I didn't believe the thread was ableist, it wasn't saying "people who have a disease are evil", it was just using a metaphor comparing sin to a disease.

"Perfect" likely only exists In pure mathematics.

So by "faith", It has to involve belief specifically in a "God"?

Belief in any other prime truth or axiom held to be absolute doesn't qualify?

it "sells" and appeals to emotions over logic
— IvoryBlackBishop

Of course. Logic is a fine facility for some kinds of problems, but entirely unsuited for cultural appreciation and participation. The opposite is true as well -- sometimes we really have to try very hard to screen out emotional response.

I just want to emphasize that capitalism exploits everyone in every available venue--work, family life, entertainment, leisure, etc. As Marx said, "Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash connection."

Capitalism didn't invent exploitation -- that's been around for millennia. What capitalism does is intensify exploitation and make it ubiquitous--and more efficient.
[/quote]
How do you define capitalism? Are you talking about a specific definition or theory of capitalism, or human behavior?

In basic sense of private property, I believe that, on some level that is a part of human nature, and I disagree with "utopian" theories, such as that "civilization" invented private property or exploitation. (As an example, ant colonies have social "roles", ranks, division of labor, so I believe on some level, merely owning personal or private property is inevitable, and not necessarily "bad).

Of course. Logic is a fine facility for some kinds of problems, but entirely unsuited for cultural appreciation and participation. The opposite is true as well -- sometimes we really have to try very hard to screen out emotional response.

I just want to emphasize that capitalism exploits everyone in every available venue--work, family life, entertainment, leisure, etc. As Marx said, "Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash connection."

Capitalism didn't invent exploitation -- that's been around for millennia. What capitalism does is intensify exploitation and make it ubiquitous--and more efficient.

"People" don't like talking about how capitalism degrades life. They would rather talk about sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, blah blah blah, rather than talking about the herd of elephants in the room. Back in the day when there were 3 networks and nothing else, people spent a lot of time criticizing television. most people didn't realize that the IMPORTANT parts of television programming were the commercials; the programs were just bait.

The relationship of users to media is basically the same. The POINT of Facebook, Google, Yahoo, et al is to put advertising in front of eyeballs; that's how they make money. I use Google Search all the time and value it highly -- but search is the bait. Sharing pictures of your cat with the world is the bait for Facebook. At least with pornography, the product and the bait are one and the same thing.

Our use of the internet (what we look at, when, for how long, whether we click or not, all that stuff) is the product that is sold to advertisers. Everything we do socially and economically that can be tracked and valued is tracked and valued. That's why your cell phone keeps track of where you are at every moment of the day (assuming you have not disabled location functions): Where you go and when is very useful information to companies that want to sell you stuff. Of course it's also useful for governments which might have an unsavory interest in what you do with your time--when, where, and with whom.

If you mean consumerism, or people indulging in fatuities such as "googling for cat pictures" instead of doing more productive things, I believe on some level that is a part of human nature, and that people can take action to boycott or remove those things from their lives, so I'm not sure I can blame "capitalism", especially a modern incarnation or notion of it.

As far as Google's business model or mission statement, I'm unsure, but you said yourself you don't 'have' to use if for purely mindless things like cat pictures and can use it for more productive or 'serious' things as well.

Fair enough, are you asserting that it's totally 'subjective', or that there aren't better or worse ways of making art, or that art relate to certain other axioms or principles, such as beauty, creativity and aesthetics?

If you mean "rituals", fair enough.

As far as "faith", that's another term that often never gets consistently defined, but if you mean people having some axiomatic trust or affirmation towards it as an institution (which isn't coming from expertise, like a Newton or Einstein, but merely from trust in the institution or the popular figures), I would consider that faith, yes.

Likewise, regardless of what one's belief or philosophy is, I would argue that all beliefs and systems are based on some axiom(s) or "prime truth" held to be absolute, this is not attempting to compare and contrast different systems, which ones are 'better' or worse, and so on and so forth, just stating what is.

As far as truth itself, I believe that other than in pure mathematical theory, nothing can be "perfectly": defined,but realistically it could be defined "better or worse".

(Most people for example, would say without a doubt that a legal system which prohibits rape and murder is far better than one which allows it).

I agree, my argument is just that it's a modern example of people acting or thinking in quasi-"religious" way.

As far as theological or philosophical thoughts on God or a higher power, I don't believe that all of it was simply a "ruse" which wanted to reduce it to a fear of hell or damnation, no, but that's a deep subject which I can't get into here.

Or as far as modern example, "scientism" is probably the most popular.

(This isn't "science" itself nor conflatable with "atheism", but rather blind faith or trust in scientists, or in Bacon's 17th century scientific method, based on induction or arguments from authority, rather than personal expertise or having invented the methodology or the theories themselves, such as a teleological faith in "science" or "scientists" in general as a specific institution, often based on pop culture myths regarding its development and its various key figures, which don't actually stand up to history).

Which even during the Enlightenment era In which it originated, was and still is not the only school of thought available. (For example, evolutionary though has been a subject of philosophy as far back as the pre-Socratic philosophers, as well as contemporaries of Darwin such as Holmes, so the popular myth which gives Darwin sole credit for the theory may be historically inaccurate or false).

Much as how most mass media which "promotes" science is based on outdated 19th century information, and marketed to the 6th grade reading level, so most popular positive sentiments or affirmations expressed about "science" as a method or an institution (often falsely conflating science and natural scientific theories with other things to begin with) aren't based on higher level expertise, such as an actual Newton or Einstein, but just on faith in scientific media and propaganda, or personal bias toward one's industry on behalf of low-level employers in a natural scientific field or who hold a "scientist" title regardless of what their actual work or job description consists of.

I don't agree with that assessment but to each their own.

Are you an anarchist? What is your ideal form of government?

Tricky subject, but I assume you mean the Justices aren't held to be "infallible" or have a "god-appointed status", akin to a medieval pope or monarch?

My honest belief is that people even today can still "act" in ways like that.

If you want to use "Trump supporters" as an example, sure Trump may technically be an elected president with limited powers, however in practice his supporters or 'fanatics' can treat him like he's de facto infallible.

The finer details of what? To be able to say that religions have been and are useful then there should be some proof of that, what good has religion done for humanity?
[/quote]
That's a tricky subject, however I would contest that modern systems of law and government are predicated on certain "religious" or moral axioms, such as the golden rule, and that religious systems played a role in the development of modern ones. (You can read Oliver Wendall Holmes treatise on the Common Law, for example if you're interested).

Also, usually when people attempt to define "religion", it's never done with a consistent definition - are you talking solely about "organized religion", or "churches", or about religious philosophy, theology, and things of that nature.

For example, if your argument against "religion" as a whole is that it's a tool of "control" or imposition of a specific "morality" on people, that may not be entirely "false".

However, in a way, that is similar to the law of any modern nation, such as the Common Law in America or Britain, which does impose a bare minimum of morality on people by force, based on its own moral axioms (e.x. that acts such as rape or murder are inherently "immoral", and that society or the state therefore has a right to use force to prevent or punish those crimes, for example).

So your argument boils down to a sociological rant against "control", my view is that that moral axiom would lead to nihilism or anarchy, and that, to some degree, civilization is predicated on a rule of law, which from a historical perspective, is what I believe is a positive purpose which religion has served (such as in days when there was no modern distinction between "church" and state).

Sure, you could easily argue that punishing rape or murder is not comparable to forcing people to attend a Catholic Mass under threat of excommunication, or whatever, but from a sociological POV, my point still remains.

That's presuming that all business operate in a certain way or on a very specific business model in pure abstraction, in practice I don't see that as the case, and I believe business models are diverse in their goals and methods.

Lately I tend to view "mass media" businesses or ones which sell products widely considered "addictive" to be more likely to be operated on that type of basis, but that's just my opinion and I can't go into further detail on substantiating that.

This is turning into more of an anti-religion rant and less of a discussion about the finer details, so I think I'll bow out for not.

Based on what you're saying, I don't see how churches or religions would automatically be any different than any other business model.

For example, a company which sells alcohol, if you believed it promoted or was a source of alcoholism, you might have a grievance against, much as you would churches if you have negative opinion of religion, or organized religion specifically.

I didn't understand all of what you wrote. Could you give a more consise verison regarding the main points?

I've heard of Rawls, I'm not sure how he compares.

Interestingly, the "philosophy" behind etiquette (e.x. Emily Post) has some similarities to Confucius' philosophy, such as etiquette being related to holding civilization together, though some might say it's overly "conformist" and not always applicable to real life situations (though the philosophy is that etiquette is fluid and adaptable in form, and does change with the time, though the underlying principles are universal, rather than pure "formalism" as is often stereotypically portrayed).

I'd assume that credible business do provide some measure of financial accountability, so again I don't see what this has to do with "church" or "religion" as a whole, it just seems like an ubiquitous "anti-religion" gripe or rant.

I'd be tempted to say a very similar thing about most if not all "mass media", which in my honest opinion is usually just a 6th-grade reading level or ADHD substitute for reading books, regardless of the subject matter, usually predicated on sensationalist headlines.

Confucianism is dated, however I've found that some of the principles are reoccurring, such as in more modern treatise on civilization, or even etiquette.

Something akin to Oliver Wendell Holmes might be a better example, at least as far as the philosophy of modern law and civilization is concerned.

I'm not sure, but I find that 'nihilstic' conclusions defeat the purpose of philosophy to begin with.

What should a 'social life consist of'?

Every business has to make a profit, so if this is just a discussion about greed or using religion as a money-making tool, I'd prefer not to go there.

In that regard, I don't see anything inherent about "religion" or formal religion than any other business model of "questionable" reputation, such as a casino.

Do people believe Trump writes his own Tweets, or is it just a paid campaign person?

What makes somebody somebody and nobody nobody other than degrees of subjective and fluctuating relevance among certain demographics?

↪frank If it could be tested in principle then it could be true or false. Those who say string theory is not even wrong are claiming, whether rightly or not, that it is not testable in principle. A statement or theory which is not testable in principle would be deemed to be inconsistent with the common notion of truth.

That's based on a particular system or methodology of testing, invented from pure mathematics, based on axioms and particular standards and methods of testing (e.x. induction), when of course the defintions of testing themselves can be changed or redefined, much as how Bacon's method defined them to begin with.

So in practice, when hear this argument, it generally strikes me as blind faith (rather than experience) in a particular system, or institution of testing and testability, however the prime truths or axioms upon which said system was mathematically built upon to begin with are held to be absolute, at least as in regards to the scope or proceedures of the method itself, in a way which is completely independent from testing.

(Since the prime truth or axiom that Bacon's 17th century method based on induction is how things should be tested to begin with, is not in itself testable but merely held either to be knowable a priori, or based on an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's wisdom, or that of those who practice his method).

AS a business model, if nothing else, how do you think that 'formal' religion will stand up to the Information Age and social media.

"Church attendance" may decline, however more people may watch Sermons on social media; what are your thoughts on this? I've seen more and more churches broadcasting on social media as of late.

Sorry, I didn't see this thread before I started one.

I didn't think that thread should've been deleted, it was pretty obvious that it was just a metaphor which compared sin to diseases (it was not saying "people with diseases are evil", or something absurd which Banno claimed it did).

Hard to say, being "in love" is more akin to a state of mind or consciousness, while "love" is an abstraction which various philosophers have written about.

And, like all true Scotsman, those who rule get to decide what is "smart".

Let's not be racist here.

Do I have a perfect scientific or mathematical formula for what everyone should do in every situation? No.

But yes, I do believe asserting some absolutes, or that some perspectives on them are better than others is good or doable; such as asserting that perspective of a Nazi who wishes to exterminate Jews is much "worse" than a perspective which supports rights and so on and so forth.

I agree with this, I don't see video games as an industry any 'different' in that regard than other forms of media and entertainment (e.x. 1990s Madonna music videos, 1970s comic books, etc), some trends of which have always been around, perhaps in varying degrees.

Most likely, since video games are a "newer" phenomenon they are standing out more than older forms of media.

As far as sexism or 'exploitation', I think there is a fine line between strict puritanism, and exploitation (apparently even back in Shakespeare time's, there were some "puritanish" thoughts in regards to his writings.

To me, I think it has a lot to do with how it fits into the overall context, such as a difference between "containing" sex and violence, or sex and violence for the pure sake of it, and there is of course no 'scientific' way of defining it.

My advice would be to either boycott the entire mediums, if one has a problem with it (not just 'video games', but TV, film, comics, etc), or to at least attempt to come up with something akin to a consistent 'formula' for vetting it, or otherwise then it's just 'he said'', 'she said'.

And as far as sensationalist media goes, it seems like a lot of it is predicated on stirring up controversy using loaded words (e.x. sexist, violence) not proportionate to the subject matter or context, simply because it "sells" and appeals to emotions over logic.

By what absolute is there anything "wrong" with speaking for God?

Well, as far as the legal systems of any 1st world nations go, humans can and do judge good and bad, so it's your word against theirs, unless you claim to be "god" or to speak for god.

Nope. You’re still not getting it. Humans are not the center of the universe as you might think.

Basically you're asserting that putting humans at the "center of the universe" is absolutely wrong, so that's another flaw in your argument.

And as far as that goes, whether we were talking "humans" specifically, or a race of aliens or androids who were comparable to humans in terms of their inherant faculties, I believe that the same scenarios would apply.

I think that most people would reasonably agree that a "rock" doesn't have the rights that humans do not because of human "preference" but because it lacks sentience.

Or in regards to animals, even if they weren't viewed in strict "human or animal dichotomies", but in terms of complexity hierarchies (e.x. molecules combining to create cells, cells combining to create organs, etc) - humans would have more rights due to being at a higher degree of complexity.

(Much as how more complex animals, such as Tigers, have "more rights" than less complex ones, such as insects).

What about him?

As far as the woman who was raped, what about the satisfaction of the rapist?

etc...

Fair enough then, so "to the Nazis", putting Jews in gas chambers was "good", who's to say there was anything wrong in that perception?

So based on your absolutes, it would be a "greater evil" to impose your judgment on the Nazis, than for the Nazis to exterminate Jews? Okay...

To us self-centered humans, there is relative good and bad.
[/quote]
What is "wrong" with being self centered.

I think my life is bad, but to someone living in Haiti it is probably very good looking from their perspecti

I understand that, but that's just a matter of comparison, and doesn't attempt to substantiate what things contribute to either situation to make it 'good' or 'bad' for the percipients.

For example, even if a man losing his finger isn't "as bad" as losing he entire right arm, but would be different degrees of injury or loss, and there would be similarities between the two of them which could be compared and contrasted.

Okay. The one absolute is that there are no other absolutes than this self-referring statement.
[/quote]
Why?

Also, you continue to misunderstand me. If, for example, this turned out to be the best of all possible worlds where in others the Nazis blew up the world with nuclear bombs, would this world not be good compared to the others?

But you said it's about perception, so then blowing up the world with nuclear bombs isn't immediately "wrong" to begin with, yet you seem to be inferring that it is so.

You completely misunderstood me. Also, to say there are no absolutes is an absolute is like saying the fictional unicorn is an actual unicorn.
[/quote]
No I believe it fits, it's holding that premise or 'prime truth' to be an absolute.

I meant to kill Hitler before the concentration camps or even before he took power.

I would argue no on that one, as far as courts of law and the moral philosophy they're based on is concerned.

My point is that it’s all about perception. Certainly I have views about what is good and what is bad, as the dolphins probably do. Mine differ from theirs, however, I’m sure.

But here you're arguing that the statement "it's all about perception" is an absolute independent of perception (or else, then the statement "it's all about perception" is a matter of perception as well).

My argument is that it could be reasonably inferred that there are better or worse ways of perceiving things than others; much as how a person with 20/20 vision, and one with 20/200 vision might but perceive the same event, however the person with better vision would be more credulous in regards to that than the person with worse.

As far as courts go, obviously it's at the perception or delegation of the individuals participating the court (e.x. judges, juries, etc), however this doesn't mean that any and all perceptions or subjective judgments are considered equally valid, which is why the court has rules and procedures, and is built on a system of checks and balances to help ensure better and more rational judgment, as opposed to mob rule, or blood feuds, or more primitive systems of resolving conflicts which modern courts and legal systems 'evolved' out of.

Am I the only one on this forum with self-awareness? It seems that everyone here feels they are guiltless good people. I try to be good to the best of my capabilities, but I often fail. Is everyone here a saint?

As far as that goes, I believe most would argue there are different degrees of "goodness and badness". (I'm not aware any legal or moral system in which all wrong acts are considered 'equally wrong', whether one wished to reference the Bible, the contemporary Common Law, or otherwise, obviously some wrongs are considered worse or more severe than others, and punished in a harsher way).

Most people aren't a saint, like Jesus, Ghandi, or someone of that nature, but they aren't a Hitler, a Gacy, a Dahmer either.

So why does falling one righteous act below 'perfect' Sainthood make one a 'bad person', yet if one wanted to be an even worse person, they would have a lot of work cut out for them if they wanted to achieve a Hitler, a Gacy, a Dahmer status?

Who's to say what is good?

If who's to say what is good, then who's to say what is evil?

Who’s to say what is good? I’m thinking of the old Taoist parable. Also the story of Adam and Eve who thought they could gain such knowledge by eating the forbidden fruit (knowing better than God).

I'm not sure that's the best interpretation of that story, but that's a separate topic entirely.

Would it have been bad to kill Hitler in cold blood? Perhaps you might argue that’s murder. Perhaps you would call it justifiable homicide. Perhaps someone more evil than the murdered Hitler had hypnotized the Germans during their time of runaway inflation caused by the winners of the First World War.

I was planning on reading up on the laws and rules of war, just as Just War Theory hypothetically, had the Allies assinated him, i t wouldn't have been "murder" or killing in cold blood.

My point is that people have differing views on what is good and what is bad.

True, but I'd argue that, much as a person with 20/20 vision as opposed to one with 20/200 vision, that there are objectively better ways of discerning what is good or bad.

A person who thinks that exterminating people with concentration camps is "good", could be reasonably inferred to be a very horrible idea of what is "good".

If you mean, there's no "exact science", or 'perfect' mathematical formula for discerning the good and bad of every individual scenario, then yes (e.x. in theory, "murder" is morally wrong, however in practice, there is no perfect way of defining it, which is why courts of law have definitions, rules of evidence, and so forth which have developed and been in use for a long period of time, and rely on the subjective judgments and discernments of the judges, juries, etc).

Also that there are no absolutes.

But you're saying that the statement "there are no absolutes" is an absolute.

Much as, as far as the Tao is concerned, Lao Tzu obviously holds following the Dao to be an "absolute", and superior to not following it and it principles, whatever they consist of.

Perhaps you think you’re generally a good person. I doubt the world’s dolphins swimming through the pollution and plastic you’ve contributed to would think so.

Even then, you're inferring that "polluting the ocean" is "bad" in some absolute sense, if there are 'no absolutes' (other than, ironically, the 'absolute' that there are no absolutes), you can't even say that polluting the ocean is "wrong" in any inherent sense to begin with.

Or that it is "absolutely bad" to put one person's view of good and evil over another person's species, etc.

Hypothetically, what if the death of the dolphins prevent them from preying on other marine life, would said marine life look up to us as war heroes?