Did you learn that on social media?

There goes the Donald Trump thread. — Mikie

Most of NOS’s posts anyway.

How did an anti-Trump “journalist” find himself on the Signal app, and leak the details of what was obviously a sensitive conversation? Smells to me like deep-state sabotage. — NOS4A2

Electing Trump was an act of sabotage?

A faith based belief in the existence of a moral force sounds theistic, suggesting that without this moral force, it wouldn't matter if we murdered. Meaning is implanted in this belief isn't it? — Hanover

I don't think I've ever considered the idea of a "moral force" before. It's an interesting concept, but after reflecting on it, I don't see how it provides the religious with a stronger moral foundation than the non-religious. Could you clarify your perspective? Are you suggesting that the non-religious lack a moral foundation or have a weaker one?

Both religious and non-religious people can have faith in a moral foundation. It makes no difference.

Things matter to God. — Hanover

How do you know that?

Still trying to wrap my head around someone pretending to care about distorting reality while relentlessly shrilling for a politician.

It simply makes no sense to speak of the world of forms, where the good exists outside the existence of humanity if you take a fully secular view of this. If a tree falls in the woods and there are no humans in existence anywhere, it does not matter. Mattering is a human concern. It is not a concern for whatever deer took a tree to the head.

On the other hand, if God says the tree falling in the woods matters (i.e. it is either good or bad), then it matters, even if there is no human anywhere to assess it. — Hanover

If mattering is a human concern and there are no humans in existence anywhere, how could what God says matter?

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said the “retaliatory animus” of Trump’s executive order against a similar law firm targeted is “clear on its face” and appears to violate constitutional restrictions on “viewpoint discrimination.”

Really highlights what Trump is about.

I can’t imagine the reality for someone who has shrilled so relentlessly over the years for any politician, much less for one like Trump.

Isn’t that ironic. You had to change and bold my words to your liking. — NOS4A2

Your reality involves searching for things like videos of weird individuals inserting their fingers in their ass and wiping them on Teslas, which you then post on a philosophy forum and joyfully call reality. In your reality, that incident captures the essence of the backlash against Musk.

Reflect on that for a minute.

the pure joy of rubbing MY reality in the faces of those who would otherwise refuse it — NOS4A2

Fixed.

Senators Justin Eichorn, Eric Lucero, Steve Drazkowski, Nathan Wesenberg, Glenn Gruenhagen take creepiness to another level (Mar 18, 2025):
SF 2589 as introduced - 94th Legislature (2025 - 2026) — jorndoe

MAGA Republicans advocating for American interests in a nutshell.

It is the belief in absolute authority whether human or divine and the imposition of dogma on others which is the problem. — Janus

There's a significant difference between faith in authority and forced obedience (imposition).

I tend to think that enlightenment values would more or less immunize someone from blind faith in authority because at the heart of it is the imperative to think for yourself. So how could Stalin effectively use enlightenment rhetoric to support totalitarian control?

When can we expect to see his tax records?

it's not that they [humanism, secularism, rationalism, and existentialism] are "tame" but that they are philosophical perspectives, not dogmatic ideologies. — Janus

No specific "atheistic ideology" was mentioned in your initial claim that atheistic ideologies are equally as dangerous as religious ideologies so I mentioned a few. Granted some are less ideological than others so I'll focus on what I think may be considered the most ideological.

Humanism has a consistent framework with a core set of beliefs that can guide action, it's prescriptive, and it can certainly foster a group identity. It may be 'tame' because it's open to revision, doesn't require strict adherence to specific doctrines, and encourages critical thinking and individual autonomy.

On the other hand, Stalin promoted humanist rhetoric while carrying out violent purges, and it seemed to effectively motivate the population. Fuck, I hate it when I'm wrong.

Worse, he’s hip deep in Taoism. :gasp:

My only point was that ideologies whether religious or not, being based on some dogma or other, are one of the main problems which plague humanity. — Janus

That wasn’t exactly your original point. You initially said that faith in God or some atheistic ideology (humanism, secularism, rationalism, or existentialism) were equally dangerous.

I guess humanism, secularism, rationalism, and existentialism are so tame that you don’t count them as ideologies and consider them merely philosophical perspectives. Yet you count religions as ideologies.

Hitler used religious rhetoric so how can that be counted as atheistic?

Marxism is an economic and political ideology, and socialism isn’t incompatible with religious belief.

Funny you reject the actual atheistic ideologies as ideologies and pretend that Nazism and Marxism are necessarily atheistic.

Can you show any instances humanism, secularism, rationalism, or existentialism being as equally dangerous as religions have been throughout history?

But of course you know that many religious people maintain that complete faith in God erases these fears and doubts. The Abraham story pushes this to the limit. Could a father feel any faith in God under such circumstances? — J

The Abraham story pushes the idea that unity with God is achieved through blind obedience. Unity with God is the carrot and obedience is the goal. Shouldn't unity with God be the goal?

What I meant about being obvious is that if a person and God are separate there will be fear and doubt, and if there’s no separation, if a person is ‘one with God’, there won’t be fear and doubt. What could be more obvious than that?

Oh, you never know. Might not be so obvious after all . . . — J

Don’t leaves us hanging.

The very question you ask is, I believe, why the story of Abraham was written and became part of the canon. Kierkegaard has a good book about it. :smile: — J

Why would anyone need to read a book about something so obvious?

The oddest thing is why anyone with faith would object to the claim that The Binding of Isaac is essentially about obedience. If you truly believe there’s a God and God is good, why would you hesitate to obey them? The need for trust to be earned demonstrates the separation. It’s like denying that it’s about blind obedience is an admission that you don’t really believe.

If I lived in Phili I’d go paint it, assuming the country workers are as slow as the ones around here.

You brought up the practice of interpreting religious doctrine. The Myanmar monks are an example of how useful that practice can be, and of how drastic reinterpretations can be. If you know anything about Buddhism you may appreciate how antithetical ethnic cleansing is to the tradition. Traditions change of course. A key tenet of Buddhism is that everything changes.

But you're the one looking at the art. See what you will. — Hanover

Speaking of interpreting works to work for you, I recently learned of the 2017 genocide in Myanmar. It was only a little surprising that Buddhist monks were behind it. I was far more appalled that Facebook played an instrumental role, and they were fully aware of what was going on.

How can Buddhist teachings be twisted to justify fucking ethnic cleansing? Rather easily it turns out.



Have faith and see what you're told to see.

Unparalleled profundity.

Someone's made a model of my desk... — Banno

:lol: I spent a couple of hours cleaning up the garage today and unfortunately it still resembles a contemporary piece of art.

The story of Abraham means that God will justify your faith in him. We can trust God no matter what. It’s not about, what crazy murder can someone commit. At all. Abraham was rational, he trusted God, and was right and justified. — Fire Ologist

It’s essentially about obedience. Abraham demonstrates unwavering obedience, carrying out God's command without expressing fear or doubt. His commitment to the task is so great that he even deceives his son with carefully chosen words, ultimately resulting in divine reward.

Fine, but then, good luck working whatever muscle allows people to trust each other, and good luck building a world where trust between two people is not needed. Good luck building love. — Fire Ologist

One challenge with religious faith is its inherent exclusivity to the specific tradition it embraces. Your defensiveness and rather ungenerous interpretation of what Banno is saying may be a demonstration of this.

Biblical interpretation is a field unto itself — Hanover

Frightening, when it comes to interpreting a story like this for obedient followers.

Funny result. — Hanover

Not at all.

An AI recalls Yuval Noah Harari's argument for me that Homo sapiens' survival and dominance were largely due to their ability to create and believe in shared fictions—stories, myths, and collective beliefs that allowed large groups to cooperate.

Unlike other human species (like Neanderthals), who mainly relied on direct personal relationships, Homo sapiens could unite thousands or even millions of people under abstract ideas, such as religions, nations, money, and laws. These shared fictions helped create trust and large-scale collaboration, giving Homo sapiens an evolutionary advantage.

So in a way, our survival and success depended not just on raw intelligence but on our ability to believe in things that don't physically exist, like gods, borders, and economies.

What it means is that my being here under a purely causative explanation will have occurred without purpose, but just the result of various reactions over time (a cosmic coincidence) that will eventually result in my death and return to my constituive parts (decayed orderly cellular composition back to dust). — Hanover

I'm suggesting that stories give things meaning. For example, if you ask a theologian why God created the Moon, they might say its purpose is to control Earth’s tides—assuming they are aware of the science. The scientific explanation itself has a narrative structure, offering meaning and coherence, regardless of any theological interpretation layered onto it.

Then don't choose to belive in eternal rewards. I've not dictated a theology. — Hanover

I didn’t suggest that you were dictating a theology. I simply expressed my view. To be clear, “a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust” also sounds rather meaningless to me. Meaning is in the stories, whether religious or secular.

2) are the purpose of koans to bring out faith? — Gregory

They certainly require faith. They may or may not enhance it, if that’s what you mean. Ideally, for the sake of the religion, they would enhance faith.

I'm not just a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust. — Hanover

Honestly, a planed existence awaiting an eternal reward sounds rather meaningless to me. The story of the existence would be meaningful I’m sure.

Just a little doodle of a feeling I had the other day. The yellow lines are the double yellow lines of a road.

Love it. :lol: