Comments

  • 'The Greater Good' and my inability to form a morally right opinion on it.
    "Would you let animals like dogs die in order to create a vaccine that will save all of humanity?" — Arnie
    Only if the process is completely painless for both dogs and humans, then yes of course. I think in order to do good, at minimum, the means must sustain and not be inconsistent with (sabotage) the ends. 'The good' in this example, however, might be instrumental (e.g. scientific, technological, juridical-political), but it's not moral (i.e. not eudaimonistic).
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ... all I saw was the Void looking back at me. — Vera Mont
    Ancients called that "gnosis" or "nirvana" ... :victory: :cool:
  • Christianity - an influence for good?
    Have accusations of deicide (Matthew 27:25) and the blood libel at the heart of Christian antisemitism for over a millennium (from pogroms to inquisitions to the shoah) been "an influence for good"? I cannot forget (e.g.) that Wehrmacht soldiers wore "Gott mit uns" belt buckles or that entrances of many concentration camps bear "Arbeit Macht Frei" (a paraphrase of ... John 8:31-32).

    addendum to
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901070
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    The profoundly gullible have always deluded themselves with 'cosmic conspiracies' (e.g. Abraham's "Covenant", Christ's "Second Coming", ... Lovecraft's "Cthulhu Mythos") and yet the facts, as you say, are ... the simplest "divine plan" is – the only one that does not beg any questions – there is no divine plan. :fire:
  • Changing the past in our imagination
    ↪Athena
    Maybe ...
  • Is "good" something that can only be learned through experience?
    Do you agree with this, namely that the notion of good in inherent in the primacy of experience, and not something that can be learned by simply looking up a definition and analyzing it? — Shawn
    Yes I agree insofar as. I've come to experientially understand (any) "good" as a reflective practice of negating – effectively preventing/reducing – disvalue.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    And what's truly dispiriting is the awful tap dance believers will do to justify the unjustifiable. This must be what they mean when they say religion is nihilism. — Tom Storm
    Yes, ritualized reality-denial. Which is why I define "faith" as believing the unbelievable in order to defend the indefensible and to excuse the inexcusable.
  • What is Philosophy?
    IMO, philosophy is 'reasoning to the most probative questions which we do not (yet) know how to answer' by fooloholics committed to daily recovery from foolery (and, in its manifestly harmful form, stupidity).

    (2021)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/600633

    (2023)
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/853311
  • Is atheism illogical?
    I can't worship anyone who fails to meet my standard of morality. — Vera Mont
    :fire: Yes yes – a minimally moral (i.e. empathic-benevolent) person, who knows a child is on the verge of being raped and also has the power to prevent it, would do so whereas "Almighty God" does not prevent child-rapes (e.g. priests) – wholly unworthy of worship. Such a deity is either a sadist or a fiction.

    I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god (at least the character as written) who endorses slavery and commits mass murder ... — Tom Storm
    :100: :up:

    maybe the suffering is for a purpose — BitconnectCarlos
    Theodicy is a top-down, otherworldly, inhuman/unnatural excuse – ex post facto rationalization – for 'divinely permitted' evil in this world. In other words, it's superstitious bullshit. :death:

    Faith can find an excuse for any amount of cruelty; reason cannot. — Vera Mont
    :clap: :flower: :hearts:
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    ↪Shawn
    Democratic Socialism (e.g. the Nordic model).

    My preferred version is economic democracy

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

    plus demarchy

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    NYC is all prepped for Criminal Defendant-1's imminent perp walk ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/07/trump-rikers-jail-eric-adams :up: :up:

    Oh but the irony is rich now that Stormy gets to fuck him ("long time") again and actually enjoy it this time! :kiss:

    https://www.ft.com/content/9849af2b-7870-4827-818c-61d5895c12bf
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    By my thinking, UBI doesn’t solve the real problem, which is one of power: the decisions being in the hands of a self-perpetuating, small elite of private owners. — Mikie
    :fire: :up:
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    So, what would you conclude about, quite possibly, in making aspirations towards socialism moot through Universal Basic Income? — Shawn
    Who marginal lefties (like myself) "aspires to socialism" in this postmodern-identitarian, neoliberal-corporatist, reactionary populist era?

    And no: "UBI" doesn't even begin to address (neoliberalism's) structural imbalances and social injustices which "socialists" critique and oppose with alternative (speculative) socioeconomic arrangements
  • What is Philosophy?
    ↪Mikie
    :up:
  • Purpose: what is it, where does it come from?
    Given, to be sure. But isn't there some aspect of yourself not merely given, but chosen and self-legislated? — tim wood
    Oh yes, but I think all those other "aspects of yourself" are derivatives from what you asked about in the OP: "purpose (in itself)" – and not just mere "instrumental" (i.e. utilitarian/aspirational) purposes.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    You haven't answered what you want from Israel to end the oppression. — BitconnectCarlos
    Immediate fucking ceasefire! :scream:

    Yeah well, since that won't ever happen given the zionfascist status quo, I "propose" a just as far-fetched, three-part, Joint Security Plan:

    (1) Israeli citizens need to remove (violently if nexessary) the "Greater Israel Zionist" coalition government asap and jail/execute Netanyahu at el along with (tasking Shin Bet & Mossad to assassinate) all of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Israeli Zionist extremists & other terrorist combatants (except those murderous fucks who surrender to authorities for judicial processing and internment in UN-monitered, Joint Israel-Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian administered penal camps in the Negev);

    (2) complete cessation of US/EU economic & military aid to Israel immediately until a negotiated withdrawal of the country (removing all Israeli settler communities) back within the pre-1967 borders and the negotiated establishment of a Secular Palestinian State (SPS) recognized as an UN member and guaranteed international economic aid recipient (predominantly from the Saudis & Gulf States); and

    (3) simultaneous US-Nato led eradication of Hezbollah in Lebanon & Syria in order to establiah a DMZ along Israel's northern border with significant economic & military support for Jordan that helps secure the West Bank, etc from Iranian-backed terrorist infiltration & incursions asap.

    Just my two shekels: if (1) happens, then (2) is possible; if (2) happens, then (3) is absolutely necessary. :fire:

    Peace begins with the oppressor State of Isreal breaking the intractable cycle of oppression-caused-reciprocal-atrocities that undermines the Jewish state's future existence (which Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak & Yitzhak Rabin had all acknowledged).
  • How to wake up from the American dream
    When did you first wake up from the American dream? — an-salad
    1619.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/historical-significance-1619/596365/
  • Changing the past in our imagination
    I'm very modest: I imagine that earlier today I purchased tomorrow night's sole winning lottery ticket. :wink:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪Fire Ologist
    :up:

    :point: Pandeism – Pandeus, sive Natura Naturans – is my speculative jam.
  • Purpose: what is it, where does it come from?
    I don't know. :chin:
    The questions here are, then, what is purpose (in itself), where does it come from, what is its ground? — tim wood
    I think "purpose (in itself)" corresponds to Spinoza's conatus: everything necessarily persists in its being.

    "It comes from" nature naturing.

    "Its ground" is reality.

    Or, what exactly gives it all meaning, makes it all worthwhile?
    Being (or life) is the (or an) end-in-itself like song dance music (i.e. rhythm/melody for rhythm's/melody's sake).

    "Meaning" is ... māyā ... perspectival, semantic, ephemeral (or as Camus might say 'nostalgia').

    I think (nurtured) self-worth, or dignity, "makes it all worthwhile."
  • Is atheism illogical?
    the illogic of someone claiming that necessarily God cannot exist. — Fire Ologist
    I agree. To say anything determinate either way about an indeterminate, or generic, "God" is illogical (i.e. nonsense).

    However, no observable evidence entailed by attributes ascribed to any allegedly "revealed" deity that has been actually worshipped during recorded human history has ever been demonstrated, ergo it is reasonable to conclude that such (Bronze-Iron Age tribal) deities do not exist in a factual (i.e. non-fictional) sense as several hundreds of generations of 'devout' worshippers have believed and extant religious cults still dogmatically reify.

    Of course I (we) could be wrong. Show me (us) :smirk:
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    :clap: Another vapid apologist ranting his non sequitur strawmen. That's all you got, lil' meshuggeneh. Pathetic.

    Closing in on the Hamas [Gaza] vermin. — Moses
    Ah yeah, now isn't that just a return of the fuckin' "nazi" repressed in (some) Ashkenazim? – "Sieg Heil! Zion-über-alles!" Fuck you, Bibi & the IDF. :scream:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    I fail to see exactly what it is you are failing to see. — Pantagruel
    You took the words right out of my mouth.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I don't really mind as long as you follow the the 7 noahide commandments. — BitconnectCarlos
    Non serviam – I refuse to "follow" any superstitious "commandments" (re: Plato's Euthyphro, etc) seeing as "following" them did not prevent the Nakba and subsequent Israeli colonizer-settler occupation-oppression of the last several decades. Your zionist "Noahide Commandments", BC, seem as compatible as the nazis were with slaughtering elders women & children and ethnically cleansing, so wtf bother with such tribal "blood and soil" superstitions? :mask:

    Derived from the moral reasoning of Rabbi Hillel the Elder (& Kongzi centuries before him), I am committed to
    Whatever we know harms humans and nature, I do not voluntarily do to any humans or nature
    which for me culminates in aretaic negative consequentialism (i.e. flourishing by actions and/or inactions which effectively prevent or reduce harms and injustices) that, therefore, categorically obligates me to practice solidarity with oppressed communities (e.g. secular Palestinians) struggling to resist their occupiers-oppressors (e.g. Israeli Zionists). Tikkun olam. :fire:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901665
  • Is atheism illogical?
    How do you respond to those who might argue that the Bible is allegorical and that it contains a 'broader truth' about Yahweh, who does not always conform to the stories, except through fable? — Tom Storm
    I'd respond "Okay". Stories and fables exist, but not "YHWH (except as one of the main characters).

    Out of interest are there any other frames you know of a believer might use to preserve belief in Yahweh without literalist scripture?
    All that comes to mind at the moment is Paul Tillich's notion that to say either "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" is idolatrous / blasphemous / meaningless (I can't remember which) or Quentin Meillassoux's "inexistent God" that is yet to come to be (or something like that) à la waiting for godot... :smirk:

    ↪Pantagruel
    I don't know what you are talking about. As far as I can tell, sir, your reply has nothing to do with what I've written.
  • Is atheism illogical?
    I don’t think it’s rational to conclude as fact that something does not exist. Don’t know how you prove a negative. — Fire Ologist
    Here's a "rational" example of "how to prove a negative" from a 2020 thread Belief in Nothing ...
    [P]redicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).

    E.g. (A) Elephant sitting on your lap ... (B) YHWH created the world in six days ... (C) In 2024 George Bush lives in the White House ... (D) UFOs take-off & land at JFK Airport ... etc

    So: absence of evidence entailed by (A/B/C/D) is evidence - entails - absence of (A/B/C/D): search (A) your lap, (B) the geophysics of the earth, (C) who is currently POTUS, and (D) control tower logs, arrival / departure gates & runways at JFK Airport ...     — 180 Proof
    I think this proves we can prove a negative.

    I guess I meant people who “know” there is no god. — Fire Ologist
    We can know only that particular deities do not exist but not that 'every conceivable deity' does not exist. To wit:

    IF 'absence of evidence entailed by a particular X's predicates', THEN this 'absence of entailed evidence' necessarily is evidence of the absence of that particular predicated-X.

    So, more to the point, absence of evidence that is entailed by "your god" entails the absence of "your god".

    If a deity in question is described with predicates – attributed in scriptures? by theology? by ontology? – which entail changes (events) the deity has caused in (to) the world – and given that the world is scientifically observable – then such changes (events) purportedly unique to such a deity must also be observable.

    (A) If, however, such changes (events) are not observed, then a deity with those predicates cannot exist; otherwise,

    (B) if these entailed changes (events) are observed, then such a deity must exist.

    So yes, in this way, it is quite reasonable to expect that such a deity can be demonstrated either to exist or not to exist.

    (C) And insofar as a deity is described without any predicates which entail this deity has caused changes (events) in the world, then there are not any purported facts of the matter to investigate, and such a deity is ontologically indistinguishable from an idea or fiction.

    In sum, positive atheism (i.e. to claim this or that god does not exist) is not illogical as per (A) above.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Addendum to this discussion of only a month ago
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894404

    You just believe in a different sort of God. — BitconnectCarlos
    If that is so, then Deus, sive natura – Spinoza's God¹ (and not "the God of Abraham" or any other Bronze Age tribal / sectarian cult-superstition) – which I contemplate without worshipping-fetishizing (i.e. idolatry) like Albert Einstein et al. As a philosophical naturalist (i.e. Epicurean-Spinozist + absurdist²), I have a speculative, 'irreligious' affinity for pandeism³ which makes me an ecstatic⁴ ... rather than spiritual or religious.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism [1]

    https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism [2]

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054 [3]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_(philosophy) [4]
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Because they believe in God? Or is it the talking snakes? — BitconnectCarlos
    The latter follows from the former. Like the principle of explosion: any nonsense follows from contradictions. :pray:
    Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire
    "Zion" re: Joshua (Jericho) to Netanyahu (Gaza) ...
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    So what? All Abrahamic sects are the same superstitious nonsense (especially the literalist – e.g. jihadi & ultra-zionist – delusions). Of course you missed my "explicitly irreligious" counterpoint so I'll repeat it here:
    ... it's the unholy "parties of god" on both sides committing atrocities that "explicitly" sabotages any prospective (secular) resolution to Israeli-Palestinian hatreds. — 180 Proof
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    the explicitly irreligious — BitconnectCarlos
    Yeah, we're the ones who do what's right for exigent reasons to do right for its own sake; we're not craven like most of "the explicitly religious" who superstitiously obey "commandments" for the sake of reward or to avoid punishment in some imaginary "afterlife". After all, it's the unholy "parties of god" on both sides committing atrocities that "explicitly" sabotages any prospective (secular) resolution to Israeli-Palestinian hatreds.
  • What is truth?
    ↪Truth Seeker
    Okay. Take care and be well.
  • What are your core beliefs?
    Some "core beliefs" which I try to live by:

    Do no harm as in: What we find harmful, I try not to do to anyone'.

    Have courage as in: I expect the best, prepare  for the worst and try to  accept whatever comes.

    Trust evidence as in this motto: In Nature We  Trust.
  • We don't know anything objectively
    We don't know anything objectively. — Truth Seeker
    False. Some obvious examples – "We know objectively" that no individual was born before her parents were born. "We know objectively" that we are natural beings whose existence is both consistent with physical laws and inseparable from nature itself. Also "we know objectively" that we cannot in any way know at any time 'all that is knowable'.

    Again ...
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901112

    ↪BC
    :up:
  • What is truth?
    "The red pill" really shows that there is no red pill ... just as "there is no spoon", "the matrix" means there is no matrix. ~ Agent 180 Proof :cool:

    How do I know that I am not in the Matrix? — Truth Seeker
    Well, for starters, you don't have any reasonable grounds to doubt that you are "not in The Matrix" ...

    How can we really know what is and what is not external to my mind?
    Whatever makes "my mind" mine (e.g. embodiment) cannot be internal to "my mind".

    Solipsism can't be proven or disproven.
    Speculative suppositions are not matters of "proof" like (e.g.) mathematical theorems; rather they are matters of reasonableness. For instance, do you believe it is reasonable to doubt that there are 'other minds, the external world'? Apparently, Seeker, as this discussion demonstrates, you do not.

    The simulation hypothesis can't be proven or disproven.
    How do you know this? Are you an expert or non-superficially familiar with universal quantum computation¹ (D. Deutsch)? Cite a fundamental physical law that is inconsistent with – prohibits – "the simulation hypothesis"; if fundamental physical laws do not prohibit it, propose some reasonable grounds to doubt that this universe is 'a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, etc' (N. Bostrom ... R. Penrose², S. Lloyd, S. Wolfram³, G. Mandelbroit ...) Again, it's a hypothesis about – model of – (aspects of) the physical world that is either experimentally testable (i.e. scientific) or it is not (i.e. pseudo-scientific or metaphysical) and therefore, in either case, is not a matter of "proof".

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Turing_machine [1]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology [2]

    https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/ [3]
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪BitconnectCarlos
    And as usual, BC, you don't have a substantial or factual point, only another vapid non sequitur. :roll:

    ↪Moses
    On the contrary, whenever in recent decades "Isreal" is mentioned I think of that (US-backed) war criminal Netanyahu and mentioning "Palestine" I think of the criminally dispossessed masses suffering under Israeli occupation since 1967 (or 1948).
  • What is truth?
    I counted that there are two bananas in my fruit bowl. — Truth Seeker
    This is only datum, not "knowledge" (i.e. a historical and/or scientific explanation), that is more-than-subjective insofar as (a) you can actually eat the bananas and (b) you cannot actually eat the fruit bowl and, even more so, (c) you can actually measure (e.g.) the resting masses of the bananas and fruit bowl, separately and together. What grounds, Seeker, do you have to doubt that "two bananas in a fruit ball" refers to more than just your "subjective sensory perception"?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Gaza (Intifada) = Warsaw Ghetto (Uprising) ...

    "Never Again" unless we do it to the goyim! :shade:
  • What is truth?
    How would I know anything objectively? — Truth Seeker
    :roll: (e.g.) Start counting ...
  • What is truth?
    I think that my claim is merely subjective. — Truth Seeker
    And therefore it's imaginary at best (i.e. not a true "claim") or self-refuting at worst.
  • We don't know anything objectively
    All of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective. How can I possibly know anything objectively? — Truth Seeker
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901112
Home » 180 Proof