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.

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?