I've never heard a believer claim that "god" is one fact among all other facts – and neither have you. Let's dispense with "folk beliefs", which are typically used by "New Atheists" as canicatures, and dispute theology (e.g. T. Aquinas, I. Kant, M. Buber, P. Tillich, J-Luc Marion, J. Caputo et all) if you're game. :smirk:

A Christian "friend" once said to me, "A truth that doesn't condemn [call-into-question] the one who speaks it is no truth at all." — baker

Yes, all preachers, including Christian evangelists and proselytes, are liars. :clap:

The Apophatics are right!

Why are you baiting me, mate, to take up the thankless role of Advocatus diaboli? :sweat:

"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ... like "Zeus exists" or "The Infinite exists" or "Truth exists" or "Justice exists" or "Consciousness exists" ...

"God exists" – idea ideal idol icon – is only a claim about "god". No burden of proof obtains. :naughty:

Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48

If by "a regressive worldview" you mean consisting of evidence-free, miraculous, death-denial stories (in contrast to secular evidence-based, dialectical, this life-affirming stories), then I agree that "religion" is guilty as charged.

:up: :up: :up:

Those who make claims inherit the burden of proof. — universeness

My friend, onus probandi applies only to positive claims of fact (about how things are) and not to claims of faith (about how "gods" are).

Why do you think believers must give an account of "the personal perceived properties of their god" to (the?) satisfaction of nonbelievers that can be "measured against common human secular notions of morality"?

Without any compelling grounds to doubt that any of the moon landings had happened, I believe none of them were "faked".

Ask me that question again in a couple of millennia. At any rate, religious books aren't "responsible" for what their misreaders and proselytizers, jihadists and missionaries have done with them.

It [quantum physics] does break down the boundary of the mind and body interface and allows more scope for agency of the person. — Jack Cummins

What about 'quantum physics' leads you to make these claims?

... some would argue all of math is ultimately reducible to ordinary language. — jgill

I suppose, instead, the ultimate sense of any mathematical expression is contextualizable by ordinary language (à la later Wittgenstein). Btw, thanks for G'Hooft quote. :up:

I am raising the question of the nature of metaphysics and perception and how may the nature of 'reality' be understood in the most helpful way? — Jack Cummins

Metaphysics is like 'crafting conceptual prescription eyeglasses' (prior to (e.g.) microscopes & telescopes) by which reality in general – in the broadest sense – can be perceived (i.e. interpreted). As natural beings who are inseparable from nature, we can only perceive and know nature – the only aspect (surface?) of reality accessible to (our) nature-limiting, defeasible, abductive reasoning – insofar as parts cannot 'transcend' (i.e. encompass with sound reasons) the whole to which they constitutively belong. In sum (as I discern it), (1) "the nature of metaphysics" is both analoguous to map =/= territory (i.e. perception, conception, explanation) and to mapping aspects (i.e. a subset) of the territory with other aspects (i.e. a subset) of the territory; however, (2) "the nature of reality" is analogous to the territory unbounded.

Yes, but as Witty emphasized that 'philosophy' is only a conceptually clarifying – linguistic nonsense untangling / exorcising – activity and not a theoretical science. I think he'd say 'quantum physics' is besides the point and 'reality' is a presupposition of certain language-games and not a sensible object (i.e. answerable question) for philosophical discussion – merely a confusion or misuse of everyday language. :eyes:

How is this topic-question substantively different from the topic-question you had raised before?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11057/what-is-your-understanding-of-reality/p1

Also, why do you think 'quantum physics' has any more implications than (e.g.) 'miracles' or 'Euclidean geometry' for philosophical conceptions of 'reality'? :chin:

To make such a claim, you'll need to, at least, leave out the Catholic church and its international legacy of systematic child abuse and continuing criminal cover ups. — Tom Storm

:100: "Amen!" (says this raised, observant & educated ex-Catholic).

:up:

Do these ex-mortals have to pay their way? — wonderer1

Probably not. :smirk:

:sweat:

My "offer" is speculative (not "fiction") and a single dish "buffet". :wink:

I understand about personal values. I believe they should be the deciding factor in our own personal lives, and nobody else's. Why I oppose capital punishment, legal constraints on assisted suicide or contested living wills.

:up: :up:

If I were to die tonight, for instance, I'd be reasonably ok with this as I have done a fair bit and don't really have any significant further goals. — Tom Storm

Eudaimonia. We should all be as fortunate as you, Tom. :cool:

Fundamentally, as individuals we aspire to maximize our well being (which includes access to 'all possible" existential and practical options). Indefinite youthspan + healthspan + brainspan = completely voluntary lifespan (barring fatal misadventures) aka "immortality". As long as one can die (or go into a state of unrevivable hibernation lasting for decades or centuries) voluntarily, I imagine the upsides far outweigh any downsides.

However, I have two requirements which I also imagine would make "immortality" more bearable, even optimal, for an ex-mortal human:

(1) the process of (somehow) becoming "immortal" should be restricted only to mentally healthy-competent (thoroughly screened) and childless (i.e. no living, direct descendants) over-70 year old individuals; and

(2) becoming "immortal", while resetting biological age to 20s-40s as an option, memory recall should be limited to that of a mortal lifespan whereby 7 or 8 decades-old memories are continually "overwritten" by new memories so that an "immortal" remains a psychologically human mortal (thus, offloading memories onto analogue/digital media (as we do now) for retrieval centuries or millennia later on).

I think these restriictions favor maturity of lived-mortal-experience (e.g. empathy + patience) and continual renewal of subjective motivations (e.g. creative challenges) through the centuries. Otherwise, "immortality" might readily become a dehumanized, living hell.

Which definition are you going with, in your use of menagerie?
a collection of wild animals kept in captivity for exhibition. (zoo)
or
a strange or diverse collection of people or things. — universeness

Both.

By far, IMO, 'the internet' – a 24/7/365, billion-fold, vidiot-delusion machine – is worse than merely 'reading' religious books today.

:up:

Go troll somebody else.

I suspect that 'the internet' (e.g. social media influencers, cyber preachers, etc) is more popular in every way than either the bible or quran (or any other "holy book").

As for AGi—>ASI, it/they will "advise us" to enjoy the post-singularity menageries which it/they provide/s and leave the boring global scale, civilization-wide decision-making (to which we higher primates are tragically maladapted) to its/their tireless, non-zerosum hyperintellect/s.

Psychoceramic non sequitur.

Good point. Rather: I/we need "an atheistic [antisupernaturalistic] value system."

IMHO, Hillary threw away the 2016 election by refusing to campaign in the white working class-dominated states she had lost to Bernie Sanders in the party's primaries which, not coincidentally, were the three states where Donald wound up beating her by a combined 7/10ths of a percent. He didn't win the popular vote in 2016 or 2020 and fortunately he's not running against Hillary again. :shade:

The MAGA "base" is a massive hate-cult that comprises only about a third of the electorate; 2024 will be Biden's / Dems' election to lose (much like Hillary in 2016) because Donald (even IF he somehow trundles through the GOP primaries despite by then (1) having lost his business "empire" and (2) being on trial for 'crimes against the United States') can't' win. So far, Benkei, Biden / Dems don't give any indication he is / they are careless enough to buck the trend and throw away next year's election.

The 2018-2020-2022-2023 trend is very blue (anti-MAGA) heading into 2024. :up:

7Nov23 Election Day

Dems crushed MAGA^^ in
• Ohio (reproductive rights & recreational ganja)
• Kentucky (governor)
• Pennsylvania (supreme court justice)
•• Philadelphia (mayor)
• Virginia (senate & house!)

:cool: :up:

^^ making autocracy great again

:fire:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847478

Yes or no – the United States has been, and is currently, a constitutional republic, not a democracy?

Do you think we humans could create a guidance book that became as popular or more popular than the bible or the quran, ... — universeness

The internet. :pray:

... but provided well-chosen 'what if,' scenarios and gave sound, robust, advice on what to do next.

The tech singularity (AGI —> ASI). :point:

:up:

Why otherwise would humans be so eager to fight wars if everybody would lose? — ssu

Our atavistic delusions of grandeur (à la the gambler's fallacy).

FWIW – To paraphrase J.S. Mill's quip about "conservatives" – The religious aren't necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are religious. :smirk:

:mask: True.

Bemusings ...

And at long last I've finally realized that it's stupid to tell stupid people that they are stupid.

Most people are very stupid but very few actively struggle against this congenital defect.

Un/fortunately sober now, I don't suffer fools who suffer fools or who don't already know they are fools.

Today's 'online' sophistry: pseudo-science rationalized by pseudo-philosophy (i.e. Dunning-Kruger woo woo).

'Less is more' and 'more is less'. Poverty means 'never enough' no matter how much (money) one has.

For the love of God, inspite of His indifference ... for the love of humanity, inspite of our inhumanity ...

To paraphrase JS Mill's quip about conservatives, I'd sum up Old Atheism as 'Theists aren't necessarily  stupid but most stupid people are theists.' Now we have New Atheism  which, more or less, crosses some polite line with 'Theism makes people stupid and makes stupid people dangerous.'

An 'atheist' is someone who says she doesn't believe in God which is just a polite way of saying 'I don't need an invisible crutch'.

It's the slow dying, not the hard living, that kills you.

This life, here and now, is a Purgatory (of lessons maybe learned from losses) where Hell desires meanings which do not exist and Heaven revels without a cause.

People are always trouble. The problem is how to tell who is worth the trouble from those who aren't before it's too late. And it's always later than you think.

Through these veins runs the blood of ancestors who were kidnapped and sold into slavery by other ancestors.

I still don't trust people who've never been drunks or junkies and, except for my mother, who believe in magic.

Inevitably you reach an age when you cannot appreciate the aesthetics or do not understand the morals of people half your age ... From this perspective, youths seem neither to feel nor think for themselves. What are they – hedonic drones? flame-blinded moths? defecating skinner boxes?

The latest All You Need is Cash-grab is just old Macca trying to make chicken salad out of chickensh*t. Ain't that a shame...

So much pretty doesn't make up for so little beauty.

Chapter II - The Biological foundations of personal identity — DeSoto

Being No One by Thomas Metzinger (or his much briefer, less technical summary The Ego Tunnel).

Also, a more general (even entertaining) treatment of the topic that comes to mind is A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality by John Perry.

@RogueAI @schopenhauer1 @BitconnectCarlos

So was this Israeli cabinet minister sacked just for what he said or rather for his extremist, Freudian slip – saying the quiet part out loud – nuking Gaza? :brow:

https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-minister-amichai-eliyahu-suspend-benjamin-netanyahu-nuclear-bomb-gaza-hamas-war/

The Likud-led regime is nothing but Hamas with US firepower & NATO support.

:sweat:

Yeah, given our current knowledge and best guesses on that basis, asking about the beginning of the universe makes about as much sense as asking about the edge of the Earth.

Last time I checked, "the Roman Empire" was the root of what we today call "Western Civilization" and, given the choice of "sword or the Cross" in the name of Jesus, much of the world was "Christianized" during the millennium after the fall of Rome. Conquest, not self-critique.

:roll:

:up:

Even though the Allies committed war crimes, they were morally superior to the Axis. Is that correct? — RogueAI

That question is too vague.

Yeah, the world was better off that the Allied powers had defeated the Axis powers. No doubt the world will be better off when the US client-state of Israel destroys the Iranian client-terrorist proxies of Hamas & Hezbollah. The question is: will Israel destroy itself, or be destroyed, in the process by becoming the monsters it is fighting? Apparently, Israel has – especially, since 1967 – such that the "Greater Israel" state policy is, in practice, indistinguishable from, IMO, the US' "Manifest Destiny" and even Third Reich's "Lebensraum" ideologies.

So, Rogue, is the concentration camp regime that's indiscriminately mass-murdering prisoners "morally superior" to the very few prisoners who had escaped only to murder the guards' & torturers' "innocent" families and friends?

(update 5 mins after I wrote this post) To wit:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/us-jews-rift-gaza-israel-crisis

Isn’t it true you can’t have it both ways, you either have universal rights and liberal principles are a thing or they are not. — schopenhauer1

Attempts by Europeans to impose "universal rights and liberal principles" by colonizing and coopting non-Europeans for the last half-millennium was and is, in fact, trying to "have it both ways" – subverting that "universalist" end with illiberal (i.e. imperialist/hegemonic) means.

The very idea of being self-critical of one’s OWN ideals seems a Western thing.

In theory, maybe; but not in practice. Empires (via conquistadors, gunships, missionaries & systematic colonization), for example, are not "self-critical" emancipatory projects (pace Hegel, vide Aristotle).

Journalist: What do you think of Western civilization?

Mahatma Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

:fire:

I'm claiming that Allied war crimes were morally equivalent to Axis war crimes insofar as they were both war crimes. Your special pleading is what's "absurd", sir. Inform yourself. :mask:

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

Does the committing of Allied war crimes entail a moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis? — RogueAI

Yes. What makes actions "war crimes" is that, to begin with they are not self-defensive, they are gratuitous, etc.