More personal insults, then, just like the OP. — Leontiskos

Your defensiveness is clouding your reading comprehension:

Of those who do— and there are a sizable number — I think it’s worth giving the advice I did: — Mikie

It has nothing to do with insults. I realize YOU’RE very clearly insulted. But I’ve now told you repeatedly this advice doesn’t apply to you. So if you choose to feel insulted, that’s your own business.

The idea that only a select few are "capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing" is anti-religious. This is obvious. — Leontiskos

How? It’s either a select few or it’s not. In this forum, I think it’s quite a few people.

Most people don’t really question their beliefs. Of those who do— and there are a sizable number — I think it’s worth giving the advice I did: move on from it. Don’t get stuck with those questions alone, because there’s nothing special about your particular religion.

then you should be informed that bundling together a bunch of anti-religious clichés in an anti-religious OP will certainly have the opposite effect. — Leontiskos

It’s not anti-religious. I’m speaking to those capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing. See the quote below. You’re clearly not one of them, so it really doesn’t apply to you. You should study theology. I see philosophy as different in many ways from that— and, with this being a philosophy forum, I figured I would voice my opinion about it.

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League — Mikie

Again— this doesn’t apply to you. So be happy with what you believe. I’m just not interested in theology. I’m talking about those who wish to engage in philosophical questioning.

To a lot of people it's the most important fact about life. — Quixodian

To a lot of Hindus it’s an important fact about life. For those who are capable, I think stepping outside one’s upbringing and enculturation and questioning things philosophically is possible. I think that ultimately leads to “Why am I privileging the stories of my youth?”

If talk about the god Xhadima, as an outsider, is kind of absurd, then perhaps that’s worth examining.

This is not a statement about theology— study God or Christianity all you like. When it comes to philosophy, I don’t see it that way anymore. I see it as boring as I see the “philosophical” obsessions about Xhadima. Like, move on already. Your particular childhood stories don’t carry social weight.

There's an asymettry - you don't see it as anything other than myth, whereas for those who believe it, there is something real - and vastly important - at stake. — Quixodian

I’m assuming people who do philosophy assume it’s myth as well. Nothing wrong with myth and stories — they’re important. But let’s acknowledge our privileging it over many others simply because we were raised in it.

It’s like privileging the NFL. Yes, because I grew up with it I give it more personal importance— but the rest of the world doesn’t care, and to assume they do is utter arrogance. From an anthropological view, it’s one sport of many and, if questioned at all, should be questioned with that in mind.

And I have found much of value in all those stories that you seem to want me to dismiss. — unenlightened

I never once argued that should be dismissed. I’m arguing we shouldn’t raise one particular story for special treatment on the basis of the sheer chance we were raised being told it.

So what do you have that is better than stories? — unenlightened

Questions. Questions that aren’t limited to one special story.

On the contrary, one cannot understand oneself and one's potential biases without some study of the history of the culture in which one was raised. — unenlightened

Of course. You’re bound to care more about your own culture. But that’s the point. It’s a bias.

If you really believe your culture is special, exceptional, deserving of privileged treatment, etc — fine, go study it. If this were India, I suppose there would be endless debate about how many arms Shiva has or whatever — yet in terms of philosophy, I’d say the same thing: it’s boring, and the only reason we care in the first place is because we grew up in it.

But it’s really not special from a philosophical or scientific point of view, where the happenstance of one’s upbringing is removed. There’s a kind of ethnocentrism to it all.

I’m assuming, I guess, that most people here approach these issues without being hardcore believers. Perhaps I’m wrong, and they really do believe. In that case, it’s not really philosophy at all, is it?

Nevermind — you did. Great— be well.

Cool. So perhaps move this to the Feedback section.

Like I said, it’s really not you. I don’t mean to single you out— there are almost always a number of (in my view) tedious discussions going about one aspect or another of Western culture’s deity. I’m reacting in part to that.

Yeah, this just proves you really don’t have a clue about what I was saying. I’ve explained the argument a few times — your defensiveness and “outrage” is both embarrassing and is preventing you from seeing it. That’s your problem, not mine.

Also, I never once told anyone “what to believe.”

Thank goodness most Christians aren’t as thin-skinned and dogmatic as you.

It’s an argument against evangelism by being against giving special attention and privilege to the beliefs and stories one happened to be brought up in.

You’re welcome to discuss God’s existence or anything else. For theology, it’s fine. For philosophy, it’s a bore. In my opinion. But no one’s stopping you from doing so.

As an aside — the fact that you’re so offended by this opinion kind of points to your own dogmatism. But so be it.

I figured this post would be interpreted as simplistically as possible, so as to fit it in with arguing “Move on from Christianity.” But look again — that’s not the argument. I’m not against religion.

If one wants to study God, study theology. If one wants to raise philosophical questions about God— ask yourself why you’re so preoccupied with God and not Thor or Shiva. I think that’ll lead you to see that this obsession is a complete waste of time, and that your caring so much is based on a residue of upbringing. Move on from that. It’s not special.

From a psychological, anthropological, and historical point of view, it’s just one more worldview. — Mikie

For pernicious aspects, I’d try my best to educate them — but like any cult, that’s difficult once it’s been ingrained.

Tell me more about what I should let go of, and how you know its value so well. — unenlightened

I can make up a god right now. Now let’s endlessly argue about if it exists or not, what impacts it has on morality, etc etc. Odd that Vishnu doesn’t get brought up as much here — I wonder why?

Anyway— I don’t care about whether people are Christian or not; I care about what they do. But in terms of philosophical questioning on a philosophy forum, especially if you’re otherwise secular — yeah, people should move on from that. Either study theology or treat god like any other god. No reason to give “god” special attention just because you happen to be raised in that faith.

Should we not let go of those very Christian values too? — unenlightened

I didn’t say anything about Christian values.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind, but given that your post contains no arguments and has no relation to philosophy, why post this sort of thing on a philosophy forum? — Leontiskos

It does have an argument. That you missed it is your business.

The argument is simple: because one happens to be raised in a Christian culture doesn’t afford special attention to one’s “questions” about God. Very easy to see if you replace “God” with “Wodin.”

“And yet” makes no sense.

Also, it’s not anti-religion. But thanks for your always-riveting comments. :yawn:

The Church is a useful institution; it's a place to maintain social contacts. A lot of clubs and bowling leagues have gone out of business. The church is still there on the corner. Potluck, anyone? — BC

True. I think the social aspect is important. From a philosophical point of view, however, these questions are — in my view — a waste of time. It’s not even philosophy of religion — They should be studying theology.

Is "religion" a waste of time? For some, yes; for others no. — BC

Sure. I don’t think religion is a waste of time.

We'll have to come back from the grave to see whether that makes all that much difference. — BC

I plan on living to 120, so maybe I’ll get to see it.

Instead of derailing your thread, I created another one. But the TL; DR is I think it’s a waste of time. But that’s all I’ll say here.

Incidentally, I think you’re a great contributor here. My sentiments aren’t directed solely at you.

Hey, he is older than Cat Stevens and only a couple of years younger that Niel Young. — Sir2u

Touche.

Kissinger…yeah. Don’t know if it’s fantastic, but certainly bizarre.

Just saw Oppenheimer. Nolan is representative of the times— the “auteur” of plebs.

The entire thing has a cold, engineered quality. It’s also confusingly written and edited, has non-stop overbearing “music” (no melody and themes, just continuously jarring notes), and no soul.

The actors try their best, but it’s 3 hours of bells and whistles that tries desperately to be a “masterpiece,” when in reality it’s just an empty, boring, and enervating piece of shit.

Last time I’m convinced to go to one of these.

A little “young” for the above list, but I’ve added anyway because it FEELS like he’s been around since the Big Bang.

I know Dick Van Dyke's grandson. Good dude. — Noble Dust

That’s cool!

Influencers — Sir2u

:up: Yes.

Dragon fruit. — L'éléphant

:lol:

I like dragon fruit! What’s annoying is how expensive it is.

the one that annoys me that everyone goes on about is the Shawshank Redemption, which I dislike — Jamal

In the past I would have taken umbrage with that — but after seeing it again, I get it. Especially when people go on and on about it. Becomes such an obvious, cliched choice. I used to love that movie, too — but now I think mainly because of Freeman’s narration.

It’s also syrupy.

Discontinued or unavailable manufacturing parts or planned obsolescence (should be laws against this bullshit) — Nils Loc

Yes!

Well, cross Bennett off the list…
:confused:

I've read Being in Time twice through, but certain parts many times. Be happy to talk about it.

See this here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12109/what-is-being/p1

And this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8492/martin-heidegger/p1

And let me know what you think, if interested.

Of course if Trump loses to a Democrat then there would be a 180 degree turn around and Trumpsters would accuse Democratic leaders of wrong doing by doing the very thing that Trump has set out to do. — Fooloso4

That’s just about 100% certain, yes.

Simply by running he effectively throws up a smoke screen of "the charges are all political" no matter what they are or who they come from or what their merits are. — GRWelsh

It’s fairly obvious this is one big reason. Trump is easy to predict.

Just for posterity / reference:

The major Supreme Court cases of 2022-2023:

• Students for Fair Admissions v. Havard
  Affirmative action case. Decided 6-3.
  
  
• Moore v. Harper
  "independent state legislature" theory and gerrymandering. Decided 6-3.
  
  
• Biden v. Nebraska
  Student loan forgiveness. Decided 6-3.
  
  
• 303 Creative v. Elenis
  Gay rights. Decided 6-3.
  
  
• Allen v. Milligan
  Alabama voting rights. Decided 5-4.
  
  
• Glacier Northeast v. Teamsters
  Unions and strikes. Decided 8-1.
  
  
• Sackett v. EPA
  Re: waters of the US with "continuous surface connection." Decided 9-0, but 5-4 on rationale.

Not surprising, most were terrible.

But conservatives bringing up Hunter Biden or Hilary Clinton and any alleged wrongdoing they were involved in doesn't exonerate Trump from anything he was indicted for. — GRWelsh

True, but it’s so fun to watch! So let’s not spell out the stupidity too much.

They’re all plutocratic criminals that get special treatment. That being said, Trump is in a league of his own.

Your comment, while true, can only be verified through analysis of climate, not weather. — LuckyR

Yes, true.

But because it’s all felt locally, my hope (which is borne out with some polling) is that extreme weather will be connected to climate change.

Always worth remembering the facts: Trump tried to overthrow a fair election. He continues to lie about it. His lies led to an insurrection.

He should have been hung for treason years ago.

Hurricanes, floods and wildfires are a normal part of earth's climate, — LuckyR

Not the ones we’re seeing now, which are both felt locally and exacerbated by global trends.

It’s not either/or.

Where do existential threats kick in? Mass existential threats or local existential threats? — BC

Mass existential. Easy to see why, even with adaptation.

Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard. — LuckyR

Half true. What you see and feel in your backyard is also related to the broader global changes. If you're in a draught, or caught in wildfires or a flood, or have your community uprooted by a hurricane -- that is all weather-related, yes, but also climate related. A warmer climate produces more floods, more draughts, more intense wildfires and stronger hurricanes. So while one hot day or one cold day in town X doesn't prove anything about global temperature, frequently extreme events are also not an accident, given what we know about climate change.

Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change? — BC

A good source is this article from Science:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950#core-collateral-purchase-access

There are several potential tipping points, and it's very possible we'll set them off. If so, life as we know it is over. Maybe we adapt in some way, but it's an existential risk.

Weighing blame...? — jorndoe

Yes. I tend to weigh the contributions of the country I live in more heavily— as is should be for anyone of rational age.

More than one topic I guess. — jorndoe

:up:

I think you’re right. Incidentally, the oft-referenced dissenter John Mearsheimer is equally pessimistic:

is a meaningful peace agreement possible? My answer is no. We are now in a war where both sides – Ukraine and the West on one side and Russia on the other – see each other as an existential threat that must be defeated. Given maximalist objectives all around, it is almost impossible to reach a workable peace treaty. Moreover, the two sides have irreconcilable differences regarding territory and Ukraine’s relationship with the West. The best possible outcome is a frozen conflict that could easily turn back into a hot war. The worst possible outcome is a nuclear war, which is unlikely but cannot be ruled out.

Depends on who you ask. According to the US, Russia shows no interest in negotiating, despite what Putin has publicly stated. Others say the US hasn’t seriously engaged in negotiations.

My own opinion leans towards the US not being very serious. They have too strong an interest in continuing this war.

Of course, Trump recently mentioned that he could solve this issue in “one day” by threatening to give Ukraine “a lot” and by telling Zelensky to “stop it.” So I guess there’s hope.

I know Zelensky very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we are going to give him [Zelensky] a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day.

The US provocation of this war is clear to anyone willing to look at the record, particularly 2008. Their military support is good for the powerful arms industry, and there’s apparently little willingness to engage in serious peace negotiations.

None of this should be controversial— except that it gets heard as “Putin is blameless.”

I think it should be legal, but would love to see a society where women aren’t essentially forced to do this kind of work.

People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.

Emerson, I think. I like this one.

But after the lawsuits were thrown out, it was time to move on and concede for the good of the country. — GRWelsh

Anyone with a brain cell knew Trump would claim the election was stolen if he lost. He would have done so in 2016. He did so in Iowa that year when Cruz won the caucus. It was foregone.

He’s been lying about a stolen election for years, and the reality is that he tried his best to steal it himself. The Georgia “perfect call” is a good taste, not to mention what he did to Pence. To say nothing of deliberately inciting an insurrection, using his followers to throw a tantrum for him.

Contested the election on what grounds? — GRWelsh

Oh I’m sure they’ll come up with something — like the fact that during a pandemic, mail-in voting (which has been around for decades) was expanded. In 2016 it would have been that buses of immigrants were given the right to vote in California, etc. etc. In other words: when we lose, it’s rigged by the deep state (despite plenty of split voting), because there’s no way Trump is hated by so many Americans — and when we win, nothing to see. We will in fact rail against the Russia narrative, which at least was based in reality and was shown to be true, despite the fact that the interference did not swing the election to Trump.

Years later, they sound exactly like what they accused the Democrats of sounding like. It’s hilarious.