By blocking the construction of the keystone pipeline and revoking numerous off and on shore and drilling permits. Lower supply = higher price. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yeah, that must be it. The pandemic had nothing to do with it.

What wars did Trump start or encourage? — stoicHoneyBadger

You said "no wars" and I didn't know what that meant.

Probably its most productive times were somewhere in 50-60s. Now it seems to be in a slow, yet steady decline. — stoicHoneyBadger

You must mean the civil rights movement, yes, I agree that was a productive time. :smile:

Btw...

Gas prices were low, no wars, — stoicHoneyBadger

How exactly did Biden single handedly raise gas prices across the globe, if that's what you're suggesting? And no wars during the Trump administration???

So America was a productive adult only a couple of years ago. :lol:

I'm from eastern Europe and what I see going on in US, Canada, UK, etc. is perceived not as progress, but as madness. So we clearly have no desire to join this lunacy, we'd better stay with Poland, the Czech republic, Ukraine, etc.

It seems that civilizations go the same life cycle as people. First you are an infant, than a confused teenager, at some point you become a productive adult, but than inevitably turn senile and die. So all this 'gender neutral' stuff is as progressive as a progressing dementia. ;) — stoicHoneyBadger

My country elected Trump as its leader several years ago so yeah, something’s rotten in Denmark, but it ain’t dementia. When I look at history though, I’m left wondering at what point there existed “a productive adult.”

why are we born to suffer and die? — Constance

Why should I be content with someone else’s answers to that?

I am sure I can answer for most men. If you prefer dudes, or at least girls that look like dudes, well, that's up to you. — stoicHoneyBadger

Possibility is a woman, if I’m not mistaken.

At the gyms where I live more men than women lift but the difference isn’t that great. Strong fit women are hot, btw. Are you just intimidated by them? Pools have slightly more men than woman, I would estimate. I’ve never done boxing classes but wouldn’t be surprised if there were a good amount of women. Incidentally, before Covid I would be among the very few men that did Zumba classes. Guess that makes me a girlyman.

Like Possibility say, ya need to join the 21st century, if only for your children's sake.

The four noble truths, Hindu metaphysics, and all we can think of is a just there as a "method" of grasping the world, a utility that serves one end: the security of well being. — Constance

There are non-religious approaches to that end. I think the utility is in binding tribes, which can offer well-being, but if well-being were essential then I think religions would be better at the task. There is no reason they couldn’t be better at it.

Not knowing doesn’t require faith.

So a woman only needs to be a good housekeeper and breeder?

firmly stand on your own intellectual feet. — stoicHoneyBadger

Sounds a bit insecure.

Be undisturbed both by your own monkey-mind or external circumstances. — stoicHoneyBadger

Teach them to be afraid to feel?

Be able to make a leap of faith when needed, to step into the unknown, to reevaluate all your axioms. — stoicHoneyBadger

Why make a leap of faith if you're comfortable stepping into the unknown?

Buddhism is a "way of liberation" at its core, not a metaphysics, which, as I see it, is its great virtue. — Constance

According to the instruction manual, Right View (twelve link chain of dependent origination, karma, rebirth, etc.) is doggedly claimed to be essential to liberation.

I still don’t follow. Concepts are interdependent and are meaningless in isolation.

Value is absolute. Not value here or there, but the presence of value as such is absolute. Try an argument from utility: the philosopher's evil demon is up to no good, and insists you torture one child for the weekend, or a thousand other children will be tortured for a thousand years a far greater intensity. Utility says go for the weekend, but note: this decision does not diminish one whit the badness of the weekend affair. Clearly, and this is the point, there is NOTHING that can diminish this, which tells us we are in the presence of an absolute. There is no way possible, it is apodictically impossible, to relativize this badness away. — Constance

I don’t follow. Torture weekend is not as bad, in the mind of the torturer, relative to torture millennium in both quality and quantity, assuming the torturer feels that torture is bad to begin with.

The fact that you only think that one side puts on a show — Harry Hindu

You’re a funny guy, Harry. :grin:

The Dems are more of a threat to liberty and free-thought than the Reps are right now. It's what happens when you are too weak to think for yourself - you become a victim of political or religious ideology. The weak-minded need a Big Brother -whether it be god or government. — Harry Hindu

Hilarious. The critical theory dog and pony show that Republicans have been playing, at the confirmation hearing and elsewhere, seems to have gotten you all riled-up. Mission accomplished.

This definition excludes those for whom religion has become mere habit.

Ritualistic habit with no thought of ideology or ultimate authority. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In that case, it can still be an identity and have influence. People who don’t think for themselves and just go along with the tribe are the ideal followers, actually.

This story is everywhere except, oddly enough :razz: , outlets like Fox News and Breitbart.

'We control them all': Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows ideas for overturning 2020 election before it was called

I'm still sticking with "an ideology that relies on ultimate authority," which to my mind covers its essential nature.

This last post was only meant to address your question about why science does not count as a religion.

So the candidates for an anchor that seem most promising are ritual, transcendent hierarchies and longing.

The question which for me is central to the thread is now why science does not count as a religion, given these anchors. — Banno

It seems to be the case that all forms of knowledge, including scientific knowledge, are ‘ideological’ in the sense that there is no neutral, objective body of knowledge that is not infected by the purpose-relative concepts of a group of inquirers. However, scientific knowledge isn’t woven into a meaningful narrative that offers…

àn ultimate scientific explanation. — Haglund

Saying Lord of the Rings is not an accurate account of the history of the world is neither useful nor cogent. — Banno

What if half the world “believes” that it’s accurate?

Dawkins has not the least inkling of what the term 'transcendence' means. — Wayfarer

This reeks of prejudice and close-mindedness.

but isn't a type of freeloading built into the human experience in as much as we benefit from the work/ideas/civilization of all who came before us, without making a single contribution? — Tom Storm

I think that moral behavior applies to the living and hope that those not living are beyond such concerns.

However in my view it offers a coherent undestanding of 'mind and cosmos' as it provides for a vision within which h. sapiens has a role, rather than being the 'accidental byproduct' as it is depicted by scientific materialism. And if indeed it can be discerned across so many cultures and periods of history in the forms of literature of those traditions, then that literature should be regarded as evidence and not simply dismissed as myth. — Wayfarer

It’s extremely generous to say that religion offers a coherent undestanding of 'mind and cosmos'. There is no shortage of roles for people to occupy and there’s no reason that we can’t find them ourselves. The fact that there are so many divergent meta-narratives indicates that they are myths.

Freeloaders take advantage of the cooperative nature of others for personal gain. That doesn't seem selfish to you?

If Frank is too skittish to express his objections maybe some else knows what he’s talking about?

I don't follow.

Basically it's simply that, according to our particular biology, cooperation generally propagates more of our genes than freeloading.

The claim is “there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense” and I gave a reason why it fits our biological strategy for gene propagation. As far as I know, freeloading is common to a wide range of species, if not most or all.

Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense. — Richard Polt, Anything but Human

The reason is simply that we are biologically a social species and therefore cooperation is vital to our survival, or rather the strategy our species has developed for gene propagation.

What’s striking about this graphic is how utterly egocentric it is, with man (even women are merely supporting characters) being the center of heaven, earth, and selfhood. How can these stories of sin and ignorance fit other lifeforms when most don’t even possess a central nervous system?

We’re all chained by ideologies and while some are better than others none are *great*.

So, assuming moral truths are relative to society, the times, the culture, one's idiosyncratic upbringing and experiences, tell me why the rapist ought be judged wrong despite his view it is right? — Hanover

If for no other reason, because the society judges it to be wrong.

Sometimes prayer is effective though. It focuses the will. — frank

The will to effectively dismantle democracy?

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. — Witty

Fixed.

Similar to how the serpent tricked Eve into biting from the apple of knowledge, it also tricked her into telling the first joke.

One day, after the fall but before eviction from paradise, Adam went to see Eve. The snake, seeing a humorous opportunity, slithered up Adam's leg and hid in his crotch as Adam approached Eve.

Seeing a bulge, Eve asked, "Is that a snake under your fig leaf or are you just happy to see me?"

But even without the collective power, even if you've got just one person working for you, you've still got to pay them enough so that they will work for you. So they've got authority over you in that sense. — HardWorker

It depends on the circumstances. Generally speaking, an employer wants the most amount of work for the least amount of money, and the employee wants the most amount of money for the least amount of work. There are many factors that influence how this struggle is worked out.

If the work for an employer doesn't require much skill or particular ability, and there are many candidates without skill or ability available, an employee has no bargaining power because they are easily replaced. If the prevailing society didn't allow you to force them to do the work, as in slavery, the employer could pay just enough whereby an employee would reliably show up to do the work required for the business to run according to plan. In this case, it is possible for employees without skills or ability to gain bargaining power if they can coordinate, as in worker unions. They can also appeal to the state and its institutions, assuming they exist, to support them in their struggle. Unfortunately, government understandably tends to favor capitalists because they have wealth and the power that wealth offers.

Much of religion has been exclusionary even when it strives to be universal. A morality that may work for an insular group can come into conflict with that other groups that either hold different or no religious beliefs. — Fooloso4

If our tradition is good and ultimately true then other ways must be false and bad, and this discrepancy is commonly capitalized on in order to reify tribal identity, and rationalize abuse of the other.

religion can be an impediment to ethics. — Fooloso4

If the role of religion is really to bind people in a tribal group then dependency on the group is essential. Personal development of virtue leads to independence and is therefore at odds with the purpose of religion.

It was a small demonstration of causality, my friend, nothing more. I provoke, you reply.

A snippet from Josiah Royce:

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. — Wayfarer

It strikes me as a rather sad and shallow outlook to see the inclination towards religion as a random predisposition rather than a fundamental need for meaning and connection.

In prayer, "We firmly believe that Donald J Trump is the current and true president of the United States."

My last point was merely that you would comprehend it via written form or by voice, things of a different kind (disparate).

We could have avoided this silliness if you would have whatched the Cats and Dominos video. Cats and dominos are DISPARATE. :lol:

Humans are creatures of habit. Memory is applied to to the mundane making it sacred. Be this a football stadium, church, house or a simple rock.

The story we apply to lived experiences creates a narrative that can be passed on and repeated. Needless to say such a ‘habit’ is kind of useful in terms of evolution as it helps us adapt to the environment and approach it from different angles rather than as a mere set of lifeless variables.

Without value there is nothing there for us to pay attention to. Without a means of applying or removing value we are not anything as stagnation of value is just as dead as having no value at all. — I like sushi

Your meaning is not clear but I will point out that we are all saturated in values, narratives, and meaning. There's no shortage.

A belief is a relation between an individual and a proposition.
— Banno

Searle has me re-thinking this. Rather then a relation, B(a,p), it's better to think in terms of "p" as the content of the belief. That brings out the intentionality of the belief. That is, B(a,p) hides the problems of substitution salva veritate. — Banno

It seems there are two basic kinds of intentions or propositional attitudes in belief, one that is meant to reflect the world (our coherent inner model of it anyway) and one that is meant to influence the world, or rather influence others, in some way. The latter can be outright deception or to express group solidarity, neither of which are good.