Neither, I'm pointing out where the other poster's position becomes absurd.
One cannot consistently criticize others for believing there is One True Philosophy without ending up oneself implying there is One True Philosophy (which also happens to be one's own).

This is a common mistake. That there is not one true philosophy does not mean that all claims are equal. Some ideas are in error. — Fooloso4

A typical statement made by someone who believes there is One True Philosophy.

There's a tension between system building and critical evaluation in philosophy. Perhaps the system builders - your Kant, Hegel, Russel - thrive when the basis of society is unthreatened; and the critics - Socrates, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein - in what might be called "interesting times"?

But perhaps not. — Banno

Lyotard has a theory according to which there are essentially just two periods in cultural history: classicism and modernism, one repeatedly following upon the other, as a reaction to the other. So if the Ancient Greek culture was classicism, the Ancient Roman culture was modernism, and so on.
The classical periods are exemplified by stability, certainty, order, moderation (e.g. Ancient Greek, Classicism, Realism), while the modernist ones are exemplified by lack of stability, doubt, excess (e.g. Ancient Roman, Baroque, Romanticism, Postmodernism). (Of course, the names of the cultural periods will vary somewhat depending on the specific country/culture one observes.)

She instead admonishes us to engage in sorting out the conceptual confusions that we otherwise take for granted. — Banno

We were taught in highschool that philosophy is about how one thinks and talks about things, not about coming to definitive conclusions about things.

Why do you disagree with people (and publicly ridicule them etc.), if not because you believe there is One True Philosophy (which also happens to be yours)?
— baker

In order to point out the error of their ideas. — Banno

IOW, you do believe there is One True Philosophy (which also happens to be yours).

But what if a person is only perceived as aggravating by some other people?

Every society humans have ever put into action for more than 5 seconds has been profoundly sick. Only a miserable fool refuses to adjust to the inevitability of things being as they've always been. Said tortured fool will have greater odds of achieving some minor fleeting positive changes than a well-adjusted person, and well-adjusted people may cheer them on from the sidelines -- but degree of change achieved is not a measure of health. The complacent person who accepts things as they are lives a longer and more enjoyable life which is clearly healthier than the martyr of the latest revolution. — Paul

Isn't life grand?!

That's what granpa fought for in WWII!

But this actually supports the view that the richer you are, the more you believe in material possessions and less in God. Or as the Bible puts it, you can't serve two masters, you must choose between God and Mammon (Money). The rich tend to choose the latter and Banno's article seems to confirm this. — Apollodorus

The countries listed earlier in the graph that are both high in God belief and high in poverty are mostly countries that have a history of colonial exploitation and/or a climate and natural environment poorly suitable for advanced agriculture and industry.

It yet needs to be established that God belief causes or significantly contributes to poverty (and low education). But notably, God belief was typical for colonial exploiters.

You believe, for example, your car is in the garage. And as you learn every morning, it is. But until verified, it's a belief. Of course the particular beliefs in question here are never verified, and what I cannot "get" is that those same believers fail to understand that they cannot be verified. Because verification would destroy the basis for the belief. — tim wood

What you need to "get" is that believers don't see you (or any critical person, whether theist or atheist) as someone with whom to discuss their beliefs. It seems that to them, it's a bit like discussing one's underwear with strangers in the street. Not something a decent person would do.

As I was sitting in my chair,
I knew the bottom wasn't there,
Nor legs nor back, but I just sat,
Ignoring little things like that.

― Hughes Mearns

With that, to the Atheist I say: Can we learn from the belief systems of a Helen Keller?

No, she didn't work for a living (a crucial aspect of a person's life), her position is irrelevant to those who have to work for a living.

Grrr!

After a long stretch of rain, the weather is now finally suitable for gardening, so I barely have any time left. I haven't even turned on the computer for 11 days!

I so want to have a say in that debate!!!!

I took the vaccine, not for me, but for others — James Riley

How so?? Vaccination doesn't stop you from being a spreader.

(In a twist of sad irony, it's a modern, egotistical vaccine that reduces morbidity and mortality, but not spread.)

I notice that I use the same rational approach to come to my position as others do theirs, albeit different positions, and I seem to catch hell for having a different stance. Seems weird; I am not bitching at anyone for getting the shot. — Book273

Likewise. There is a real pro-vaccination hysteria going on. Which just goes to show how much importance faith has in applied medicine.

I cannot evaluate this without specifics. Were there underlying medical conditions? What was the cause of death? "a number" is statistically meaningless. — Fooloso4

A person is not a statistic.

For the person who ends up with bad side effects, it does not matter if they are in the statistical minority.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone.
— baker

That is not the way medicine works.

Then why talk about it this way, as if it does work that way?

Why not say, "the vaccine is safe and effective, provided the person meets requirements x, y, z"?
Why the absolutist slogan, "the vaccine is safe and effective"?

It's very simple: If the vaccine is indeed so safe and effective (that accepting it should be a no-brainer), then why isn't it mandatory by law?

It is not clear whether you are denying the practice of informed consent or questioning the concept. The former is well documented. The latter is more problematic. Even people with medical degrees may not have the specialized expertise needed to be fully informed about a particular procedure. An internist does not have the knowledge or experience of a neurosurgeon. — Fooloso4

Exactly. Still, medical lays are being fooled by the medical system there is such a thing as "informed consent".
I'm questioning the concept.

The answer to that has more to do with politics than vaccine safety and efficacy. — Fooloso4

No, that's evasion.
If it's up to politicans to decide whether and where to build a nuclear power plant, whether to privatize sources of water, or whether it's okay to kill someone by an injection of potassium chloride, then why
not have them decide about medications, including experimental ones?

It wasn't for those who had to be hospitalized afterwards or even died.

What do you have to say to that?
— baker

I have nothing to say to that without specific details and statistics. — Fooloso4

You should have something to say to that. You should have something to say for those for whom the vaccine wasn't safe and effective. And there is a number of those for whom it wasn't.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone. But it clearly isn't. So something else is going on, such as that the vaccine is safe and effective, provided the person meets requirements x, y, z.


(My neighbor's relative ended up on the ventilator after receiving the vaccine. If she survives, I wonder what she'll say and whether she'll still trust the medical system.)

My body, my choice. Their body, their choice.
Much like death, everyone handles it in their own way. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Wrong. Infectuous diseases (esp. those with potentially fatal outcomes) are a matter of public health, and therefore, cannot be left to the individual to decide about. They should be regulated at least by laws, but preferrably, by the constitution.

The focus on personal choice is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility on the individual person, releasing doctors, science, and the government from responsibility, all under the guise of "respecting the individual's right to choice".

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences?
— baker

Mandatory where? Mandated by whom? — Fooloso4

By law, the laws made by the government of a country.

If the vaccine is truly so very safe and effective and if it is truly the best practice to accept the vaccine, then why isn't this regulated by law?

There is a difference between informed consent and uninformed consent. — Fooloso4

In medicine, a person can give no informed consent if they don't have a medical degree. It all comes down to trusting one's doctors.


Leaving aside for the moment that doctors don't actually give people the time to read the documents they are supposed to sign prior to some treatment.

Best practice is to get the vaccine. — Fooloso4

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences?

Based on the information we have the vaccine is both safe and effective. — Fooloso4

It wasn't for those who had to be hospitalized afterwards or even died.

What do you have to say to that?

Are you willing to die for others?
— baker

Yes. — Tom Storm

Who are those others? Just any member of Homo sapiens?

Not all lobotomy victims are incapacitated; some managed to function even with greater inhibitions and impairments. — 180 Proof

And that's something to count on when applying for a lobotomy?

And since most never attain 'Mu', lobotomy gets you to "lights on, nobody home" ease of living (or bland idiocy) quicker and more reliably than zazen or whatever.

Whatever happened to critical thinking ...

(So who is that "karma-challenged and depressive realist / absurdist friend" on whose behalf you're having this conversation?)

Belief in god is necessary for being good.

Those that think so have a lower income, less education, tend to the political right and are older than those who do not. — Banno

And this is bad?

Poor people are bad?
People with less edication are bad?
People who tend to the political right are bad?
People who are older than those who do not not believe "Belief in god is necessary for being good" are bad?


Oh, and what is "good"?

There is One True Philosophy?

Why should we think that? — Banno

Why do you disagree with people (and publicly ridicule them etc.), if not because you believe there is One True Philosophy (which also happens to be yours)?

It was you who on page 22 of your own thread asked:

... a wilful emphasis on every negative.

Comment? — Banno

You're holding it against people for actually replying to the bloody OP quest, which was, to remind you:

This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

In what way, gentlemen, is the 'Mu' mind-state distinguishable from the prefrontal lobotomized mind-state? How does Nagaruna's purported soteriology differ from psychosurgical zombification? And isn't latter much easier to attain, and therefore more worth the trouble, than the former? — 180 Proof

The contemplation of mu brings the mind to a halt, so to speak, similar as they way a computer freezes when it faces too many requests or when it's caught in a loop. But a mind in mu is still capable of action, unlike a frozen computer or a lobotomized person.

The contemplation of mu is like wiping the slate clean, which makes it easier to see one's priorities and act in accordance with them.

Like they say, in its proper application the analytical mind exhausts itself.

So you think that a conman "has" cognitive dissonance?
— baker

Which is is either in the context of religion as the rest of our discussion or a non-sequitur.

Also, this response doesn’t address any point I raised. You ignored those and instead raised a new question of questionable relevance and then acted as though I was being imprecise in my reading. — DingoJones

I was trying to make the discussion shorter and more concise. My point has been to show that it is questionabale whether religious people indeed necessarily operate under cognitive dissonance. Hence I wanted to illustrate a point about cognitive dissonance with the example of the conman, and then take things from there.

This has a stink of dishonesty to it, you don’t seem to be arguing in good faith here.

That is your perception.


In short, a case can be made that religious people do not necessarily operate under cognitive dissonance, because:
1. they have a poor knowledge of the doctrine they profess to uphold;
2. outsiders do not understand religious doctrines in the hierarchical and contextualized way as insiders do, so outsiders perceive cognitive dissonance where for insiders there is none;
3. the bloody history of religion warrants skepticism and the possibility of religious people in fact being duplicitious.

Everyone seems to know that happiness does not come from wealth and that a rewarding life is generally found outside of money and possessions. — Tom Storm

I personally do not know anyone who believes that. Everyone I know is either rich, striving to get rich, or bemoaning not being rich.

The theory that money makes people happier has to account for the happiness of people who have not a pot to piss in. How do the poor manage to be happy--enough poor people are happy enough to make the question worth asking. — Bitter Crank

But how do we know those poor people are happy? Because of pictures in National Geographic where poor people are smiling?

That being the case, communing with nature (or literally whatever) could be seen as communing with God. Doesn’t seems there’s any point to pantheism without experiencing the “sense that one is part of divinity”. I formally submit that the pantheist could become lost in this sensing and unwittingly become quietist. — praxis

Becoming a tree hugger is just at one end of the pantheist spectrum. A fascination with power and being active is on the other end.

And the only proper response to this is hysterical optimism and total faith in medicine?

It is a little disconcerting that the notion is incomprehensible to many, such as yourself, but "disconcerting" is part of the deal too, so I'm comfortable with it. Back in the day it wasn't such an anomaly. — James Riley

This is a philosophy discussion forum, not the water cooler. You're jumping to the conclusion that the notion of sacrificing oneself for others is "incomprehensible" to me. On the contrary, I want to explore what a proponent of it has to say about it.

Why do you tailor your quest by the model of a Catholic proselytizer??

And you want us to believe you'd die for these people?

Why would it be good to have such proof?

Who's "them"? — TiredThinker

The skeptics your OP is seeking to convince.

Realising this - “wow I’ve just realised I have all that I wanted in the past” and supposing you are in your best years and still have a good portion of your life ahead of you, what would you do? — Benj96

I'd go sit under a tree until I became enlightened.