Are we still acting like this is anything other than a religion-in-general thread that would apply equally to all religions across the board?

Haven't followed the recent arguments but has there been any refuting of my post on this thread earlier as of yet?

Who could say, @god must be atheist .. perhaps God sent angels to dampen the flames and instill values and hope to all who will listen, to the incalculable fury of those who were chosen to oversee the punishment of the damned. Even the stoic patience of an eternal being could grow thin one might imagine.

People like us are often able to intellectualize death away to a safe distance, me too, but I'm guessing that defense will crumble when the time comes. We'll probably never know how we really feel about death until we get there. — Hippyhead

Some say fear is all in the mind. In a way that old adage rings true. Of course, fear and shock can induce a physiological reaction as well ie. anxiety attack, hyperventilation, sweaty palms, trembling, etc. Defense mechanisms to keep one alive and give extra energy to be able to either flee an environment or fight the danger present. Military training teaches you to override this through discipline and attachment to a larger unit/idea- you're something greater than yourself while also being something lesser. Your mission can still be completed even if you don't survive- but it can also fail and other people could die if you give up or give in any time beforehand.

What's the point? Is it like a polite bodybuilder that will avoid you if start getting nervous when he gets closer? lol.

I'd fear a life without death to be honest. Much more could happen. Becoming trapped somewhere, etc.

Not sure. However, the amount of comments shown on the left hand side of the page alongside mentions and discussions is not always 100% accurate- it takes some time to catch up- it should be when actually viewing your profile though. Compare and contrast after a few posts, you may see what I mean.

Other than that- unless you use this site the way I do- you should be coherent enough and your posts should have enough personal value for you to remember them and see if anythings missing by scrolling through your comment history. Unless you're one of those guys who thinks what they have to say is so revolutionary they will take down the entire system if left unchecked. (and if so, welcome, you'll fit right in) :grin:

Edit: Also, sometimes threads in which you commented on are deleted. I was quite dismayed after discovering a comment of mine I was quite proud of was no more. Could be that also?

Is purchasing more legitimate than making? Doesn't someone have to first make, in order for the made to be bought? — MSC

Not inherently. Generally yes, most items bought and sold are 'made' or 'processed' in some way.

Here is a question for you. In the story, which was the more legitimate throw? Should either of the throws made by either people be seen as illegitimate? If so, who's throw was more legitimate? — MSC

Before answering, the reason I consider the story a "random, ridiculous example" is because you made the guy who saved up enough money, purchased an item, read the instructions, and otherwise acts as a patient individual who knows the value of planning and research at first- into an arrogant, petulant, and unrealistically petty child- for no reason other than to do so. While the other man is for some reason valiantly humble and infinitely resourceful. These facts are what will effect the answer to the above questions.

By determining for us the purchaser of the javelin cares little about the art itself (distance throwing) and more about success over other people for purposes of patronizing his own ego- it casts him as the "lesser" or "less legitimate" person. Aside from the fact distance throwing is based on little more than physical strength, which is inexplicably linked to physical size/genetics. Not to say someone larger than yourself who just sits around all day will always be stronger than someone of smaller size who trains constantly with maximum effort- a smaller person can use leverage to topple a larger person who doesn't know what they're doing, but if that larger person uses the same tactic, that smaller person will likely get very hurt very quickly. Just how it is. In short, hurrah for firearms- the great equalizer!

I suppose.. in that random crazy scenario there's some point.

Can I steal your house or wife just because I can do something better with either than perhaps you can at present? Just curious.

I mean, who knows. Maybe he sacrificed time and energy that could have been used to build the strength and endurance needed to throw said item as far just so he could be able to purchase said item legitimately. What then?

You don't just jump from "a single neuron" to "full human consciousness" like that.

?? Link ?? Horrible if made up but if not INCREDIBLY relevant.



Again, claims need to be verified.

All the typical stuff mentioned .. but also being able to have a dialog of considerable length with someone who holds an opposing view. Not everyone can do it.

This really opened my eyes.
What you write makes sense. All these years, I had read 'Death as the equalizer' in a simplistic fashion - no one escapes death. Now, I understand it a tad better. — zoey

Oh God it's spreading. Wait a minute- before you make any conclusions, consider this.

Without death, the weak would still be weak and alive and the strong would still be strong and alive. Instead, both weak and strong will die respectively. Sure, as TMF said, those who have greater resources generally have greater ability for security and as a result longevity. But this would be true regardless if death existed or not. So, both the weak and strong can take solace in the fact that death comes for us all, while the weak have to face this head-on, the strong only have the ability to delay and stave this inevitability off another day. Death is by no means any man's "henchman".

Important to differentiate a single individual whether strong or weak from any number or pool of random people who due to circumstance just so happen to be able to be categorized as "strong"(er). The pendulum of power sways back and forth until the end of time. David and Goliath- for example. At no point was David ever stronger than Goliath, wielding a slingshot or not. Yet. He was able to defeat him using an application of leveraging forces to work in his favor which another was ill-equipped to defend against, perhaps from becoming complacent in one's own strength thus being taken by surprise or otherwise not thinking of all possible outcomes and the defenses needed to defend against said outcomes no matter how unlikely.

Well, name one occasion where the weaker side ends up on top in the game of survival. — TheMadFool

I got one! Say society turns into a supremacist dystopia where the physically (and I suppose for this example mentally, either of) superior are allowed to live in some "super city" where everything is perfect and the rest of us average folk have to scrounge on the outskirts of barely maintained living complexes. This super city the elite live in is walled off and can be sealed off in an airtight fashion just in case. Now say, in their attempts at security and longevity their defenses end up failing or malfunctioning during an outbreak or major weapons malfunction or a nuclear meltdown, trapping everyone inside and resulting in there being no survivors. Stuff like that could happen.

I can't. But that's the point. We live in a world- and for the most (recent) part always have- where technology, innovation, logic, and reason paves the way forward. You use your brain. A tiny, frail man who thinks can poison the watering hole of a city of 10,000 brutes (or why not more) leaving them all dead or incapacitated by morning. The same goes further, see the atomic bomb. You clearly believe in evolution, yes? Why do we live in an age of technology, comfort, and convenience? Why are 95% of all scientists not large, buff, stocky "jock types"? Have you any other explanation why we're not still living in caves, hunting game to survive and beating each other over the head with a club for food and shelter?

Basically, we've yet to hear your definition of strength and whether or not it is primarily physical or mental.

This is one of the many quotes by religious infiltrators to our philosophy site. — god must be atheist

How dare you. What little faith ye have. Thinking- nay- daring, insulting others by pretending, in the most condescending manner- that logic can somehow be defeated- and not just us but.. oh god.. "our children" with what you even admit is "futile" and "outrageous" blether. Good Lord, what side are you even on man?

What means you by that? — TheMadFool

There's very little to misinterpret I'm afraid.

All that matters is this: the weaker side dies more quickly and in more brutal ways than the stronger. — TheMadFool

Well if that's all that matters. More quickly yet more brutal eh? That's.. an interesting conclusion. Are we still defining strength as physical or mental or a toss up? Again, you'd be surprised what a few inventions can do..

This was always in the man's heart, deep down it was just a nice thought, but his power has extended so much in these last few years, he can do whatever he wants, why not, it could be in reach. This is a well developed political theory, divide and conquer. The weakness and arrogance of the Left is to blame. — JerseyFlight

FIFY. Thousands of years of history in a few sentences.

Do black lives matter? — creativesoul

The fancy, intellectual sounding Latin phrase escapes me at present but in short this is a trick question.

A person's life matters by content of character and not color of skin. Period. MLK said that. Someone who is vile, a menace to their own neighborhood and society as a whole, who happens to be black, does not get a "free pass" of their life automatically having value due to race- that's racist. Especially if that person decides to become a violent gang member who does nothing but terrorize their own community and play into the hands of those who would see black people enslaved and forever in chains that are socioeconomic rather than physical.

I don't see how talking about black lives being lost in larger numbers just because we're not using racial conflict to stigmatize another nation we're not fond of is "changing the subject" of black lives having value. Why do you? I get this is a largely non-American site but come on guy, don't be so transparent with it.

What about other minorities in America who don't have the numbers to shut down entire metropolitan areas when someone who looks like them is killed?

I'm sure we're familiar with the fact that a slight majority of people killed by police are white (52%) while blacks who are killed are 32% of fatalities. And of course the fact that with only 13% of the population that is grossly disproportionate (black Americans are about 3x likely to be killed that white Americans).

As usual we're spending all our time, energy, and emotion on the symptom of a problem rather than the cause- and there are some people who want nothing less- because then nothing will change. There is a cultural problem in black communities and what has been fed to them as "this is my culture". Unless you have a time machine and can go back in time and prevent slavery, there's no point in getting upset over what happened to the point you riot, commit violent crimes, destroy your own neighborhoods, and then get felony charges that essentially cripple you socially for the remainder of your life if you're not locked up for the rest of it- like some people want! Do you agree or disagree?

Guy, you don't have to be my buddy it just would seem from the position you attempt to convey on this forum you should at least be a friend to positive change (or simple logic) versus the same old status quo which as shown has failed time and time again to change anything for the better. Fix the culture, lose the violent music, embrace faith, education, and the law, and participate in the system that by intent makes all men equal- yes even if it's corrupt. You can't fix it from the outside- especially if in jail or with dozens of felonies. Choice is yours.

being able to distinguish between those who pose such a risk, and those who do not — creativesoul

Everyone poses a risk to you if they happen to be committing/guilty of a crime and it's your job to stop it or apprehend them. Just because someones standing around whistling with their hands in their pockets doesn't mean they're not. A person with baggy clothing easily capable of concealing a weapon along with excessive tattoos and referencing and or listening to violent or gang related music is high risk- whether or not certain groups of people have been indoctrinated to adopt this is a good question.

when someone is both unarmed and running away from the police, they cannot pose an immediate danger to the police. — creativesoul

Unless the dudes naked there's no saying whether or not a person is armed or not. Sure, no immediate danger. Yeah I understand some black people think cops are going to randomly shoot them for no reason or plant drugs on them (which does happen.. hopefully less now w/ body cams) .. but what would be interesting to know would be how many people who randomly run from police are guilty of something/have something on them they shouldn't. We'll never know.

The job of law enforcement officers is to protect and serve the law-abiding citizens of the community not and as far as criminals defeat them in a warlike any setting. — creativesoul

One does not protect and serve the best interests of one's own enemies. Police officers across the land have been taught using military style mindsets and weapons. — creativesoul

Buddy, so have the criminals, gangsters, mobsters, and crypto-terrorists. You'll be grateful when you don't have your small business shaken down or your favorite sporting event dirty bombed.

You're clearly not black. The spilled milk here is blood. The analogy is proof of the disconnection you have with the reality of being black in America. You simply do not understand, or do not care. I'll grant the former and be charitable at this time. Justice delayed is justice denied. It's been delayed for far too long. Your idealistic viewpoint suggests that we're all entitled to change what needs changed by using the democratic process. — creativesoul

You're right I don't understand. There aren't more of me in the world then there are white people. I don't have one of the largest most beautiful continents on Earth everyone wants to do business in all to myself. Yeah, I'm not black. Let's just be real honest about what's going on here. There are true minorities who are oppressed that this whole 2020 agenda is shifting focus from. Tibetans for their lands (who I'll admit are probably just Asians, who are plentiful). Yemenis for their oil (I suppose the same can be said). Or how about the Native Americans for goodness sake? They all have one thing in common. They don't have enough people (power) for anyone who doesn't care about anything other than their indescribably inconsequential lives to even have the time of day for. Which is unfortunate because you get what you give.

Let's talk about black lives. Countless millions of blacks have been killed in religious civil wars in Africa- more than ANY other white person has killed here combined probably since Columbus. Far more. Yet nobody speaks about it. We're too busy worrying about a few criminals or associates of them who get all day coverage on the news. So who really doesn't understand or doesn't care? Keep your charity, please.

She was killed because there are trigger happy law enforcement officials who have the ability to escape any and all responsibility of wrongful killing by simply claiming to fear for their own lives — creativesoul

I find this response interesting, because it doesn't necessarily say any of the cops involved were "trigger happy" or otherwise use lethal city property irresponsibly or otherwise say anyone did anything wrong or say it wasn't just an accident. You seem to be speaking of a culture of abuse of privilege. Understand it is not really privilege. You risk your life, sometimes often several times a day, for a barely average salary. That aside, the average simpleton may not understand the damage police misconduct, especially when injuries or death occur, can cause to the social fabric unchecked, but the commissioner should. And should act when needed.

the law enforcement officers were already in a warlike state of mind. That state of mind is cultivated. Having it all the time has become the norm. — creativesoul

In addition to my above response, it depends on the area. Big city, high crime begets prick cops. Which isn't far from understandable. Even if they get breaks, there are no sure things. You could get shot and killed, probably hurt really bad beforehand "just because" for again an average salary- and if you screw up- you might face decades in jail under Color of Law violations- with people you really don't want to be in a cell with. These aren't fun thoughts to have. I've always considered myself a law and order man but even I feel- or at least notice how some would- when I see a cop car drive by and I happen to be going a little over the speed limit or had a beer or two in the past few hours. It's not like flipping burgers or answering sales calls.

You do not protect and serve enemies of war. — creativesoul

Uh? What century are we living in, boss? We're all citizens now, cops are all public servants, and we're all entitled to change just about anything about the law using the democratic process. Majority has more power sure, but unless you're a minority here that doesn't have a country somewhere where you are the majority (which everyone does) .. there's really no need to cry over spilled milk. Just enjoy the ride.

Are you suggesting there's some "secret group" of officers that are enemies of the Constitution and the United States of America? That'd be something. I hope you don't mean the idea of a constable, guard or "bobby" in general .. that's pretty fundamental to any civilized society.

Yeah. Well, alright see right there. No one planned to kill Breonna Taylor. At least, there's no evidence of that? Wrong place, wrong time. Such as where it was.. dangerous people introduce danger into your life. Like gangs. It doesn't "go away" when you decide to do something else.

The AG was saying, the warrant was issued. The issue is whether the warrant was issued inappropriately, which can be changed by democratic process, or it wasn't. At this point the officers are little more than AI robots sent to a location, to search it or extract an individual, and protect their lives if necessary, nothing more. I'm not saying racial prejudices aren't a thing, nor especially am i not saying "historical grievances" created, contributed or continue to contribute to an inescapable (though it really is if people would just think and pray- it's an open system- no matter what the minority of the majority who are bad try to push will say, often through (using) those they target) existence of violence- just that there's much to consider.

I was going to start a topic regarding a recent event in the news of relation. I like to look at events that have potential racial pretenses in two ways- one as those who assert they do say, and then as if everyone involved literally looked the exact same. The stats is what is important. Do other people get shot in no-knock raids? Are they punished less (ie. is it just blue privilege)? Most importantly would be is the ex-boyfriend (which the entire warrant was based on) a criminal with current ties to the residence? Etc.

Here are some of the drawbacks (in general) I see with that. Random/new/inactive or otherwise 0 or low post accounts. Why anyone would want to take the time to do that here is beyond me but again, in general.

Oh. I guess that was all. :grin:

Would this- in your idea- in theory allow one to see who up/down voted what and/or be visible/traceable from their forum profile or would it be anonymous all around? Whether or not introduces an interesting dynamic that may or may not affect what your hoping to see from this.

Why bother. Many will continue to speak in an absolute and authoritative tone and context regardless. No need to punish people who actually acknowledge their views are open to interpretation and scrutiny- not to mention the idea they might be mistaken.

cease filling children's heads with false facts and interfering with teachers' job at teaching them scientific facts. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not saying you're wrong- in any way. It's just this is probably the EXACT same quote geocentrists said to real scientists not that long ago, usually before imprisoning them or worse. You can blame religion, or you can blame the true common element, which is dogma. Rather, ignoring an often spoken about but seldom applied bit of wisdom: "the only thing I know is that I know nothing".

Scientific doctrine essentially demands extraterrestrial life exists. Aliens, man. Call them what you will. Say one shows up and says "Yeah, it all happened. We're your gods. Check that out". Then that would be that.

Sounds unusually hollow and vain coming from someone one would assume is an old philosopher .. who people actually speak of. Are you sure you're not quoting your own assumptions or interpretations of his writings?

Wanting the same things and rejecting the same things, sounds more like business than anything else frankly. Nothing to challenge ones beliefs, no outlandish scenarios to decipher and grow from, just a bland echo chamber of what I struggle to call a social relationship. Sure. For the good of the herd I suppose. You want more grain for your area of the village from a fixed supply, so does that guy- those people over there want more for their area- sure. Why not?

Your synopsis seems to speak of two types of friends. Ones who just want less enemies (people they disagree with) around- and one who genuinely wishes to enjoy the company of another absent of some sociopathic material/social net advantage. You speak of the two as if they were one of the same. Which actually, unfortunately, is how many today treat the two.

What if the garden is a metaphor for thought, and the trees are metaphors for disciplines or schools of thought.

Also, does it necessarily preclude an "if" just because it's not explicitly mentioned?

If I say to some random dude: "when you drink too much, you black out." Am I presuming to know in absolute omniscience he will do so? No, right?

Now it does imply there is knowledge this has been done before .. somehow slightly more than just saying "if" instead of "when" .. ie. if you heard something often as true yet never seen or experienced it yourself you may offer a warning using "if" but if you have seen it use of the word "when" seems more natural .. but not as a requisite is what I'm saying.

It's a good enough equalizer at least. In the throes of crippling and debilitating sickness, the poorest, meekest man and the richest, strongest man lay side by side on the doorsteps of death .. and suddenly all the strength, money, and power in the world means little more to him than being able to hear the faintest breath of the weaker man he never gave a second thought to, letting him know he's still alive. Difference is .. some never seem to learn.

Kurzweil claims that computers have the power to confer eternal life on people like himself while Beane claims computers are capable of creating an entire universe — JerseyFlight

Weird tax avoidance "strategy" .. man created the computer and so is the true creator of whatever it "creates". Be like if I made a "spin art" machine and said it made me .. there's not even anything deep to ponder it's just inaccurate lol.

As far as AI goes it wouldn't be you in the simulation. Period. Even if it was programmed to interact on the basis of your memories and persona- you'd still be you- here. You'd know this as fact if you were kept alive. Which is why in such a scenario you probably wouldn't be. It'd be more of a show for other people than anything you yourself would ever experience.

True happiness is the great equalizer, because it comes only to those who truly deserve it. — Tzeentch

Wouldn't this imply no selfless and caring person has ever had a hard life? And that no selfish and toxic person ever had a good one? Let me guess. You're fortunate enough at present to call yourself happy?

An interesting point you reminded me of. People who get addicted to powerful painkillers, opiates, morphine, really strong stuff. It changes something either in the mind, physiology, something in the body. I recall reading about people who quit stuff like that cold turkey saying the pain was unbearable literally feeling like "their bones were being crushed into dust" .. if I remember correctly they didn't start due to any injury or pain but rather just for pleasure.

There is no catch — MSC

This is pure assumption.

Are there situations where its allowed to erase a memory from someonelse's mind? — LiveAnotherDay

Sure. If I'm part of an army and in another country we've declared war on I'm "allowed" to kill anyone who tries to defend themselves as an "enemy combatant" per direction from my superiors. So. Do you mean is it ethical? Ethics are pragmatically relative anyhow either based on belief that may or may not be true or not. In the eyes of an absolute idea of goodness that plays no favorites? That's debatable.

We're intrinsically social creatures so, usually. What do you mean by things? Any non-entity aside from food, water, and shelter?

They say only you can create happiness as it comes from within, seeing how the only common element is- you. Anything else is simply a fleeting distraction from monotony and/or misery.

Yet, if one looks at the statistics, we see a disproportionate number of deaths among the poor, the underprivileged, the minority, the weak, the downtrodden; any individual or group on the wrong side of an inequality has the unenviable distinction of having an increased risk of dying prematurely — TheMadFool

You're not a very patient person.

Mind you, I don't mean that we should cull the weak — TheMadFool

Oh you better not. Some of the weakest people you can imagine are some of the strongest physically or in terms of social power. They never had to do anything for themselves or go through what someone who has to struggle to do what others have the inate and unearned ability to do. True weakness seeks power, be it physically or by position of authority. Anything to be the bigger man and lord over others without ever actually having to sacrifice, risk, or otherwise "do" anything difficult.

While the scales were forever tipped in the battle of brain versus brawn in the favor of the former the first time a tree fell atop a boulder creating the first lever, with each subsequent innovation an obscenely overwhelming victory for the former, strength is only half physical. At most.

In regards to the previous sentence, you're not incorrect. If something ever happens to the favorable circumstance or physical endowments one decides to build not only their entire identity and sense of self on but meaning of life on as well, it'd be like watching the training wheels fall off of a bike ridden by a toddler. At best you'd be left with an angry, confused child- at worst something not even Jane Goodall would recognize as human. If they keep themselves alive that is. Which is a toss up.

Not everyones like this. Any sensible person would want to keep themselves healthy. Of course. One who chooses either brain or brawn over the other will never know either.

Death is NOT, by a long shot, the great equalizer. It, if anything, is more like the hitmen in the service of the power mafia. — TheMadFool

They won't die? You can't have weakness without strength and vice versa. There's always going to be someone on top and another beneath. Someone has to pay the piper. The difference is one will never have to face their weaknesses while the other will never be able to hide behind circumstance or "an easy life" and call themselves strong.

The barber shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves — Gregory

Apparently not anyone.

Also. This thread in a nutshell.

Talking about it, fine. Living it out in front of me, no thanks. There's a whole big internet out there. — Srap Tasmaner

Great. I can speak in front of you. Living out the way I choose to live my life within the confines of the law, not so much. Well thankfully we have the law. You follow it, you don't mind me, it won't mind you.

The much more pressing question would be, do you believe the contributions of religion ie. "someone living out a religious life" are valid? That includes everything that is as it is as a result. You would seem to suggest it is not. Is this correct?

Because it seems to me that what's really going on, is that there's a bunch of Christians on here who are trying to sneak God into the picture, and they get refuted by Atheists. — JerseyFlight

Doesn't matter if it's Christians (again, there's many religions out there... they just seem to be your favorite for some reason) and God with Atheists or meta-physicists with the supernatural and by-the-book scientists or even multiverse theorists and other universes with other by-the-book scientists. It's the same thing. What is not proven, yet could be, and the philosophical ramifications and results said idea could bring. Very philosophical. Again, I'll agree- the stereotypical idea of an old fashioned "thumper" devoid of any and all logic is not suited for this forum. But. Come now. Philosophy is about new ideas and the effects they can have on society. Why preclude something of such historical and social magnitude?

Circumstance of an overpopulated world and the society it spawned has no reflection of an absolute definition of free will. Yes, there are billions of people here and the law and society is adjusted to safely accommodate for it. Therefore, I circumstantially, have less freedom in a world or society with .. billions and billions of people as opposed to if it were just me or a few hundred or shoot even a few million.

It'd be like saying if I'm chained to a tree in a flatland prairie there's no such thing as a mountain.

I want both sides gone. — Srap Tasmaner

Are both sides not living testaments (relics if you prefer) to the human story and how philosophy evolved and got to where it is now in the first place?

Religion- The adamant, dogmatic belief of something .. anything! Perhaps "proven" in one's own mind by a simple, flawed observation. And atheism- the skeptical, challenging belief of "hey, perhaps you're wrong and there's more to be discovered". An eternal and timeless yin and yang of the human psyche. It's quite beautiful if you ask me. And without? Well, I doubt we'd be doing much more than hunting wild beasts and retiring to a nice cave afterward.

In times before our own, the forces we could not understand or explain where attributed to the gods ie. "were divine". Lightning. Wind. Water. Fire. Earthquakes. Etc. Perhaps, the paranormal is simply the next chapter of this epic human story we can all proudly call ourselves a part of.

We agree on a problem, not a solution.

Like when a poster who has posted here recently was critical of Christians, I understood where he was coming from. Quite well. However, in my arguments with him I asserted "challenging what is not proven as a simple, relative unknown versus an absolute falsehood" as opposed to "my God this, my God that".

Perhaps that's what some mean to do as well. A simple reminder that this is a philosophy forum above all, and logic, reasoning, and what is provable and debatable must always take precedence.

You can be critical of schools of thought and certain thought processes without being explicitly anti-religious. From a non-theological standpoint it helps people. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, anything can be abused but that's a separate discussion. I agree that a religious person who is not capable of explicit logical, rational discussion is probably best suited for another forum. But never to say that the two (faith and logic) are mutually exclusive.