I think they do more than that but not in the worst areas it is hard to tackle that feat.

Society is sub-version of good through stupidity. Why would you think too much consumption was good.

We've sent more or so scientists at you. We have given you tools.

We haven't freed the world as you expect us to

no need.

Of course they are(sarcasm).

As a whole they are detested because they have been better. You would be in a similar position. You never sought peace as much until this competition against America. I would have done similar but I would have perfected my culture.

(You'll automatically think ghandi during reading my post. Haha)

I am a good general I think.

You deserved that RISK, that is part of your hell. Was it an accident or did the fawn purposely burn? It lost the lottery it deserved. Who's to say mind is not the game?

You deserve that sort of quality.

Keen judgement by even a God.

He was smart in doing this. But it is enforced. So it's definitely not one man's doing. He's got to survive too.

How do you distinguish other countries any different, literally or ideally?

Only if you agree unrestricted humans have free will, to some extent, as some things are beyond our control. You don't choose to dream.

It is not totally 'free' - write about that.

Yeah you ought never to discriminate all unless very strange circumstances.

You said you suffered. After you die it's the end - you're at peace(which is a lie, nothing is not peaceful it's nothing).

You not expect more for your suffering? Others may, so going with others who do, that's a fine proposition; you will be credited, in another life.

Life has come out of nothing before, what's to stop it happening again?

Denying afterlife is not denying God. Afterlife is not God-exclusive. Obviously 'something' orders it, that something doesn't need to be like God.

You have claimed to have suffered. Do you hold a point even after I told you, hell associated with risk is feasable, because of your own weakness? Or are you just ignoring others?

Not trying to drop the bomb or anything but...

A lot of people are probably going to hell for acts like that.

It gets in the way of good.

If it makes you feel any better these types end up peg legged or uncomfortable.

Calm yourself.

Think about it, they rely on a darkness born of a social trend.

It's the smallest, meaningless dark that proves nothing about the users intellect. It's far too perverse.

I'd put them in hell, and they will end up in hell.

I could, morally, without a expression, move close to one of them and take the leg. They are that meaningless and insignificant.

You'd still hunt for food if you were hungry.

You'd still look for a partner if you were lonely.

A finite organism already implies morality, you ought to be good or...

If I was an infinite organism, only my care for others, or fear of something else, would stop me being immoral, but I may just want to counter that fear, and my care might be dangerous...

Everyone's living off some alternative.

The world is truly a dark place. To measure society as something good is wrong. We're playing an evil game and there's huge risks involved.

America has been apt. Using the tactics it has used, has sanctified the country.

Innocent folk have died, but beyond empathy that means nothing in war. People die all the time in war so you build a tolerance to death.

Revenge is on the mind of former enemies so I think America and it's tactics are good.

Would you rather be enslaved by ISIS?

Is the content of life good enough to justify any pain?

Fire death is a risk much lesser than a car crash.

Two things here:

Life's content; (metaphor, the alchohol is enough)

Risk.

God might say, and I'm thinking of the abrahamic God, you deserved that risk. In which case the burning fawn is in a 'justifiable hell, but it might be suffering too much, and thus, will get insurance.

It's feasable.

God condones of suffering, blah blah, he, thinks it through (an example of odd turn; we've blamed it on one being).

The majority think that X action deserves Y punishment. Blame them in the same manner as you did God.

They put Z in a position where Z might suffer. What is the resolution?

It's not 'he's thought it through'. It's multiple minds thinking. Is there a difference? I think so but need to think it over. I'll reply later on.

God uses pronouns like I, which is a whole different boat to we.

And we're discussing we.

Yeah.

Isn't this based on a dumb-God though?

You took a man in a cloud with super powers all the way, and did not even think that God might be a different thing all together?

What if God only created the universe, and isn't superpowerful?

I can imagine a God form that had the know-how but no superpowers. This God form is not necessarily one thing can be of many things in a species.

I'm not saying you're wrong but the discussion may take odd turns with such neglect.

I think morality requires special treatment.

We don't need to define, in words, what beneficent action, judgement and calculation is.

It would be better without the word morality.

Why refer to morality and not intellect?

Am I being moral or intellectual when I say the Earth benefits from Flora and Fuana?

However morality is just that, it is this intellectual beneficence stuff.

It's best left wordless as not to disrupt what we'd define it as.

To define it would be harmful, we'd all pause or error, whenever we judge if somethings are good.

It can be sensed though, this mode of activity where we judge, calculate and act goodly or evilly.

Bring it up as a concept sure, but it's surely an indefinite concept.

I think you're wrong, Metaphysician Undercover.

We don't decide what's good, we make an able judgement, at most.

What we are judging, surpasses judgement. Resources are still going to deplete whether we judge what's good or not. Do you see?

However, without moral philosophy, nothing is good.

Good - like truth - is an invention.

Authoritive figures, who have judged good, who only know, and are catalysts of, the universe's beneficent nature, spread good amongst communities.

Who's saying that beneficent nature is good? Benefience is benefience. Good is a man made term that's like "I agree with the benefits".

I think anyway, I might be wrong but you're definitely wrong.

No.

Morality is not based on language use.

I can make an able judgement using my eyes, and never speak in a language.

It's a hot subject, we may not 'hold a valid position' about morality unless we first settle the debate on what it is.

I believe morality is based on judgement; as to what the optimal course of action is.

We can't make video games, without consuming resources; a moral position would be to make sure we own enough resource and keep a stable continuum. Immorally, just make games anyway, don't care about resource consumption.

My authority, and the way the universe works, is what makes it moral. Conscious beings can freely be evil in this universe, we can debate forever if there is good and evil, but when our resources run dry it's kaput.

What could possibly make you, free-to-do-evil, respect my judgement? Nothing while you've face planted into your device screen. If someone tried to take it away from you, would you complain? Come on, put on a brave face.

What I'm trying to suggest is it's a tough one to reach an agreement on but those who can agree have better odds.

Moral people; We'll always have resources lest a massive disaster.

Immoral people: We'll just keep consuming till we die.

Moral people have chosen the optimal course of action given resources, through the authoritive catalyst(s) who take those people forward.

I'm saying this action is good, this is why, blah blah, nothing else is saying keeping resources is good unless you deter pain or desire pleasure.

Is there a common moral code we can all follow? Yes, but it requires everyone is purely good willed.

Hard to find in such an abstract civilization that tempts and distracts us.

If civilization wasn't so and so evil, we'd be more moral, and naturally, these good things would happen, almost automatically.

Maybe some higher power agrees? What value is lost otherwise?

(I understand some of this is wrong but I hope you can see through to what's implied, ironically).

I accept the notion of insurance.

I accept the notion of great mathematical prowess.

If there is a God thing.

God thing can predict the future from a cohesive view of the present.

"I know you will probably lead a good life'.

During vessel selection, God thing probably has a plethora of different vessels available for one and his/her 'moral rating'.

If the God thing can sense all beings and select thoughts, it can easily find a good vessel for who deserves heaven or hell.

Of course, the burning fawn example.

I'm in a good vessel, I may witness the worst torture - it's improbable. However if it does happen I think heaven will be increased in the next life.

I believe this universe is a low frequency hell. This means that, you might burn, and other things. There is a chance of that. By being here, we either deserved that chance, or we're on a special quest.

If art is opinionated...

Is this a contradiction?

if you watch a UFC fight, it's good par with one of two fighters, before actually recognizing who the second fighter is.

If I watch UFC, I carefully examine both fighters, and come to a rational decision. 'he's got better eyes, but I've seen the other guy fight before, I'll bet on draw' - contrary to - 'I prefer this guy - I'm going to bet on him blindly'.

Am I wrong to conflate UFC and art or is it a fair assocication?

Take two pieces of art for example, can one be pit against the other?

Isn't that what beauty is? Rated art?

Very obvious in Pillars and Talos Principle, you're filled in from the get go, exploring for lore expands every detail (in Pillars).

SPOILER
Children are born soulless, a curse for killing a God, Eothas. There are nine or so God's. You can choose to believe in them or not but for some reason they are animate. You do meet the Gods. You can side with factions who have varied belief, some worship or reject certain Gods. You travel around and meet people who join you or your ship crew - each character has it's own tale and quest line. Almost every choice you make effects whole aspects of the game. It's big and I mean big.

I recommend Pillars of Eternity 1 & 2. I'm playing 2 right now you may watch my stream for a preview @ mixer.com/remoku.

It has a lot of lore, and much of that is philosophical somewhat like Talos Principle.

Yes, because a Logical Positivist is fulfilled by logic. Electrons can be analyzed by mind, just not captured by the senses. Quote on quote - like the atom.

The Logical Empiricist would, rather stupidity. I would too, but intellectually. I would rule out God, because 'it's immature' if we're talking about an intelligent creator. The Logical Empiricist would say, it's not accomplishable through scientific method, thus God doesn't exist.

You do hold a belief in God's non existence.

Belief is not something whimsical and fairy-tale, belief is a real function. It's like a hypothesis, or guess.

Someone asks you, do you think God exists? You say I believe not so. You may not say that but it is applicable.

No babies aren't intrinsically atheistic. If Atheism is correct, there should be no God question. Saying no to God is good, but conflating that "no" to a now permenant position is stupid.

Me: I said no and I mean no.

You; I said no, but I don't really mean no. I mean yes but by saying no. Don't believe me? Who cares, belief is for fools.

You seem to treat art as a persona. It goes, it becomes. I think that is entirely dependant on the artists, but, generally, it's not going anywhere! Will there be new genres? That's not the result of arts, that's the result of artists and peers.

Here's several questions found in this muddle;

Will there be new genres of art?
Is it all heading towards metal?
What tool will the next generation artist prefer?
Will art effect culture more intricately?
Will more people enjoy art in coming times?
Will we finally be able to define art soon?
Is Da Vinci's mona lisa still priceless?

none of which I think are the process of this thread

Truth is a matter of detection.

"Is X true?" is a question that must resound in all truth qualititive statements.

It's true that grass is commonly green, in response to 'is X true?'.

If I had said this without the resounding question, it may not have any context.

The grass is green, thus, in response to "is X true?", I would say it's true the grass is green.

If I hold a truth - I may not just as well hold reality - truth can make reality more personal.

It has value but it's not to be confused with reality. Why would we hold truth? It helps us detect falsehoods.

An agnostic has a position on the matter. A baby is absolute zero.

Don't you see that religion is typo-typo hippyish?

There's grouping up for a moral cause, and then there's grouping up for some other regime.

What's beleiving in a God going to achieve?

We're more likely to make the numbers for a moral push? Then, that religion is temporary les' it become maleficent.

I suppose it could work, but it seems more like a costly, and pointless alternative to raw communication. "We need to group up and work together", "we're going to use religion - due to the amount of non intellectuals who can't reason with standard data, of course". "No we just need to group up and fix the habitat - don't worry bout' them".

I've seen a similar topic, and I don't think I know is vague but knowledge is X probability.

We have no need for religion.

Though we could use getting together to serve a moral objective.

China built a hospital in a quick time recently.

We all can improve the habitat, quickly. So that's the use of grouping together.

Don't tell me I missed the apple?

I've walked passed and registered a tree, calling it X.

My friend and I discuss if there is any matter as to why we can breathe.

I stop, I say "Oh, I know" in reference to an off-hand theory I had about X.

What is vague about knowing?

I have a memory of X, it also is a pattern; when asked some questions I am a knowledge man, through the pattern of X, or X directly (if I was asked did I pass leafs on a trunk).

What's vague is my knowledge of X, not being 100%.

Can we spake a resolute "I know"? I'll let you decide.

As for the matter of this topic, I don't think 1 + 1 = 2 means "I know it = 2" is vague, I don't think X is vague. I think it's a whole different topic. We're discussing whether theories can ever be complete.

You can also say 'yes' if you know, you don't have to claim 'I know'.

Other simulations may merit laws that appear as chaos to someone from this universe.

I guess this because of how the universe is a non-standard simulation; it's a super-massive lock-out from what I guess to be standard simulations. If my guess is good we might be able to scan and further understand chaos or that might be impossible.

Worlds are made luckilly, but with good odds.

If we were ever to transition to a purer simulation type, we would be harmonious with these laws.

I know thinking as the action side of thought.

When someone thinks, they use knowledge and environment. When someone says I know they refer to wisdom or a phenomenon.

Is this purely an action? Knowing? Referring to your wisdom or phenomena directly, that process?

You may just as well not think of wisdom as a pattern of knowledge but instead as a shell of knowledge.

You can know in the short and long terms.

conflating dreams and hallucinations with some sort of non-physical intelligence.

You may know what dreams are, but you're still not a full time dreamer, you are only a part time dreamer.

Isn't it fair that they can belong above you? To someone who is only a dreamer/force?

Isn't this intelligence present in a dream?

[I said earlier in a different thread one hallucination, interpret it this way and you'll be able to imagine universal strangeness parasites in the abyss. You are are returning with a force rhythmic in nature, possibly understanding. They could bop you out of rhythm now.

A dinosaur may not care about vegetarianism and may just torture and eat a species of animal; humans do this more than that. When vegetarianism is thought of as good, is that world, or universe logic (I.e. I'll save animal habitats; it's unfair on the animals)? The vegetarian is holding that they have authority, but in reference to what? A greater understanding? Who's the teacher?

Then what's the measure of someone's authority if there is no ultimate good?

What does that say about ultimate morality? What is it judged by?

Is the universe or world more corellate?

It is not just the demographics but what is achievable demographics; the odds.

If by some chance you are in a bad way then you are in a bad way statistically amongst and often including others.

Especially with regard to your social life, which is part of the significance topic.

So yes, you're right, but your argument is in agreement.