here is some help....god is not a philosophical topic, like magic is not a philosophical topic.
You might find logical contradictions...but magic can be adjusted since it doesn't have follow any rules of our reality. — Nickolasgaspar

:up: :100:

I guess the OP wants a humanistic answer. We can give it a try and define ourselves as well as we define conciousness: we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt. Cogito, ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am"
But in this context we can be helped by the Johari window: Room one is the part of ourselves that we and others see. Room two contains aspects that others see but we are unaware of. Room three is the private space we know but hide from others. Room four is the unconscious part of us that neither ourselves nor others see. (Johari Window)

So what?

When did I dictated religious beliefs?

Your arguments and words sounds like a totalitarian person. You have to be more open minded and try to understand (or have empathy) with other views.

I think having supernatural or divine powers (whoever the entity) are vacuous characteristics. We have to understand and accept that the humans are weak and we have to suffer until our lives end

What is an "ordinary" man according to your thoughts? Because I am atheist, for example

Most Christians would say they follow God, not a priest/pastor/prophet. If they follow a man, then they stand in opposition to the book they claim to rely on. — whollyrolling

Understandable, but I was referring to religion as an overall not Christianity as a specific example

So what's going on here?

Speculation. Something which is so mixed with universe and space since the rich discovered the trick to explode that vast area. It is not new and we will see more projects similar to these ones.

In other words, it would be unfair to compare Abrahamic religions to Buddhism.

Exactly :up: :100:

You are right that Buddhism uses animals as symbolism in their metaphors. Even the elephant is a cult animal in India.
Inside Christianity it is often used the phrase lambs of God. The metaphor is related to the followers of the average priest representing the Christian values. Nevertheless, I see it as an insult because it seems to be a relation to follow some standards without questioning the circumstances

Chronological order: — Agent Smith

:up:

Logical order: — Agent Smith

I think there could not be a "logical order" in terms of categorise religions. All of them are just metaphors which were born by a prophet discussing them. They even tend to share the same principles or basic points such as: God, suffering, uncertainty, life afterwards, etc...
But just from a different interpretation

religion isn't ideology. — SpaceDweller

It could be interpreted as an ideology since the moment when it is based on "faithful" who follow a leader/prophet just for religious ideas or beliefs

Hello Louis, welcome to the forum.

I am agree with your arguments. I want to add that veganism has become since the 2010's an other kind of mass similar to how Ortega y Gasset described it. I think inside veganism there are two sides who win: 1. Some companies or entrepreneurs who see it coming and started developing products just for "vegans". They were so clever and earned so much money playing with the health of the people.
2. Some political movements or lobbies. They are so called as Greens. I remember them just as a tiny group of members. Nevertheless, nowadays they are part of governments. Then, they created it another kind of "social agent" inside politics as well as trade workers or tobacco factories.

That is the aim, my friend — Cartesian trigger-puppets

We can finish here then. You put on the table very good arguments to consider about. Thanks for debating with me in this thread. See you in the future in other thread/topic related to our uncertainties and concerns :up:

Why not just be like me and say that you don’t know one way or another and instead try to work out probabilities one way or another while admitting that each have probability? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

If I do so, this debate ends because it would means we reached an agreement in our controversial discussion

And I don’t think you do either. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

It is true that I do not know it neither. But this is exactly the case I was looking for. Trying to protect (or at least guaranteed) the uncertainty of what the future holds. We both do not know what is the mind of teenager (well, we experienced it but we are in other businesses now) and then, for this reason, we have to take part in the issue and make basic rules to protect them. Probably everything ends up without any problem at all... but who knows? So in this issue we need something to put them on a safe context in the future.
This is like an insurance. Probably you would never experienced something tragic as a fire, but you sign an agreement with the company for whatever could occur in the future.

Laissez-faire: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

[Laissez-faire] is an economic theory from the 18th century that opposed any government intervention in business affairs. The driving principle behind laissez-faire, a French term that translates to "leave alone" (literally, "let you do")

The Holy Land. — whollyrolling

Holy land according to your own religious beliefs. But Jerusalem is in nowadays: One of Israel's Basic Laws, the Jerusalem Law of 1980, refers to "complete and undivided" Jerusalem as the country's capital. All of the institutions of the Israeli government are located within Jerusalem, including the Knesset, the residences of the Prime Minister (Beit Aghion) and President (Beit HaNassi), and the Supreme Court. While Israel's claim to sovereignty over West Jerusalem is more widely accepted by the international community, its claim to sovereignty over East Jerusalem is regarded as illegitimate, and East Jerusalem is consequently recognized by the United Nations as Palestinian territory that is occupied by Israel

You are trying to change the topic or mix it but I will not fall in that trick. Jerusalem is not part of our discussion. The city is even far away from Europe. I just put some examples of how crusades (tended) to finish Muslims just for religious purposes.
You can try to turn the tables but the historical fact is that one: crusades were an invention of Christianity to vanish Muslims or whatever groups different from them

didn't slaughter all the members of any society, and they didn't target just any society with different beliefs, they slaughtered Muslims specifically, — whollyrolling

You, indirectly, assumed that crusades slaughtered some people of a specific community just for religious issues.
In November 1095, at the Council of Clermont in southern France, the Pope called on Western Christians to take up arms to aid the Byzantines and recapture the Holy Land from Muslim control. This marked the beginning of the Crusades. Crusades

If anything, it can be observed that free speech is a threat to Christianity and has quite successfully suppressed it. — whollyrolling

Then, according to your own thoughts, Christianity can only be developed with totalitarianism. As crusades did…

I think you didn’t understand the quote. This is not about believe or not in the hell, heaven, God, etc… and another kind of subterfuge. Christianity (as much as other religious masses) has always been a threat to those people different from them. Back in the day, being an atheist was punished by the law. Saying strong language against Christ was forbidden. The crusades, an army of Christ, killed all the members of a society with different thought or beliefs, etc…
As you see, Christianity could be a threat to free speech or democracy

How is law objective? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Law is objective because it tends to rule all the possible circumstances and actions of the citizens on the state. It doesn’t matter (most of the cases) what was the purpose or thoughts of the citizen not respecting the law.
You cannot plead ignorance for not understanding or knowing the law… this is why is objective.
And yes I am agree that is not necessarily related to ethics

If some people have regrets about showing their bodies on the internet, does that then mean all people have regrets? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I still defend my point of view. It is true that probably not all teenagers would regret show their bodies. But let’s be honest… how can we know if they will regret it or not in the future? This is why I cared about the issue in my arguments of previous comments. A teenager doesn’t care about their circumstances, doesn’t see the effect and cause of their actions and it is not responsible enough.
Maybe they are not regretting showing their body right now but how can we know what would happen in the next 5 years?
There are a big number of people that when they become more older they delete their social media and then they ask if it is possible to erase all their data… conclusion, they end up regretting their past actions as teenagers.
(I know this sounds again so general and there would be someone who wouldn’t care at all. I don’t know what say in this context. Good for him or her)

That young people have restrictions is consistent with my view. It certainly doesn’t mean that all members of a whole set must share a characteristic of the members of its subset. That was my point. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yes, I understood your point. But whether you like it or not, we as members are treated by general terms. You believe that there could be some teenagers with maturity enough to take and understand their own responsibilities and it is unfair being treated as a whole just to being in a specific set.
Well this issue happens for practical purposes. Most of the teenagers (I put them as an example because they are what we are debating about) share some similar circumstances or characteristics of “ adolescence” as well as: A period of Rapid Physical/Biological Changes, has Psychological Repercussions Too, Career-Consciousness, Emotional Conditions, Flight on Imagination, Hobbies and Other Details. These are the facts which defines a teenager as an overall and this is why we put general basic rules on them

Interesting concept. I am trying to find out an example inreal life (if it does exists) but I can't remember anyone.
Anyway, your example gives me nostalgia because gives me the memory of learning basic philosophy at school. I guess we studied a similar example as yours on Aristotle's act and potency: in the context of the physical explanation of movement and, more widely, the metaphysical explanation of becoming.

NOS, I would like to put an example of when a society fails on laissez-faire or laissez-faire fails on society's hopes.

The 1990's were less good for Japan, whose prosperity turned out to be a little too much of a speculative bubble, with a great deal of capital based on inflated real estate values and fraudulent loans. Since almost nobody really believes in laissez-faire anymore, it always takes a long time for the economy to shake stuff like that off.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that 1990's were an economical traumatic event for Japan, they still be the 4th economy of the world... (Quarterly GDP improves in Japan in forth quarter) Is this country an example of social effort no matter the circumstances?

Check into ethical realism / anti-realism, cognitivism /non-cognitivism, etc… — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I will do so. Thanks for the recommendation :up:

whether or not ethical values are objective or subjective, are real or constructed, and even if they can even be true or false in any meaningful sense at all. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

They are both objective and subjective. We make objective laws trying to reinforce the ethical behaviour in a society. Nevertheless, it is also upon the subjectivity of each person on applying and respecting such laws

I see it is difficult to convince you about my arguments. But this is why this forum is interesting and what philosophy stands for.
I understand that using generic examples as youth (as overall) could be weak. But aren't the youth being limited by general restrictions? For example: alcohol, tobacco, drive licence, getting married, etc... all of those example are sent to general citizens with a specific age (thus, teenagers).
According to the restrictions we put on young people we can say that the reason is their lack of "maturity". For this reason, I personally think that we should connect it with other examples or real life issues as the use of internet. I still think it could be a problem to them doesn't matter the circumstances or arguments because the law and the State as public orders should protect the citizens in a weak position.
Whenever a young boy or girl shows so much data of him/her than needed it is causing a big problem that authorities should take part of.
Furthermore, if it is unethical or not as we both are debating, I guess it even breaks the law in some countries.

If you say I should not treat (in general terms) the youth with such limitations. Should you be able to make an enterprise or agreements with them? In this examples we can see if they are mature enough.

Is that the conclusion or would you like to change it? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yes I would like to change it.
I gave another try trying to be more specific in the comment of above.

This is just cleaned up. I could condense it further or omit some unnecessary information. Something like this:

P1) If people regret showing their bodies on the internet when they were young, then people showing their bodies on the internet is unethical.

P2) People regret showing their bodies on the internet.

C) Therefore, people showing their bodies on the internet is unethical. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Those premises are clearly better than mines. I just did my best to put some arguments of why I was seeing (and I still see) unethical show the bodies or so much data around the internet.
Whatever how we are debating I guess we are getting to the same point here: showing our body is unethical.
Nevertheless, I see you are complaining that my premise of "Youth" is not good enough because is a very general term and I was not very concise. Let me try it again:

P1) Teenagers which ages are between 14 and 18 tend to show their bodies through internet without responsibility being unethical in their actions.

P2) Then, due to their lack of consideration they commit actions that, furthermore of being unethical, would regret in the future because they are innocent right now.

Conclusion: Therefore, showing bodies by Teenagers between 14 and 18 years old are both unethical and dangerous to them.

It is not necessarily to find answers to your existence. I guess the issue is more simplistic than you really think. We do exist and we have awareness. These facts follow us in uncertainty we belong to. You are free to find some answers on God but I do not want to find anyone. I guess I am simplistic

You asked me why I was hiding from something... Then I answered you. If you do not like my answers or arguments it is fine but typing random messages it is quite weird...

If you don't fear the gods (you absolutely don't have to fear them) then why you still hide from them? — Hillary

Again, I don’t need to hide from anything. God is not my concern neither my answers to my problems.

You are the one taking subterfuge. — Hillary

I don’t need any subterfuge because I don’t fear neither concern anything. I just assumed the suffering of this life we walk through. I have other view of the traditional Western values. You can call me a pessimistic or a hyper-dramatic romanticized
:death: :flower:
And what I envied most about him was that he managed to reach the end of his life without the slightest conscience of being burdened with a special individuality or sense of individual mission like mine. This sense of individuality robbed my life of its symbolism, that is to say, or its power to serve, like Tsurukawa’s, as a metaphor for something outside itself; accordingly it deprived me of the feelings of life’s extensity and solidarity, and it became the source of that sense of solitude which pursued me indefinitely. It was strange. I did not even have any feeling of solidarity with nothingness. - Yukio Mishima.

Why he is an atheist? He likes fooling himself?

I am fool too
1. Please respect others who don't follow your religious path
2. Fooling because he doesn't need an infantile subterfuge to hideaway on?

Isn't it? — frank

Absolutely.

What's that mean? — frank

It means that they are not agree on how European Union works. They see the institution as pure capitalists defending the interests of a few. So, they question if European Union really stands for human rights and class workers. Their euroscepticism is just a criticism of the modern era and I don't think it is big as much as Brexit

I think it depends on each country's circumstances. At least where I live extreme left represents or stands for avoiding monarchy, banks, riches and catholic church. In an economical way they want to increase the taxes on the wealthiest companies and make a fairer distribution. In an educational program, they stand for public schools instead private. They also defend the rights of LGTBIQ and feminism.
Interesting to point out that some of them feel kind of euroskeptic.

I'm told that consciousness is the key player in the whole process.

Definitely, it is! :up: