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.

None of this has anything to do with philosophy. Reddit and Twitter are right next-door. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps not, but emotions and the thoughts, perspectives, and mental avenues they create are.

Just as you'd perhaps become upset at a philosophy that seems to not only have little use but stifle the art altogether (solipsism?), someone may become agitated and give someone a bit of an earful in the attempts to encourage them to think for themselves and use logic (which contrary to the beliefs of many is not only allowed but encouraged in most faiths). Sure, being "hellbent" on an endless, anti-religious tirade devoid of any sort of deeper philosophy is not a quality post but, hey, emotion. It is how it is, eh? :grin:

Fifty percent of young people don't believe in God. — Gregory

Well I'm sure fifty percent of young people don't understand how an automobile functions. Not quite the same argument, granted, however ignorance whether it be a blessing or a curse is an inherent part of growing up. No need to rush anyone.

Agree and disagree. Granted in this world something so profoundly not provable should barely be worth mentioning time and time again...

Of course this subject can be deeply emotional. For obvious reasons. Why did this happen, why does this occur, etc. Especially when it comes to loved ones who may have been screwed over or worse by supposed "loving Christians" or worse, at a young age by again supposed Christian (or whatever the persuasion) "holy men".

And some folks- religious or not- just get plain irritated when they're trying to have a logical discussion and someone is like "no because God" .. like that conveys much to a larger and non-esoteric audience. :grin:

I don't need the United States to be an atheist nation; I just need Christians not to turn it into a Theocracy. — Srap Tasmaner

Well how fortunate for us. Meanwhile that last bit should be the least of your concerns. Faux Christians or simply liars attempting to shroud themselves in a moral cloak of righteousness to pursue unknown and possibly opposite and inverse purposes is the real snake in the grass.

"Love the God, love thy neighbor as you love yourself" is essentially the foundation of all modern law and peaceful civilization.

Again, be wary of liars and the corrupted. When discovered, apply diversity as needed.

We seem to have an influx of religiously inclined threads recently — StreetlightX

I've noticed this! :rofl:

As a believer in .. something or another .. (that's essentially the only thing 9 out of 10 religious people can ever agree on) I found it neat yet of course somewhat detrimental to raw logical discussion seeing as the major element of all religion is faith ie. lack of evidence or rational thought that follows observable laws.

Of course, the general subject itself can easily spill into many decent discussions. Some of which being effect on society, general idea of lack of proof not being solid grounds for disproof, and of course religion-specific stories and happenings. I'm sure as discussion grows any warranted arguments will be granted independent topics.

Anything that is powerful is prone to corruption. See above post. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing complicated about it.

If Group A has power, Group A will be targeted and possibly corrupted. If Group B has power, Group B will be targeted and possibly corrupted. How it always was, how it is now.

There are specific commandments given, since as it would seem, the 10 Commandments were too much to bear. Those are followed, promises are kept. If not, well, I wouldn't worry about it for too long anyhow.

By benefiting others, you're also improving the quality of your life. By sacrificing something for others, you're gaining more back. — Yozhura

Is that really a sacrifice then or a mere investment? I like the idea. List a few examples for us.

By benefiting humanity, you increase the chances of getting a new battery — Yozhura

How so. To benefit others you have to sacrifice something.

There is no evidence for the existence of someone who looked like Jesus during his time thus making it highly unlikely. — Josh Vasquez

What? :sweat:

Before folks start to jump on you I'll just politely say, please include links for the historical accounts of which you mentioned. Thanks.

Basically, between you and me. These Christian-specific arguments are really only religion-general arguments. Example, if what you say is true, why couldn't some other account in some other religion be true, etc. It's a rabbit hole you're trying to go down, OP. I'd think a moment before continuing.

...yep. And they think this reasonable - to punish a child for the offence of it's parents. — Banno

What a silly idea. That'd be like if I nuked your country and after hunting down and killing whoever remained (in a hysterically unnecessary painful fashion- it even cost me money, time and even men to do so, but oh well!) and repopulated it with my own people... the idea you could even begin to think that others who come after me should receive anything but the warmest embrace as if from a brother... is just bonkers. A sure sign of mental deficiency.

Eh. Punish? No. Restore order? Of course.

Besides, that statement doesn't have anything to do with what "they think is reasonable"- it's simply "what is". You can like it or you can dislike it, couldn't be any more irrelevant. It'd be like you saying I said I think it's reasonable for people to drown if they're underwater for several minutes without some sort of breathing apparatus.

I mean, aside from vocalizing your opposition to reparations for slavery- things like justice, wrong being made right, equilibrium/equality, and yeah I suppose vengeance are pretty central themes in society. The difference is one teaches forgiveness or at least discourages bloodshed under the idea that a much more powerful entity has promised "Vengeance is mine".

Mods can- and often- split discussions into two separate threads when one avenue of thought seems to warrant (or would otherwise encapsulate an existing OP without) an independent discussion. Kind of like a thread baby. They don't happen too often. But when they do, it's always fun to be a part of.

Not sure that kind of association is really the same as what I'm talking about. — schopenhauer1

Ability to recognize, albeit primitively, base cause and effect, idea of time (past, present, and future), and how outside influences can and will affect oneself?

I don't think living in the moment applies when doing many things in life. Quite the opposite. — schopenhauer1

"Living in the moment" doesn't have to automatically exclude any and all notion of planning, preparation, and long term goals. Does it? For many I suppose. Why do you have long term goals and aspirations anyway? So either you or another can- one day- be more free to live in the moment and pursue what is desired. Is this not correct?

There's a good metaphor that relates to elements in your post I've been made aware of. It's largely a theological musing however there are parallels that are not exclusive to the metaphysical.

You remember how in old stories (and later, movies) when people enter a supposedly haunted house everything's normal enough at first, save for perhaps a few odd occurrences or visions that are quickly shaken off with the skepticism of others. It's only when someone does or "unleashes" something the house seems to "turn" on them. Windows and doors close trapping everyone (and everything) inside. Anyone tries to break either there's an "unseen force" that stops them, often quickly and terribly. And if some do manage to get outside natural elements seem to make quick work of them.

Seems like pure, unadulterated horror right. The stuff of nightmares. Pure evil!

The idea that was suggested to me was it's not actually anything about the house that's evil, it's just been "enchanted" to seal a true evil that was locked away somewhere inside from ever getting out into the world if released. The people in the stories are simply random, unfortunate victims (or as is the usual case, responsible parties, be it by ignorance or not). They cannot be allowed to escape because whatever else is trapped inside with them can easily possess any one of them or even multiple.

Long story short, sometimes what seems to be scary or evil in the myopic eyes of a single individual who knows little more than what their own short life has taught them can sometimes be the sole thing standing in the way of a true, remarkable evil.

Wow that's a pretty big list. Animals are prone to at least half those things.. of course they are but they do not know why. Is that much different to a person a few hundred years ago who got sick but didn't know why?

Some animals show a sense of self-consciousness at least. Example, I read if you have a dozen dogs in a cage and one by one they are taken out and killed in front of the others, the other dogs will "figure it out" and start to panic.

Religion = way of life.

No ethnic or religious group in the past exists today as they did before and vice versa.

We're all just random people saying things and identifying as things, under one law or Constitution. It's when that fact is ignored specifically the belief some are magically immune from it and its effects is when bad things happen.

A tiger chases a zebra and doesn't know and care why — schopenhauer1

This I believe is the fallacy. The mother tiger offers zebra to the young. It is quite yummy.

If you want to talk about reality that is one thing, if you want to attempt to use reality to sneak in your idea of God, that is another thing. — JerseyFlight

What if I don't want to talk about your preconceived notions or idea of reality. No disrespect, I obviously don't know you but, who are you to think you know anything. I mean really. Lol. You know what you're told and little more I'm afraid. Same here, of course. It just seems like you need a good reminding.

Imagine being raised a few hundred years ago being told the Sun revolves around the Earth. I mean- by all understandable observation it does. That's reality. Until it was disproved.

You seem to be conflating my simple challenge for you to- not even challenge your own beliefs- but to simply accept the possibility in such a dynamic and chaotic universe, one may be mistaken. Just as one Nicolaus Copernicus did to a dark and confused society not 500 years ago. Nothing more. Why the idea of you perhaps being mistaken translates to "my idea of God" to you is beyond my own reproach. But not yours.

I'll agree there's shortsightedness somewhere in this interaction. Meanwhile. What do you mean?

What I get annoyed about is- he's just one out of at least 665 others (or 615 depending on your sources). Nothing would indicate any additional strength or power. It's just so random and really speaks volumes, nay, fills libraries, about the true nature of compassion and understanding of the Creator.

the stupidity of Christians — JerseyFlight

Surely you mean, religious people? If not, interesting. Kinda odd to just single out a certain dish out of an identical buffet if you ask me.

Faith is a belief in something that either is not or can not be easily proven. There are approximately 7.8 million scientists in the world familiar with complex theorems and formulas with access to priceless machines and laboratories to prove it. There are 7.6 billion people in the world. That means only 0.01 of the world population CAN directly prove anything we are told to be facts.

Have you ever seen an electron? A black hole? Witnessed nuclear fusion? Observed evolution? Performed carbon dating? Odds are you haven't. Yet we trust people who say they have and so have faith in the things we're told as facts. Sure "oh there's papers" - it's the same thing. Unless you can perform the experiments/observations yourself it's a simple matter of faith and nothing less.

nonsense. — JerseyFlight

What is nonsense really? A perfect system of eight (or nine) planets all rotating around a single star in near-perfect harmony and equilibrium? The idea of a planet with just the right amount of sun, oxygen, and life-sustaining elements to just barely be able to produce life that not only survives but thrives? If you base your definition of 'sense' on reality- numbers, facts, charts, and probability- you can call a thing nonsense, but we're living it, pal.

I'm trying to contact the Star People.

A true classic. Would you now? You enjoy life that much? I'd suggest perhaps it's rather favorable circumstance you enjoy more so than anything, which comes and goes.

Besides. Along the lines of what the episode suggests, what if you become trapped in a cave or sunken ship underwater?

The idea of such an entity making a deal with a human being seems obscenely cruel. Beyond taking candy from a baby. Hardly any worse tyranny could be imagined.

Imagine having "some immortality". You'd probably be able to get someone "a little bit pregnant" while you're at it.

I can understand that argument, because no other animal has made such an impact on Earth as humans in terms of intellectuality, and no animal can produce thought to our level. — dimension72

What if an ancient race of dolphin monkeys existed and built vast civilizations and interstellar craft capable of exploring the multiverse- took one look at us humans- laughed, cried some, decided to toss us a few microchips and religions- then left. So that we would not be belittled by their awesomeness.

You couldn't disprove it.

You'd have to determine whether you mean in its originality as in its formation or what some people consider it to be today. We really would not know one, the other, or anything in between. It comes down to people reading words printed on paper by men of unknown origin and intent.

Even assuming the translated text is original (enough) and accurate- the widely held interpretation(s) from it could easily just be that.

Plus you always have the simple liar.

Prevents hypothermia/exposure. Some people are .. excitable? "Hotheaded"? Not to say lacking all self control just .. it would increase .. incidents.

They're also like carrying bags you don't have to hold. Which is neat. You can do all sorts of things with your average minimal outfit. Signal for help, cheer on a team, set a fracture, tie off a blood vessel, fend off an animal attack, neutralize an assailant, all sorts of neat things really.

In short, no, however with some folks you'd simply appreciate it.

Are you actively being the best "you" you can be, actively working towards becoming so, or have done so tirelessly?

If not, you should care about beneficial criticism, even if you do have to extract it from vile toxicity after the fact.

People who live the way you describe are simply not grounded in something greater than themselves or any one other person or even group of people. Be it religion, science, family, morality, faith, or simple lack of it, you need to pick a reliable place to stand on and keep your footing. You sound young. Good for you. Believe it or not, you'll miss these times later.

Anyone willing to share their mentions/comments ratio? — Banno

0.67

Can we get the ought of post quality from an is of mentions/comments? — Banno

Encouraging responses is far from post quality. If one posts vague, confusing, easily refutable, or simply provocative things their ratio would be quite high, wouldn't it?

Also, whether or not I directly reply to a topic (without quoting) or quote part of the OP is solely based on if I'm in a state of mind where I need what I'm replying to to literally be in front of me to avoid losing focus. Which is a toss up depending on the time of day (or complexity of the post). Basically, it may not be a reliable indicator of too much.

Edit: Never mind. Replies to topics produce a mention. Lol. See that's what I'm talking about. :grin:

In other words, Scanlon is proposing that the potential ramifications our projects may have on people can be ignored so long as we at least try to mitigate them, and so long as our collective desire for the project is deemed worthy enough to proceed. — darthbarracuda

Try- meaning full, concerted effort from a professional. Not just some guy saying "yeah sure".

Deemed worthy- again, in-depth thought and analysis from a professional in whatever field the project is in. Not just... some random careless juxtaposition of spur of the moment interest.

From the phrase of "What We Owe To Each Other" alone I'd say... we owe the effort we would expect from others. Which is difficult to ascertain as there are hundreds of factors that are no longer center stage that give us not only the things we have but the ability to do certain things today. It's the thought that counts is a good compromise.

I think it's a problem in all the Nordic countries. — ssu

Nah. It's about respecting the cultures, customs, and social norms (including language) of another person's home. Besides. Those are pretty much just frozen prisons anyway. No one should want to migrate there. It would be hazardous and unsafe for any agency to even consider that as a place to do so. Especially if they can't survive the elements on their own without government assistance.

You don't come into Africa from another land trying to convert people to your religion and make them speak your language because you think it's "better" or "right". Oh wait, people have and do. That's where the majority of modern day conflicts that kill millions of Africans stem from. Meanwhile, no one talks about that. Interesting, no?

The Americas are different seeing as others were there first.

I'd tell you OP but I wouldn't know how to prove it. :grin:

Eh. Reliable (enough) verification typically by means of evidence. Right?

The first reply to the thread is what I'd go with. And so, the more things that are proven as a(n) (exclusive) result of said proof, the more likely it is.

Am reading it now mate. Don't think I'm trying to knock it either just to do so or because I think everything modern is garbage. Just, you're clearly a smart dude and so wholly capable of breaking it down for someone with a simpler mindset to comprehend or rather "get the gist" of. What conclusions could be jumped to if they don't consist entirely of bare bones logical points? What else is there to even discuss devoid of explicit logical points?

Can someone summarize any new/relevant ideas presented in a sensical fashion without avoiding any potential admittance they have no idea what they read? Thanks. Just trying to learn here.

Personally, I don't read works from modern day philosophers. Any ideas I have I can safely call my own, or at least derived from the masters. No modern rehashes. I imagine many use philosophy forums in the same fashion.

Edit: The OP stated he is not only expecting but eager to learn from rebuttals. Just looking for a bare bones assessment of the premise(s) upon which action can be easily done. Sigh. Guess I'll read it. But for the record. This doesn't count. :grin:

Also, any mod reading may consider not only what's his name's sentiment along with my explicit acknowledgment to go ahead and remove our entire interaction for sake of relevant discussion. Thanks! You're welcome for the bumps.

What one's State Machine is, becomes that way through a concrete material social process, there is no way around this, and it makes a huge difference when it comes to the way we view humans and approach education. — JerseyFlight

So, nurture vs. nature. All of a sudden I just feel all world suffering and poverty fading into oblivion due to this revelation... if only we thought of this sooner. Come on. What does he say beyond that timeless argument?

This papers deserves serious replies. — JerseyFlight

Yeah so does the lowliest person asking how you're doing. If you're responding on a basis of betterment of the human condition.

It provides the foundation for an up to date discussion. — JerseyFlight

Well maybe it does dude but if you can't even describe to me here what it's about I mean... how do we know you're not just bamboozled by mentally satisfying jargon? Why is it so foundational. A six year old can describe in relevant enough detail why something is interesting. Why won't you?

Well, do your best.

Describe the first stage then the next. From your perspective. Neat thing is your interpretation may be completely independent of the intent of the author.

What's his "point" or points, basically?

What do you know or have reason to believe now that you didn't before reading?

Would it be possible to add a short summary in the form of bullet points? Oh, that's right. Yes. It is. Could you please do so? Thanks!

Typically with others. Do you have this difficulty, or is it unique to the individual?

You are a conversationalist. You can adapt and blend in as needed. You enjoy the diversity of others, you learn from those different. The differences aren't so bad, and the similarities steady bonuses. You can make short term associates and "friends." Maybe have a flirt, a date or two. But it ends there.

How common is this? — Cobra

The trick is to not be so interesting. Works every time. I don't mean that in an elitist way either. Some people just don't like what you have to say, regardless on whether or not it's "logical", "right", or would benefit them tremendously. Basically don't treat every random place you go throughout your day like it's the Pantheon- a world of refined learning and morals where every person is eager to spontaneously break out in immersive debate on truth and morals. It's not. You just go about your day, do what you're there to do, don't seem too rushed, and you're fine. You don't have to "adapt and blend in" like you're putting on some other persona- you just realize not everyone wants to hear what you have to say lol. Simple.

The thing you seem to be talking about is seeming incompatible long-term with the philosophically disinclined ie. you'd either bore them or they'd bore you. That's not a problem. "Hey how's it going - what's going on", talk some, do what you need, "alright catch up with you later", and go about your business.

What actually complicates things is when others know you're either successful, rich, etc. Then you're in real trouble. New places where nobody knows who you are will be the only respites in such a life. If you can avoid the temptation. Eh, I know a few people. :grin:

Same gender is fine. You start getting to know someone you either reveal directly or indirectly you're not antisocial just an introvert. You don't go out much and are usually content/busy with (well.. as an intellect you should be busy often) such and such. Rule of thumb is to avoid religion and politics. Treat their statements with an imaginary "I think/I believe/It seems to me" in front of everything they say, and just include one of the three in anything you say to them that seems to conflict with their mindset. "I like/prefer" this .. or "if you do it this way, you get... (insert new logical benefit that outweighs original benefit)." Simple.

Chicks. Eh. Good luck. It's always tough when you start to care about a person and want to help them. Some people are stuck in their ways. Old habits die hard. "Girls just wanna have fun" they say. At best you just maintain casual friendships with a few you like, hang out every now and then, and make sure they don't fall into unhealthy relationships, behaviors, or thought processes. As well as not seeming like "just a friend" or gay. Lol. Like I said good luck. You be that guy who can crack a joke, take a joke, and occasionally say something insightful that makes you think. Best you can hope for. Oh you mean actual relationships. Just find someone you can tolerate and vice versa who cares about the same things you do. Get to know them well, first. You'll thank me later. Again, I know a few people. :grin:

I will say, many people may be smarter than you may give them credit for. Even if it is in a narrow-minded, myopic, "me first" kind of way.

TL;DR: If someone annoys you it's probably for a reason, also, There's a reason why the male is called the groom.

Too broad, a couch satisfies your definition. — TheMadFool

Well we're being a bit one-dimensional at this point. You know what a chair is.

"A piece of furniture typically designed for seating a single individual usually accompanied by a backrest and/or armrests."

But it begs the question. Does an object get it's properties from the creator of the object or those who observe it? You could sit atop a parking meter if you'd like. That doesn't make it a chair. Does it? Basically, the broad definition of "something you sit on" doesn't quite hold up. Think the above definition is the most widely accepted one.

A chair without backrests or armrests is just a stool is it not? Which is a type of chair... yes?

A chair that seats two or three qualifies either as a bench or loveseat or full-blown sofa if wide enough, and depending on cushioning/upholstery. Right?