel is bad about it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there is no standard of morality, then why make an issue of what religions (or anyone for that matter) are (is) doing? It seems to me that if no standard by which to judge, then all we can comment on is differences in behavior.

If no standard, then aren't you just reduced to saying, "Religions sometimes cause people to act differently than I, dclements, want them to act.?"
---anonymous66

That is a good question since if morality purely subjective nearly anything might go. To be honest as a person partial to nihilism I can not say with any real certainty that people "ought" to do one thing instead of another, but in a way it doesn't really matter since if morality happens to be purely subjective then it is not likely much lost if we sometimes treat it to be objective.

Or to put it another way, IF morality is purely subjective than there is NO REASON to sacrifice (either oneself or their hedonistic desires) for some GREATER GOOD since there really isn't anything really better than another or better than anything else better in the long term. However if there is some kind of objective morality and we don't know it, maybe sometimes we have some chance of doing the right thing and I'm guessing that trying to be a moral agent one stands a better chance of doing the right thing than doing whatever they feel like; although it isn't a given this is the case.

In a nutshell, most human beings hedges their bets by sometimes trying to be a "moral agent" and other times just doing what they feel like. While this still doesn't mean that morality is objective or that we have any clue as to what objective morality is, it isn't going to be a negative thing if we treat certain situations as if we know what objective morality is and make moral judgement in such cases. While it may only be a "best guess" as to what is right, it is better than nothing at at; or more accurately MAY be better than nothing at all.

Obviously, it would be better if we knew what objective morality was and/or knew if morality is objective or subjective but since we don't all we can do is encapsulate some of this issue in order to not deter us from our normal sane lives (since pondering too long on whether morality is objective or subjective can fry one's mind if they let it) and do our best until we understand the issue better.

Or at least that is IMHO on the matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It seems to me that if people believe there is a God who influences us and at least some of that influence comes from religion, then it stands to reason that people of different religions will have different perceptions of and about that God, and tolerance is required of religious believers. Jesus had a lot to say about tolerance."
---anonymous66

I imagine you would believe this but as hard as I might try, I can not believe in God or at least the type of God that has been describe to me since I was a kid so the paradigm in which many Christians may see the world is very alien to me.

I can believe in the god/God which is sort of described in Gnostic teachings (a schism of Christianity that was purged centuries ago) which is spiritual/mental and not one which created this world or any physical aspects of it. I can believe in the possibility of limited god/Gods and/or God-like beings which use either technology or some technology that seems like "magic" but really isn't magic itself. I can also believe in a social or collective conscience (which may be partly guided by our super-ego) and what we perceive as God's will emanating from such a spiritual/mental being; although it is a given that if such a thing existed it would either turn existing religion upside down and or undermine it in several ways.

I even believe that one can become somewhat "enlighten" or "talk to God" (both of which may more or less be the same thing) where they enter some kind of altered conscientiousness and have a one on one with our collective conscience as if it was itself a living breathing being, even if in many was it is really not a being as we usually think of one.

I probably should stop preaching and just say tolerance is a good thing no matter whether one is Christian or an atheist (I don't know if "atheist" need to be capitalized so I won't since it looks funny to me to do so) and that I hope that for both our sakes that more Christians and atheists follow that path than intolerance; however it is a given that this is not easy since either or both sides can claim that the other is committing heresy by following their beliefs. Although then again heresy at certain times isn't the worst thing there is.

IMHO it might be good for you to either study and/or take a college course in comparative religions I will admit that "Comparative Religions" itself is sort of like religious ideology (which isn't that much different than Unitarian Universalist, which I'm about 98% ok with) where one reads about and tries to understand different religions and system of beliefs than their own. I believe that by trying to understand other people's beliefs, it becomes a little be easier to become tolerant to them. Of course this is just a suggestion.

"Hahaha. That was an opinion. not a request or me telling. but a show of my personal desire. Which is selfish yes."
---Shar

Being selfish is part of the human condition, and one of the aspects of having to deal with the human condition is the near impossibility of avoiding many of the problems of being human which includes selfishness. However I think it is kind of obvious that the selfishness you are talking about is a different
and more powerful kind and the selfishness you are showing is one that is done in moderation.
I'm unsure but the kind of problem you are talking about sound a bit in line what is talked about in the four noble truths of Buddhism where it explain that dukkha/suffering is caused by clinging and craving we have to our attachments (whatever form they may take)and we can "transcended" (whatever that means) the cycle that causes our pain and suffering by either stopping or controlling such behavior better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

Again, I'm unsure if this is what you are talking about...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is fascinating to see how this has sparked an argument. but an argument is there to proof one right other wrong. and such in not the topic we are going for. it's a debate. discussion. for an argument in itself is rooted in selfishness. the desire to have your opinion value over that of another. bringing forth conflict. which many would say, conflict is healthy for it stimulates progress toward a better path. I honestly disagree with this. and rather have this topic on What is Evil. focus on that soul question. the views which you all have on this."
---Shar

What if you are wrong, and there is no "evil" to define as you try to describe it? There may be NATURAL EVIL which causes natural distastes, disease, etc and what is called DUKKHA (imperfection in the world and the pain and suffering it causes) but I don't think these are exactly the same kind of EVIL you wish to define. Yet however these two aspects of our world are more or less the source of the process which causes the EVIL you wish to define.

Think of it like this way, cancerous cells are often very harmful to the bodies they inhabit yet they are almost INDENTICLE to other healthy cells other than they have been "damaged" in some way. Part of the process that allows cells to live and divide make them very susceptible to such problems (if an animal lives much longer than the age they usually produce offspring). People often think of cancer as something that it is "EVIL" but it exists because the process that allows us to live ALSO ALLOWS CANCER TO EXIST; so in a way healthy cells and cancerous cells are two parts of the same coin.

While one can dismiss cancer as merely a form of "natural evil" and accept that it exist the way it does, what reason do we have for not accepting that some of the "EVIL" caused by man isn't also in turn caused by something more or less caused by the same natural evil that allows cancer to exist?

While there are times it may be useful to think of the natural evil that manifest itself in man as "EVIL" as we usually do, there are also many times where it is best to step outside of this kind of thought process and look at it as just another form of natural evil instead. I could go into which is which, but perhaps I should leave that for another post as I got to go right now.

"Now, I think it is important to apply our concerns for human dignity, human rights, and minimization of suffering to the workplace where production goes on. Granted, there are many workplaces which are far from the 'dark satanic mills' of Victorian England. Though, some of our workplaces are brightly illuminated, air conditioned satanic mills (because the work is so excruciatingly dull and dehumanizing).

Then, a lot of primary production sites (like slaughter houses, auto plants, etc.) are in physical terms, very bad places to work, and while some unionized workers receive decent pay, only a fraction of workers are unionized, and most workers are at the mercy of the profit extracting companies. Suffering is hardly minimized.

Human rights are a nuisance in the workplace, so best not be too concerned about them. Workers in America, for instance, do not have "freedom of speech" in the workplace. Workers can be ordered to not talk about certain subjects (like the deficiencies of management or the need for a union) and can be fired for disobeying those orders.

If human dignity, minimized suffering, and human rights isn't honored where we spend the bulk of our time for the largest chunk of our waking lives (at work), then we are getting cheated."
---Bitter Crank
I more or less agree.

Those of us that have to work for a living have to pay in blood, sweat, and tears in order to have our daily bread or at least a better life style than if we were unable to work. However those that make a living out of managing workers often find it easier to exploit them then to put the extra effort in to manage them correctly. Sometimes it is done just to save a buck and/or cut corners or sometimes it is merely the incompetence of management, and since sometimes there is nobody to watch over such watchmen (or women) they are not really accountable for their actions and they can get away with it.

In American we are "supposed" to have a government made up of checks and balances where one group isn't able to control the whole thing and turn us into an oligarchy or plutocracy but I'm unsure if those checks and balances still work.

Here are some links from MotherJones that give charts and statistics to some of the income inequality / double standard here in America as well as why we have been heading into a plutocracy for some time now:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-ows/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kadira-pethiyagoda/its-the-economic-inequali_b_13069356.html


..also if you are interested in it, there are a number of studies that show that people with wealth and power are more likely to be unethical than the people who are are not wealth. Below are some links to articles about this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/are-rich-people-more-ethical/254689/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
https://www.wired.com/2012/02/income-and-ethics/
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&q=are+wealthy+people+less+unethical
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/02/28/rich-people-are-more-likely-to-behave-unethically-study-finds/


Kind of gives credence to the saying "power corrupts", but I think it is more along the lines of that it is the non-accountability sometimes comes with power that corrupts, not the power or money itself.

Because good and evil are concerned with more than productivity. If productivity was humanity's only concerns, we would all put some people into slavery and others into extremely low-wage labor with no concern of the "good" or "evil" of it. However, since many of us--if not enough of us--do concern ourselves with being "good" and not "evil," we put aside our sole fixation on productivity for concerns of human dignity, human rights, and the minimalization of suffering. Thus our concerns for "good" and "evil" can transcend issues of productivity.
--Thanatos Sand
I merely wish to note that I more or less agree with what you wrote in this post. Even in Machiavellian / "ruthless pragmatic" type ethics it is optimal to be able to minimize suffering where ever possible by the best means available. This may sound counter intuitive at first until on takes into account the negative effects of misery on a society and the counter productive effects that it causes such as increased medical costs, higher crime, drug use, etc. Even Henry Ford understood the value of trying to accommodate his workers to the best of his abilities and that their only value isn't in their abilities and work in building his cars. There is also many other forms of usefulness/productive value in certain intangibles such creativity, music, art, etc which likely far outweighs the stuff made in factories (which are often merely consumer goods which may or may not really be necessary at times).

If transcendence your talking about more about viewing the world from a Jain/Buddhist's perspective (instead of something a spreadsheet and/or income statement), I guess that works for me as well even if for me it is merely just another religion and/or belief system so I don't know if transcendence is the right word for it.

Do you really want to discuss things or are you merely just trolling the forum and trying to argue with anyone that posts something that doesn't agree with you?

I'm at the point where I feel the need to just completely ignore anything you post since all you are doing is arguing without any idea of what I'm trying to say or what my position is. If you don't want to bother trying to understand what it is I'm saying then there is no reason for me to bother with anything you have to say about such posts.