Birds eat like there’s no tomorrow. — praxis

I heard birds have no satiation instinct and can actually burst from overeating. (Young kittens and puppies also don't have a satiation instinct, but if properly domesticated, they learn it.)
Who'd have thought that satiation is something to be learned.

Always when reading your posts, I try to figure out why you have a Taxi Driver reference in your avatar. I just don't get it.

Yes. The forum's stakeholders need to decide on the direction in which they want the forum to go.

Standards for Forum Debates

I have a question:
What is the purpose of a debate? What is attempted to be accomplished by a debate?

but what about someone else? — 180 Proof

I so want to do it, either side, and my posts on this are scattered all over the forum. But I just don't have the time, I can't even log in to the forum every day, sometimes even for several days in a row.
I have an enormous amount of work in the garden, and while I pull weeds and dig over the soil, I think of witty retors to the forum posts I read, although by the time I'm able to long in, the moment's long gone ...
Like ...

What will the future of capitalism look like when everyone is utilizing autiomation? — Christoffer

First of all, some (or many?) people will not be able to afford the automation and will have to make do the old fashioned way.
Secondly, some people will probably rebel against automation.

There is a vast number of futuristic films that explore the possible scenarios of how the above two premises work out.

What should we do with the reputation system? — jamalrob

I think that you'd first need to decide what you want this forum to be like, what direction it should develop in.
For some purposes, the reputation system is good, for others it's not, as already mentioned in the above posts. It all depends on what you want with the forum, what purpose it should serve, what goal it should ty to attain.

I don't know what the stakeholders' vision for this forum is, so I can't vote.

Along these lines, I'd point out that the most important truths we learn are through fiction. What then of this fiction that speaks the truth? — Hanover

If fiction is the path to truth, you've lost at least one basis to abandon religion. You don't have to believe the sea parted, just that there is a truth being told there.
— Hanover

But what is that truth? The moment you say what it is, you are wrong. — Banno

Not to be glib, but you're supposed to feel that truth in your heart.

Bettelheim's The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales is probably one of the most well-known (even if not original) studies of the importance of fairy tales.
For the more serious reader, there's Heuscher's A Psychiatric Study of Myths and Fairy Tales; Their Origin, Meaning, and Usefulness.


Why do we watch Star Wars or the Hobbit films and such? To feel good, to feel like we can handle life's problems, to feel like life has meaning. A feeling that can otherwise be extremely hard to come by; it's so elusive, yet so important for one's wellbeing and proactiveness.

If God is a necessary being, his existence is entailed by the rules of logic. Such is the meaning of "necessary." The statement "God is a necessary being" therefore defines God as subservient to logic and caused by logic. Such entails logic preexisting God. — Hanover

It's not clear that this is what all actual monotheists mean by God being necessary (apart from those in particular who argue like the above). Rather, the necessity of God's existence in monotheism is to be understood in contradistinction with the optionality or relativity of human existence, as in: God is necessary, but man is not; man is only optional.

Such would at least be the Christian reasoning, but not, say, Hindu. In some forms of Hinduism, man isn't merely optional; man is necessary and contingent on God, while God is not contingent on anyone or anything.

If we want to talk about the necessity of God's existence, we need to be clear which particular monotheism we're (indirectly) referring to, and justify our choice.
Why the Christian notion of necessity of God's existence, why not the Hindu one?

Here's the rub; the assumed link between god and what is we ought do. This is what must be broken. — Banno

Why must it be broken? Justify.

SO if someone is certain about god, it is not as a consequence of deliberation. — Banno

As I've been saying all along.

...and as a consequence it is irrational; it stands outside of rational considerations. It is perhaps there are a part of what Wittgenstein called "hinge propositions".

Yes. A hinge commitment.

The issue then becomes the extent to which such beliefs should be taken into consideration when deciding what to do.

Taken into consideration by whom?
Deciding by whom?

Why would anyone trust ancient religious texts when they are just human writings and contradict each other?

Indeed. And yet these are used in deciding issues such as abortion, euthanasia, women's rights and so on.

What exactly is being used: those texts, or some people's certainty about them?

When arguing against someone, one isn't arguing against their arguments, but against the other person's certainty of those arguments, ie. one is arguing against the strength of the other person's hinge commitments. (That's why logic and evidence so often have so little bearing on persuading people, because logic and evidence don't address what the argument is actually about.)

So this is the real issue then? Namely, that we got taken in by our own greed, and since China has been feeding it so cheaply and so abundantly, we've come to conclude, besotted by our greed, that China means well to us -- and then we had a rude awakening upon seeing that China is not so benign, so now we feel betrayed by China and in an effort to protect our own greedy egos, we blame China instead of ourselves? Yes, this makes sense.

Why would anyone trust ancient religious texts when they are just human writings and contradict each other? — Gregory

Whom exactly are you asking this and for what purpose?

I'm reminded of this scene on learning how to swim from the film the Glass Castle where a father is teaching his daugher how to swim:

There are, as far as swimming itself goes, easier and more effective ways to teach and learn swimming, and the above seems like subjecting someone to unnecessary suffering.

But I suppose that if the actual lesson is to be about learning that it is necessary to learn to swim, then something like this is the way.

IOW, the salient distinction is between a skill and the necessity for said skill. Learning the former can usually be done with minimum stress; with the latter, stress seems inevitable.

Sure, but are they not fighting against unwarranted truth claims from both sides, a practice I have already acknowledged and agreed with? — Janus

But are those truth claims really unwarranted? How can we possibly know?

If we wish to substantively address ignorance, actions and attitudes, we need to challenge belief in literalist readings of holy books or the notion that God's will is known. — Tom Storm

But this way, we're attacking the theists' constitutionally given freedom of religion.
How do you propose to get around that?

But that still doesn't make China a benign entity. — Apollodorus

Why should any entity be benign??

You might consider it tedious to explain, but that the same expression in different languages can somehow mean (or "how it means") differently - as opposed to the traditional way of meaning - is supposed to be the topic of the discussion. If "how it means" cannot be explicated, then what are we discussing? And what are further examples meant to show? It doesn't help that the example cited in the OP is puzzling to all. — Luke

It should be possible to exemplify this within the same language, to better pinpoint what we're talking about. For example, by comparing Shakespeare's original text and the modernized version(s) of it.

Hamlet says of himself that he is a rogue and peasant slave and that he is pigeon-liver'd and lacks gall. Now what is it that is lost or added in translation when we say that he thought of himself as timid, cowardly? What is it that is Shakespearely?

You might consider it tedious to explain, but that the same expression in different languages can somehow mean (or "how it means") differently - as opposed to the traditional way of meaning - is supposed to be the topic of the discussion. If "how it means" cannot be explicated, then what are we discussing? And what are further examples meant to show? It doesn't help that the example cited in the OP is puzzling to all. — Luke

We can see that many words have a cross-language translation relationship like this (L: language, M: meaning, ):

Word in L1
M1
M2
M3

Word in L2
M1
M2
M4

(L2 has a different word to express M3)


How do we make sense of words that overlap in some aspects of their meaning, but not in whole?
If the main/some meanings of the words are the same, how come all of them aren't?

It's actually much simpler than this. Words in different languages can be translated only because they point to the same thing. If they don't point to the same thing, then they are not translatable. The fact is that most, of not all, words in any language are translatable in another. It just may be that one word in one language translates to many words in a another language, but this is no different than defining the single word in the first language, as the act of defining is translating one word into many in the same language, or at least pointing at the object or event you are defining. — Harry Hindu

Of course. I had actually compiled a reply to an earlier post of yours here, but lost it in editing. I used the English word mother and how in English it has meanings that the word mati in my Slavic native language doesn't have, even though they generally count as equivalents.

Think of how you would translate/define "Christmas Tree" to an alien from another planet that doesn't have trees or Christmas, but has religions, holidays and bushes, and words in their own language that point to these things. What if you just pointed at a Christmas Tree?

It's not clear that they could make sense of the object per se. Perhaps if I pointed to a Christmas Tree and said something like "This is how we on Earth symbolize a specific and important religious holiday."

(Something similar is already happening when we can make sense of a Christimas cactus tree and other alternatives for trees.)

It could stand in for the social pressure that in real life motivates you to behave well and present your best. — jamalrob

*tsk tsk*
That would work in a fair, democratic system where all the members would clearly, openly agree to jointly work toward a common goal (and one that would be for the greater good, at that).

A discussion forum like this isn't like that.

For one, there is no clear goal to work toward. There's just stuff going on all over the place, quite a bit doesn't even have anything to do with philosophy, but more with looking cool and being admired for it.

For two, a discussion forum like this is more like a country club, run by a bunch of old boys who exert their pressure mostly indirectly. This pressure inspires posters to behave themselves only inasmuch as they fear when the other shoe will drop, and not out of concern for quality. IOW, here, the pressure to "behave well and present one's best" is too dispersed, too random, too intangible to be conducive to behaving well and presenting one's best.

How do you explain that some apparently very bad people have it so good in life????
— baker

Justice is made, by us; not a gift from god. — Banno

This doesn't address my concern. The fact is that some apparently very bad people have it very good in life. You say justice is made by us. Well then, how is it justice that some apparently very bad people aren't prosecuted by people? Why is there so little actual will and success to do so?

I don't see how these differ. — Banno

In that in E, there is no element of choice. It's the state of mind when one has throughly considered the issue, but ends up, even literally, with an open mouth and nothing comes out; it's bewilderment.

People will start conflating the numbers with authority and validity. — khaled

It would be interesting to see what effect random changing numbers under a poster's name would have. Ie. so that the same poster one day has, say, 5 as the number under their name, then the next day 106, then 88, and so on.

Until the diverse preachers indoctrinators proselytizers chill out, they should expect others asking them to justify their claims. In case they impose their faiths on others, politics, have their faiths interfere in other peoples' lives, whatever social matters, etc, then they should expect all the more. — jorndoe

I think this requires a different approach. First of all, don't let them dictate the terms. As long as we attempt to discuss "the existence of God" or request them to justify their claims, we're letting the theists dictate the terms, and we're playing by those terms -- and we have set ourselves up for certain failure. We must not let them drag us to their turf where they can play, and win, on their terms.

Rather, if the notion of god leads to inconsistencies, then either, the notion of god cannot be instantiated (atheism)or the notion of god needs to be reconsidered. — Banno

Exactly. Instead of treating it as a philosophical artifact, treat it the way religious theists have been treating it for millennia: a matter of divine revelation. (Which you personally just don't happen to have.)

You seem to be operating under the notion that people who beieve in God have arrived at belief in God or at claims about God via an abstract logical reasoning (or even by empirical investigation), in a bottom-up manner, so to speak.
— baker

Oh, not at all. — Banno

Your questions and posts on the topic of "God" indicate otherwise. They indicate that you're trying to arrive at certainty about God via an abstract logical reasoning, in a bottom-up manner.

Instead of relying on divine revelation in order to come to certainty about God, you're relying on your own reason (+some outsourcing to the forum folks).

Riddle me this:
How to arrive at certainty about God?

What's your answer?

I had absolutely zero religious training and I'm not even slightly inclined to atheism. My sense of incredulity at the magnificent complexity of the universe only reduces that further. — Pantagruel

But you're not a theist in any actual, established religious sense of the word. You couldn't go to a particular church, join the religious community there, and function well as a member, could you?

I think the Atheist has specific reasons for disbelieving in god. Probably some deep psychological trauma where they feel they were let down and abandoned. — Pantagruel

Oh? And this means that they should first seek psychiatric help, and once they are cured of their trauma, only then proceed with their religious explorations?

The counter is that for practical purposes agnosticism and atheism have the same outcome.
— Banno

Not true; an agnostic is not going to waste time arguing against theists. — Janus

Not from what I've seen. At least on internet forums, I've seen plenty of aggressive agnostics trying to fight it out both with theists as well as atheists.

The issue is that beliefs cause harm to others. When, for instance Christians seek to change legislation - eg, abortion law, euthanasia, creation science in schools, climate science denial - you name it - and when they are supporting political candidates, they are justifying these high impact changes on the basis of an unproven entity. — Tom Storm

It seems more likely to me that the religious references to or implications of God are merely part of a political strategy, and not a genuine expression of belief. This strategy is fuelled by the constitutional freedom of religion and the constitutional demand for respect for religion. The religious have here an ace that the non-religious don't have. If you oppose what they say, they can accuse you of denying them their constitutional freedom of religion. This is how they can silence you, which was their goal all along. This is how the secular constitution is shooting secular people in the foot -- or more like, in the head.

Indeed. How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? What can you not justify using an appeal to faith? It seems very weak to me. — Tom Storm

Don't forget that many people conflate faith, belief, and knowledge; they have little or no sense of perspective, subjectivity, or of the dichotomy of facts vs. opinions. (This is also why scientism can flourish among secular people, as witnessed in the covid vaccine hysteria.)
They have no training in criticial thinking (or at least none that would stick.) They reason in an entirely different way than someone who has had some of such training.

I still can't quite understand what the idea of god is for except as a debating subject.

That's because you're not pugilistic enough. The idea of God has proven to be a very effective tool for fucking with people's minds, and thus render them silent, incompetent, or irrelevant.

People are taken in by cheap Chinese products and other benefits of economic cooperation — Apollodorus

"Taken in"?
So China is a magician or something?

People are "taken in" by their own greed. If they wouldn't be so greedy, they wouldn't settle for buying cheap low quality export stuff (from China or anywhere else).

The question is why one would concern themselves with such things that are not knowable. — Tzeentch

In a desperate quest for safety and meaning.

Aporia seems the natural outcome of philosophical discussion; silence follows. — Banno

It's like aphasia: one opens one's mouth, and nothing comes out.

In what circumstances would it be rational to accept one's depression or anxiety? — Shawn

What do you mean by "accept" here?

And another culinary one: pudding.

I'd found, after the first twenty-odd years of unbelief, that it's more profitable to argue with (religious) theism which exists than to argue against gods which do not. Thus, atheism matured into antitheism, and my career in freethought became even freer, a vocation; these last decades, theism can be shown to be not true, and the rest follows. — 180 Proof

But the real question is, Are you getting payed for your antitheism? Does it rake in money for you?

Thus, it is irrelevant whether God can create contradictions, we would not perceive them. — SolarWind

Indeed. No matter how much one might try, one couldn't perceive a square circle, even if there was one.

Can we think about some kind of practice that, if practiced, would favour better relationships? — Angelo

Yes: the practice of minding one's own business.

The majority of people trouble comes from people sticking their nose into things that are none of their business and from demanding from other people what they are unable or unwilling to give.

Minding one's own business doesn't necessarily mean solitude or isolation; although it entails some of that as well. It means that one interacts with others on the grounds of common and well thought through interests. Philosophy can help one clarify one's thoughts, esp. analytic philosophy.

That part of the quote kinda puzzles me too, but I think he just means that you're not likely to code switch from French to German and vice versa while speaking about bread. I think anyway. — StreetlightX

I wonder about this one too. We'd need someone who is fluent in French. I know Germans tend to associate Brot with hard work and basic necessities (which is evident in the German idioms with Brot), but do the French do so as well?


Unless the difference is in fact primarily culinary, e.g.:

German bread is usually made from the darker, less refined types of flour, often even wholegrain. Beside the wheat flour the rye flour is often added to the dough. There are also pure rye kinds of bread. Typical French bread is usually yeast raised, while German is sourdough. In consequence German bread is darker, has more flavour, it is also longer edible. In France bread is usually eaten as the add-on with meals, broken to pieces while eaten. In Germany it is more often a base of a meal, cut into slices and made into open-face sandwiches.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-difference-between-French-bread-and-German-bread

Except for machines, which only have access to words, but do a fairly good job of translating these days. — Marchesk

That depends on what type of text one is trying to machine translate.
Poetry, for example, is generally hard to render equivalently into a different language. Technical texts, not so much.