Comments

  • Corona and Stockmarkets...
    In this current dramatic drop, the explanation is often that everyone is dumping stocks... everyone is selling. But, I'm confused here... there cannot be a seller without a buyer, and if someone is buying all the shares being sold, then how are they losing value?creativesoul

    Because they still have PRICE even if nobody is buying. If you own stocks (or anything else) in such a market, you can see the price drop all the time, while you are sitting on your goods.
  • Belief in nothing?
    @Frank Apisa:
    I can´t help you with your reading comprehension problems, sorry.
  • Belief in nothing?
    You are not ducking my questions because they are nonsensical, Nob. You are ducking them because you are afraid of them for some reason.
    Wonder what that is?
    Frank Apisa

    I am not "ducking" anything, and you might want to stop mind-reading.
  • Belief in nothing?
    They are NOT nonsensical.Frank Apisa

    You saying that does not make it so.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Have you looked into Ignoticism? That seems closer to what you are saying that atheism.EricH

    Thanks. I did not know that word. But yes, anybody who asks me about belief in god needs to define first what he/she means by god.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Duck the answers to my questions and hold on to fable.Frank Apisa

    Your questions are nonsensical.
  • Belief in nothing?
    So you are saying that YOU use "atheist" as a descriptor...but you DO NOT "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist?Frank Apisa
    I have no opinion on that, just as I have no opinion on the existence of pink walrusses on Mars.
    I simply do not believe the claims made by theists.

    So...just to be sure we are on the same page...tell me...do you think it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none exist...or do you think it is about a 50/50 proposition.Frank Apisa
    Define "god" first, then I can try to answer.

    By the way, I am not a against religion per se. I think non-political, contemplative religions can have a great merit for societies. Just to get that out of the way.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Here is my comment:

    "People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
    Frank Apisa

    I can not generalize about "people who use "atheist" as a descriptor", since I personally know only a limited number and I have not seen a large opinion poll about "people who use "atheist" as a descriptor".
    I am a person who use "atheist" as a descriptor myself, and for me, your claim does not apply.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    But you missed these verses.Athena

    None of those are from strong Haddiths and refer to interaction with kuffars. You really do not know what you are talking about here.

    It was morally wrong for the US to invade Iraq and doing so escalated wars and human suffering and the potential for a world war. A moral must include the future, (snip)Athena

    I am not sure what any of your long confused ramble about US policy (which I certainly do not defend) has to do with morality or with my complaint about your generalizing about "religion"?
  • Belief in nothing?
    Frank Apisa:
    I think we are talking past each other.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Just as a reminder to Frank Apisa et al.... I didn´t think it is necessary on a "philosophy" forum, but here we go. Disbelieving a phantastic claim is NOT the same as believing something:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
  • Belief in nothing?
    People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.Frank Apisa

    No. This is old and tired talking point. Disbelieving a claim is not a belief.
  • Belief in nothing?
    That would be being agnostic about life in outer Nebula.TheMadFool

    No. Agnostic would imply that I think life in the outer nebula is unknowable, whch I do not.

    Lets go back to your claim: You claimed that when an atheist rejects your claim about a god, he automatically implies a belief in something else. But that is not the case.
  • Belief in nothing?
    So, either atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist or atheism is agnosticism. Since atheism isn't agnosticism, atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist.TheMadFool

    I think that a frequent misunderstanding of the two terms. However, ...theism refers to a belief, while ...gnosticism refers to knowledge. So agnosticism is not a weak form of atheism, as is often misunderstood, it is a differnt concept.
  • Belief in nothing?
    The dictionary defines "disbelief" as "mental rejection of something as untrue". Let's suppose that atheism is disbelief of the proposition "god exists". As per the definition then that is equivalent to saying the proposition "god exists" is untrue or false. If a proposition, here "god exists", is false then its contradiction, viz. "god doesn't exist", is true.TheMadFool

    No, that does not follow. A rejection of a claim does not imply a belief in the opposite of the claim. For example if I claim that there is intelligent life in the outer Nebula, I do not claim that there is none. I simply reject your claim because we are talking about something that is unknowable. Clearer?
  • Belief in nothing?
    I believe atheism is A. Atheism is the belief god doesn't exist for certain.TheMadFool

    Err, no. That would be anti-theism. Atheism simply refers to disbelief of the claim, not a belief in non-existence.
  • Belief in nothing?
    True enough...as long as we acknowledge that being unconvinced that no gods exist...also is Agnosticism.Frank Apisa

    You want to bring out that old canard? That is just Russels orbiting teapot again.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    Whoo... where did you get that idea? For someone who wants me to respect all religions and not generalize, that sure seemed like a very US Christian thing to say!Athena

    Please stop making up things. I never said I want you to "respect all religions". I simply said you stop GENERALIZING about all religions, since they are very different. And, fwiw, I am neither US citizen or Christian.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    Whoo... where did you get that idea? For someone who wants me to respect all religions and not generalize, that sure seemed like a very US Christian thing to say! How many times have you read the Quaran and how many of your friends are Muslim?Athena

    I have read the Koran and the Haddiths, have you? Obviously not, otherwise you would know that what I said is correct. Concepts like the sanctitiy of life, separation of religion and state, and neighbourly love do not exist in islamic teaching. I was simply stating a fact.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    The Golden rule is older than Christianity. Actually Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. We do not need religion for morals.Athena

    I did not say that the Golden Rule is unique to Christianity. I said it does exist in Christianity, but not in all religions. Please read before commenting and do not make up false statements. Thanks.
  • Sexual ethics
    The reality is that there are couples who married who "get tired" of having sex; much as there are notable men and women historically, who in practice may have never married, and actually found other endeavors, such as life, career or intellectual pursuits more satisfying (Newton and Adam Smith immediately come to mind).IvoryBlackBishop

    We are talking past each other. I am talking about society as a group, and you keep bringing up individual situations, of which there is of course and endless number. I don´t know what your mental block is, but you seem unable to look at the big picture.

    And what's your point, and how would the number of birth rates have anything to do with it? Whether or not the USA's population number stayed the same, or dropped by 1/2, it would be a different "society" regardless.IvoryBlackBishop

    The birth rate is everything. A society with below replacement birth rates will disappear. And a society that replaces its population with an alien one will change into something different. I am just stating an obvious fact, not some hypothesis.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    I'd argue your statement is not particularly relevant here, in asserting that there's no "Golden Rule", or whatever your point is or was.IvoryBlackBishop

    The claim was that all religions are based on the Golden Rule. I simply pointed out that that is incorrect.
    What is your objection?
  • Sexual ethics
    Ultimately, I am not inclined to be very sympathetic; life is not all about "sex", and the type of men who would be able to date a "hot celebrity chick" lIvoryBlackBishop

    Sex is part of life, and how different societies address it has a big role in shaping them.

    So-called "whites" and English-speaking peoples are already a "minority" globally, compared to China and India's populations; nor does everything which currently "is" necessarily even need "replacement",IvoryBlackBishop

    I said nothing about "whites" and "English speaking people", why do keep changing the topic? When you replace one population with a different one, you get a different society, that applies everywher. I.e. when China replaces Tibetan and Uigur populations with Han Chinese populations, the societies of Tibet and Xinyian change drastically. Again, I am simply stating a fact --- I don´t know what you do not understand or disagree with here.
  • Sexual ethics
    If your making these assumptions on the bases of hypothetical "warrior" societies, then it's probable that male death rate is much higher than average, which might help to "even things out" a bit.IvoryBlackBishop

    I was simply stating a demographic fact. But yes, you are correct; polygamy is suitable for a warrior society by producing lots of disposable and aggressive incels. Which is what I pointed out earlier... glad you finally got it.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    I fail to understand what your saying, or what this has to do with "Romanticism"; as far as Islam in specific, I haven't studied it in depth.IvoryBlackBishop

    I said nothing about romanticism. I just addressed the "Golden Rule".
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    The basic premise or philosophy of the law is the "golden rule", which is an axiom that is also part of world religions,IvoryBlackBishop

    It is an axiom in many world religions, but not in al. For example, in islam there is no Golden Rule.
    Like Athena, you should stop generalizing about "religion" or "world religion" in your case. It is a romantic, but delusional idea. Religions are very different.
  • Coronavirus
    I am not asking you if you "know" he made a mistake. I am asking you if you think he did. As in, do you think he should have taken different measures, and sooner, given the information you have.Echarmion

    Comprehension problems? I said I do not know if he made a mistake, seeing that the whole Corona situation is still so unclear. And neither do you. The only reason you "know" that he made a mistake is that in a simple world of orangeman bad, you just "know" that whatever the orange monster does is a mistake.
    Simple rules for simple minds...
  • Coronavirus
    I didn't say that Trump called the virus a hoax.Michael
    OK, thanks for clarifying. Anyway, this fake media talking point is out there.

    And if you want glaring examples of parroting blatant false talking points from Trump supporters, just look at their accusations re. Biden and Ukraine, or the FBI and Mueller investigation into the Trump campaign being some Deep State or Democrat conspiracy.Michael
    Not sure what you mean there. Both the Russia hoax and the Ukraine hoax are perpetrated by the fake media and repeated by the gullible Trump haters.... not sure why you are confirming my point, but thanks.
  • Sexual ethics
    No, I don't understand.
    What are you saying, society in general has a "surplus" of males?
    IvoryBlackBishop
    I said "if". It depends on the society. For example, in a society that practises polygamy, by defintion there is a surplus of incels.
    Same applies for a society with selective abortion of female babies (i.e. China with its 1 child policy).
    These are simple demographic facts.

    Nor do I understand any rational reason why a person would "identify" or fame themselves on the basis of how much "sex" they're getting (or not),IvoryBlackBishop
    I am not talking about how anyone "identifies" themselves, I am talking about simple biological facts.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all menAthena

    You do realize that the notion of all people being equal is a concept based on Christianity, don´t you? As are other concepts fundamental to Western civilization, such as the sanctity of life or neighbourly love. Islam, for example, has none of those.
    So PLEASE stop this stupid naive repeating your dogma of generalizing about "religion". there is no such thing a chararacteristic of "religion" that they all share.
    You are really running around in circles, returning to your original false assumption.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    Well of course. Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth. Religion is not. Democracy is about human excellence, religion might strive for that but the way it attempts to achieve that is very problematic because it is not based on truth.Athena

    WHICH religion? You are still generalizing about "religion" which makes absolutely no sense. Also, where do you get the idea from that "Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth"`? You completely made that up, didn´t you.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    Which religion would like to rule the nation where you live? We may have a good discussion if you focus on the thoughts and not on me.Athena

    None. I live in a place with a pretty good attitude towards religion.
    Anyway I am not interested in discussing you or me.
    My point stands. Do not generalize about "religion". There are very different ones out there.
  • Coronavirus
    So you think he made a mistake there? Everyone makes mistakes, right?Echarmion

    I do not know if he made a "mistake", and neither do you. He re-assured the public, appointed a Corona zar to coordinate the response, and ordered travel restrictions, all of which looks reasonab le to me. If better actions were possible, maybe, probably. But I do not automatically switch to "orangeman baaaad!!" mode like so many. (I.e. the CNN consumers)
  • Coronavirus
    t was never the point I was making and any case worse policy abroad doesn't excuse our own bad policy. It's kind of exclaiming that dying from corona isn't so bad because you could be dying much more painfully from ebola.Benkei

    Too many crossed messages here, so I don´t know what your point was. In any case, what exactly exactly is the policy failure that you are criticising? Frankly, afaic, politicians are blundering all over in regard to this Corona thing, and since there are so many unknowns about it, this is a case where I can not blame them too much. (Except for the clowns at the WHO, who are so clearly and blatantly in China`s pocket)
  • Coronavirus
    So, why didn't Trump close the borders 2 weeks ago?Echarmion

    Because he is not perfect and does not have divine foresight? Like everybody else, apparently? Do you apply strict criteria to your preferred politician, whoever that is?
  • Coronavirus
    The same reason many Trump supporters are so gullible. Because many people are gullible.Michael

    True, many people are gullible. However, looking at both sides I find that the typical consumers of fake media talking points are Trump haters. I assume there are tunnel-visioned Trump fans out there too, but I don´t really see many glaring example of parrotting blatant false talking points, like yours about Trump supposedly calling the virus a hoax. Simply looking at the source footage should clarify that.... instead many people simply parrot the fake CNN talking point.
  • Coronavirus
    You're absolutely right. China opening their borders and allowing American citizens in to catch the disease and then fly back home is the root cause. I guess we should have shut down all travel years ago.Michael

    Misguided attempt at sarcasm. Why do you think China restricts travel from Wuhan province? Why do we have the concept of quarantene at all?
    Crickets...
  • Coronavirus
    Every Western government actively pursues growth. When environment and growth conflict, they will pursue growth. The concepts of wealth in its broadest sense and growth still haven't been integrated to make sensible policiesBenkei

    I agree, the system based on growth is a system-inherend problem. We have to address that, i,e, by shifting growth from physical growth to service industries. However, the notion that shithole countries with their massive environmental destruction and pollution are better for the environment than richer countries is deluded. I.e. take a look at a satelite photo of Tahiti and the Domician republic. You can see who destroys the forests and pollutes the ocean.
  • Coronavirus
    Hence this has nothing to do with the corona-virus. Which is quite typical. Because that's what I get from Trump's response too.ssu

    The open borders with hordes in unchecked crossers have everything to do with the Corona virus. Get real.
  • How many would act morally if the law did not exist?
    That is a serious problem with religion. It totally screws up our understanding of democracy which is rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning (cause and effect). From there it screws up every other notion of humanity and after screwing up every thought with false and superstitious ideas, it leads people to war. We live with a notion that we can not avoid war because it is in our nature, but what about the religious cause of war?Athena

    You should stop generalizing about "religion". There are very different religions out there, some more beneficial or dangerous than others. I.e. How many wars were fought on behalf of Jainism, Buddhism, or Bahaism? Can you spell zero?
    Typically when people like you generalize about "religion", they are thinking about medieval Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. But that is not all there is. Generalizing about "religion" is like generalizing about "ideology".... as if all ideologies were the same.
    So please stop doing that!
    Thank you.
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.