Dopamine and friends. Along with security for a reasonably consistent environment in which it can be produced, procured, and enjoyed. That last bit is an understanding that differentiates modern man from his predecessors and fellow organisms.

It's all the same. Happiness. Love. Camaraderie. Entertainment. Some people want to start a family, some people just want to hang out or otherwise pursue some sort of nondescript inner joy that has long eluded them, etc. It's a combination of what makes one "happy" ie. brings joy and contentment and what one logically believes. For some people, mostly children, it's getting new things and having new/fun experiences whenever possible. For others, it's about solving problems, "moving society forward" as some would say.

At least, those are the rational explanations.

Not always. Depends on if you're doing anything impactful or not. A million dollars toward people who are stuck in only maintaining the same cycle and increasing the degeneracy is exponentially worse than a few thousand toward someone who's actually working to break it. Of course, everyone thinks they are, due to ingrained teaching, reinforced by penalty of negative emotion, per ego and peer (dis)approval, which is taught to come before if not replace self-worth completely ensuring it never really has a chance to develop. That's why the world is in such dire straits. But how long will it last? I suppose modern human value and virtue can be likened to an ever-increasingly dull game of hot potato.

anyone who thinks they have justification to deny other humans the same right to life and happiness — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Oh please. We just had other people do it for us so now we don't have to. You, we all, exist on that foundation. Now sure, there's no extenuating purpose to do so at present, so we often don't, smile, and call ourselves good people. But is it right?

Anything that disrupts my daily routine and/or intentions or desires for said day.

No. Unless you win. Otherwise, no. Just kidding.

You appear to be sidestepping the root question. You're describing an action or ideology. So we have to ask what is the driving factor behind said action or ideology. Therein lies your answer. If it's someone who was displaced by war, while justification is an important overall concept (though less so if you're an atheist or not a believer in some sort of absolute collective accountability), it comes down to a matter of basic sense and logic. No, it's generally not a smart thing to do. Beyond that if it's just someone trying to take more crap that doesn't belong to them, like is human nature.. well that's the root question. Is war justified? The governing authorities and the material provided will definitely convince the citizen so.

You know what it is. We all know what brings pain and what brings pleasure, the difference between the two. You knew by the time you were a few years old. We fool ourselves into thinking pain induced unto others for the pleasure of one's self or beneficial group can be moral if it may (possibly) change an ingrained lifestyle (religion) of another to that of one which is deemed greater, more fruitful, and more prosperous. That is to say, we become fooled by those who know this to be but a visage for material or some other gain, an attractive call to arms of which the root message is "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it". Which is a rare occurrence, yet not unheard of. It becomes a philosophical battle of net positive versus net negative, ironically one of which philosophers are generally barred, unheard, or otherwise ignored.

We can't fine-tune it — jamalrob

Nah, you could. I could, at least. While it would be complicated (yet far from unfeasible) to add an option in the user CP to choose which to display as preference.. these things usually have central templates or pages of code that are easily modified. Of course, like all created things you modify them at your own risk. If you do decide to do so, make sure you save a pre-modified backup.

Like, simply adding the likes to accent the post count or vice versa ie. 1.2k (0) or even showing both, if not changing the mouseover text to show either likes or posts. Which would be a nice advancement.

What are your intentions for TPF - to become like Facebook ? — Amity

I can respect that concern. So, putting all things aside, including the warranted belief that 'likes' as it were simply show the majority sentiment or viewpoint of a given demographic (this forum) .. as well as the fact it may skew one's own final interpretation as well as replies (shiny objects, projected authority, it's why managers wear suits and the new employees just have shirts, it has a real effect on our extremely susceptible influence.. but did post count not?) .. as well as simulated (non organic) likes (which I doubt would be a problem here) .. all that aside.

We get down to a question of post count vs. likes. Many of the criticisms are actually shared by the two. I see someone with 2k+ posts, I'm naturally inclined to read and dwell more on those arguments than say that of a new poster, "village elder" effect. Which is actually foolish (to do so as automatic policy for obvious reasons). In fact, one could say it's actually more "free", fair and balanced as it were. Someone who is on par with a poster who has been posting for years and has thousands of posts can now be on the same "social" level if they can so prove it. Which eliminates "newcomer" stigma. But of course, you can simply click on a profile to see which seems to make the difference minute.

It's a difficult question. Unless you pass it off as just about meaningless and little more than an aesthetic change of environment which most people seem to at least appreciate if not only as a transient event.

That said for newcomers to this site the allure of a philosopher with say thousands of posts as opposed to "a like or two" can be quite intriguing. It was for me. To summarize, In my opinion a semi-advanced philosopher with something to contribute probably wouldn't base any worthwhile thought or action on either.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

1. Neither. Though it was through a series of observations.

2, What are you even talking about. Effectively is not always automatically logically. As in saying this and that. At the end of the day it is about action.

Beyond all this however people conflate "any intelligence, power, essence, or existence beyond human life" with God. Which is understandable. The idea of life continuing after death is not "God" per se, though it's all in the same philosophical boat, as it were.

A ban though. It's so.. permanent. Even convicted first degree murderers don't always end up with a death sentence. Just plenty of time to reflect where no harm can be done.

Well it seemed to have created you, this discussion, and the whole of human history. So the odds aren't looking so great.

Yes but only in the US. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dangerously mentally ill and needs to be forcefully incarcerated or institutionalized against their will. Banned from posting about it at least.

if ... a hole is real — Shawn

What a profound topic for debate. Really. It would seem 'nothing' is real. Apparently it goes for a premium of $3,500+ a square foot. Wow. That makes the last few years of my love life priceless.

When you create, or even foster life, it's antithesis becomes your enemy.

To be candid, the same way you'd think about any other book, story, or collection of stories, or "testament" even. Fictional or not. There are many parables and stories that offer the same. The parable of the fig tree. Or the wheat and tares. Or the flood. Or Job. Though depending on the person these are literal and physical, historical documentations of events that occurred, they can also offer great lessons depending on if you consider certain events, persons, or statements to be metaphors. Some will call this heresy of course but, you can accept a factual occurrence while extrapolating metaphors and lessons from them. Example, the story of Job. A man who proclaimed his faith or loyalty, or rather acted on it his entire life. The entity of which he claimed to be loyal to wished to test him, and did. He never once wavered and so was rewarded exponentially more than he had or could ever have obtained on his own. Many relationships are tangential to this story, be it employer-employee, father-son, or prospective life partners.

Oh it's not about me. It never was. Not really. I do like to reach out though. The government is not the same as the people however and I share your suspicions or at least concerns.

As long as you don't be a Nazi not letting Asian-(whatever the hell your country is) have a right to life and liberty thus committing a global atrocity and if sanctioned by your "government" a war crime and international crisis.

Or perhaps.. all that matters in appearance is society? Hmm? :chin:

science was chosen to prove the point — TheMadFool

Science and the 'cult of science' are two starkly differently things. One is a process of discovery and acknowledgement of said discoveries. The other is a system, more religious than scientific, one which places human beings last and if not stopped will actually be the end of discovery if not the entire world.

What do you think will it take for humanity to look at death as a problem that needs to be circumvented with technology or longevity extension type ideas? — Shawn

Circumvented? As in prevented entirely or otherwise postponed for hundreds of years? Peace and civility. Purpose and prosperity. The more you look around the world and at raw human nature and conflict you get kind of a "gazing into the abyss" effect imo. All the corruption, greed, strife, envy, rage, indifference, and violence, compounded by the fact many people will simply scoff at any such scrutiny and say "that's life pal" or "that's just human nature", really makes you hope for something greater.

The idea of an afterlife is exciting and encouraging. Not too encouraging one would hope.. but satisfactory enough to be content with the time nature gives us.

People have a inclination for this already. We want to stay fit, healthy, and avoid things that are hazardous to our existence.. usually. Most people will opt for surgery if it has a reasonable chance of success to prevent death or prolong life. So the seed is and has always been there.

I'm sure there's a clear divide between people who would "want to forfeit their natural body to live forever in a computer simulation (albeit one indistinguishable from reality)" and those who simply wouldn't mind taking a life-extending pill or maybe a small implant that slows aging and gives you a few extra decades to play around with. People do that already with vitamins and pacemakers.

but what necessity is for us being here even just once? — TiredThinker

The million dollar question. Life can be rewarding with all its positive moments and experiences, though I and many religions call it something of the opposite. A journey or perhaps even penalty as opposed to a destination or reward. Of course, one may simply call this a kind of metaphysical pessimism.

Why are we seemingly so much more intelligent than the next animal well beyond what is needed to thrive? — TiredThinker

I don't see many animals 'thriving' by typical definition of the word.. some take longer to get eaten or otherwise suffer horrible deaths in the harshness of the elements but other than that.. unless you want to count animals so tiny their suffering is either nonobservable or subconsciously dismissable/non-occurring other than "wow look how many they are, they must be thriving."

And what does our existence accomplish? Don't we merely convert food into other chemicals? — TiredThinker

From an atheistic viewpoint (ie. the idea we're nothing more than animals developed as a result of random, chaotic systems for no real purpose whatsoever) there's really not too many options to pick from is there? I'm sure we do other things. Agriculture and permanent civilizations seem to be unique. Sure bees pollinate flowers and beavers build dams but that's hardly on par.

A little tongue-in-cheek but who knows maybe we are here to serve the other animals with our advanced abilities. No joke either that's what some people dedicate their lives to lol. To live each day under the philosophy that the purpose of one's life is to look after and benefit life in general is just as good and profound a purpose as any now isn't it. "My purpose is to give meaning to the meaningless and purpose to the purposeless". Now if you don't go around scamming everyone in the process, that sounds like a good person in my book. Any book really.

Can't microorganisms do that just as well, maybe better? — TiredThinker

What is life? Many serious philosophers and related thinkers accept the idea that a machine can be "alive" that is to say have consciousness. May sound silly but it's a theme of many movies and people have written entire theses on the idea. A more general consensus would be an organic being that breathes and thinks. But, a ventilator with an advanced AI technically does this minus the organic part.. which in theory is possible. So one might wish to add self-awareness or self-recognition to the criteria. But what about lesser animals of much less capability that are indisputably alive? Say birds, squirrels, slugs, etc.

So what 'master criteria' can there be for what is 'alive' and what is 'not alive'?

My humble theory is that the planet itself is alive and is a living being. Does it breathe? Yep. Does it have a biologic system that undergoes cellular functions to restore or otherwise affect all conceivable areas of its makeup? Yep. Does it think? Well what is advanced thought in humans? Some say it's just a bunch of cells and neurons firing responsively in learned configurations and patterns thus powering something incredible, a fully functioning organism. What if we humans and other organisms are the cells or microorganisms and the planet is the real being?

Is the question of afterlife permanently intertwined with the question of our purpose and self awareness? In my view we are painfully insufficient at pretty much everything. Our mind alone must be the point? — TiredThinker

Probably. Of course even more probable than that is that these fine folks are simply trying to avoid paying their taxes. 'Religiously', of course. :grin:

You are an atheist, friend. Whether closeted or flouted, it is one and the same. You will never see the big picture in your current state of beliefs. Tell me. Do you really think you knew the world as it was when you were 6? What about when you were 12? Or 20? Or now? The answer has always been the same. A resounding yes. Why do you limit yourself to further knowledge and potential. The answer is the same as why you did when you were 6. Ignorance. Pray some. In sincerity. I dare you.

Should prospective parents be encouraged to mitigate the suffering their experimentation creates? — David Pearce

Within reason, sure. I'm sure you can understand and perhaps even respect your opposition calling - not your motives but your attempt to actualize them - this, "transhumanism" as an abominable "Pandora's Box". There is already gene editing and there's been a fierce backlash against it. You yourself said one should be careful and thoroughly and exhaustively account and acknowledge the potential risks. Example, say one is able to make one not need food or water anymore, being able to live for an entire decade. This would cut carbon emissions, animal slaughter, and squalid living conditions worldwide by an unimaginable amount. This is good. Now imagine if that person becomes trapped in a cave. A normal person would eventually starve to death after a month or so. Thus relieving their suffering. A transhuman in this case would live and suffer in their cavernous prison for 10 years. This is bad. The examples only get more extreme. Torture by political powers or criminals, for example. The body shutting down after deprivation or enough trauma is a blessing not a curse, I dare say.

Or should pain-ridden Darwinian malware be encouraged to proliferate indefinitely in its existing guise? — David Pearce

David.. I've always encouraged one should, at least consider the idea of, separating the art from the artist, as far as philosophies and other creative works. But in this example it's simply not the case. Everything you perceive, have perceived, and ever will perceive is the byproduct and result of "Darwinian malware" .. all your ideas, beliefs, motivations, and suggestions are of the same as well. Life sucks. You wish to make it better. That's admirable. However. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" .. and no that doesn't mean what others think it does. More of a Pandora's Box, better the devil you know, such and such is a double-edged sword, one step forward two steps back, etc..

@David Pearce

sorry for the double post just for the "@" reminder notification thingy.

So. The real question is, David. Will you use your wealth and influence to purchase a large enough area where, your own and this is the most important, your own offspring can participate in these trials and we all can watch from a distance and see how they fare over time? This I believe, is a vital step in others accepting what seems.. just so odd lol.

I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

Well it's quite simple young David. Not so far from the fact we appear to have our own resident god here. One who claims to know that which is not currently known. This is what you imply is it not? You pose the question "why could anything I do not know possibly exist?" .. well there are two answers. One is offensive. And the other is as written.

I don't understand what this has to do with this thread. — T Clark

This thread, yet not especially the OP, is as Disturbed coined a "Land of Confusion" it would seem.

If not, why is it acceptable for white people? — T Clark

Maybe it's not. Go change the world instead of expecting others to change it for you if it's that important to you. Man "some people" are lazy af. Think everyone is just created to do things for them.

Yet it would matter not. Unless this person exists among us and is mortal.

In more simple terms, kind of a student-teacher relationship. It depends what they ask you to do. Or more importantly, what will or will not happen as a result of failing to do so.

To most it would be (not by one's own acknowledgement but by pure fact) what is gathered by the senses being immediately interpreted by the mind and little more. There is remembrance, there is foresight. But none the less confined to the workings of one's own mind.

For me, it is anything but this.

UBI and open borders and free immigration do not mix. Because eventually nobody will do anything (at first), expecting others to do so for various reasons, and currency will devalue. We live in an open society. Eventually nobody will want to do anything, why toil all day in the hot sun or worse frigid arid land if not all to reap what I sow all for myself? To help a neighbor? Sure, that's understandable. Now multiply that by a world population of 8 billion.. it becomes kind of demanding. Unrealistic even.

Or even not, everyone gets more, so I will charge more. Because someone else somewhere up the line will do the same, for what I need, and now it costs me more.

There is little difference between UBI and just marking up the current currency to be twice it's value. It will cost me twice as much, so I will charge twice as much. Just keeps the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There's more room for inequality if I have to pay $250 for a weeks worth of groceries instead of 25 cents, like it used to be (slight exaggeration). Honestly the only blame is the criminals and counterfeiters. It's more about open education, rather lack of mandated raising of children. People steal, people pay for it. Not the people who steal of course. And enter law enforcement. Who need to be paid as well. Criminals. We all know one. But no one wants to do anything about it. And so the cycle will continue. Or will it?

Are we questioning about whether or not some omniscient being responsible for punishment will punish our ignorance? If so, the lack of faith, though incredibly understandable, would seem to preclude what is asked.

Yeah but you look at Europe and it's kinda like.. hm. Hard to even pick a side when you really know things. Terrible all around. Who killed who and who was really Messiah and who wasn't. I mean, I can do things that equate me to a divine being but so can the most lowly modern trickster to a society of ignorant cavemen. I'm not saying it's not a big deal just.. it gets kind of annoying when people try to make it as such. Maybe. It's tough being new and trying to present yourself as valid. Poor example. Being a kid and trying to stand next to your parents as an adult when.. you did nothing or even a net loss to what was expected. People take out their stress in unique ways. We'll all just have to wait and see.

Though it's probably all a distraction. Evil is real, false spirits and prophets on their way out who..in an at first hilarious yet in the end truly sad fashion believe they can take others with them. But who knows really.

Some theories or systems of belief that are inherently lacking or otherwise missing something another inherently has can often be implemented in a more effective or successful way as far as desired results and eventual outcome. Not always. One man's version, interpretation or best or "intended" approach to a philosophy, school of thought, or even if not especially a religion is not always the same as that of another. Doesn't have to mean anyone is more right or wrong, though certain dogmas or "prescribed information" are clearly defined.. though semantics and the use of literary devices often blur these lines and create vast amounts of space for debate of even the most absolute of statements.

When one looks at the human condition one finds the human surrounded by problems. In order to cope with these problems the human looks at various solutions promised by ideologies, religions, politics, economics, science, and so forth. — skyblack

And substances. Don't forget the substances. Which can lead to rapid deterioration of the body as well, though both are connected. Life can be pretty annoying when thought about in the wrong ways. Of course some aspects to life are rather non-ambiguous.

Whoever can make the best pitch to get one through the hard times is admired more often than not. At least appreciated.

Why waste Baden's time. Just stop posting. Like it's going to be paid attention to because "it's you" lol.

I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. There are many deluded people though, just move on. Delusions are delusions. You cannot ‘fix’ them directly, you can only suggest and be the best you can and hope by example others ask themselves to question themselves and their hard beliefs/views rather than adhere to what is comforting. — I like sushi

Isn't it just wild how some OPs answer themselves. You may think you're the majority, and you probably are. This guy who likes basketball is basically me though I like baseball, we all like balls. Therefore, we are the majority. This is wonderful. He would kill me (philosophically, perhaps?) at any disagreement but nonetheless, we remain. Unless he kills me. Hurrah for us.

Low key.. some people, who you may wish to identify as.. have been extinct here for many years. But that's racist now isn't it.

Weeping buckets over the fact animals eat each other shouldn't blind you to the complexities of the system you propose fucking with. — counterpunch

Perhaps his belief is that what all three of us are referring to is not a system at all but rather a lack of one. What you call complexities Mr. David refers to as undesirable consequences of a then-necessary system that can and should be remedied, much like child labor or egregious workplace accidents as the result of unsafe labor conditions. They had to occur for there was simply no other option, however when such remedies were made available, any and all people did support them. I believe his theory and mission is far more of a Pandora's Box then the sort of panacea he wishes to promote. Still, terms and motives should fall where they may.

Actually, it says favorite philosopher(s), in the plural sense. Simply one of my favorite that I chose to mention, perhaps considering his passing. You can ignore who you wish whenever you wish, but the actions and ripples they create in the lives of others will assuredly continue to define a life as malleable as yours, it need not restrict, this is your own choice.

No, in practice I could look at an insane post like this, look at their bio, and if they were, say, 17 years old I could happily move on and ignore them entirely. — Maw

You wish to remove or rather have ignorant youth excluded from your experience here, yet, what does a simple selection or option in choice do for anything? Perhaps what you wish to avoid is in fact closer and more part of you than you wish to accept. Young one.