That is the subterfuge. — Prishon

There is no subterfuge beacuse I am not excusing my actions and ethics in anything.

Not believing in god is superstition. It is an irrational belief. — Prishon

No. Not believing in God is is just a normal state. I do not need any celestial subterfuge to praise or interpret my life. I want to live it with my own self and responsibility.

That is just a belief. — Prishon

The same belief as believing in God itself :wink:

Because they put themselves in his place.
7m — Prishon

Or just accept there is not God at all and then start believing in humanity as subject responsible of both rights and duties. There is not place because there never been a God previously.

But then they are no gods anymore. — Prishon

Why do they need to be like God? What is your concept of "God"?
Probably the humanists want to live more according to pragmatic life instead of searching forever an unknown answer.

A true humanist should accept gods too as there are a lot of humans who belive in god. — Prishon

It is literally the opposite. Humanism is put ourselves in "God's" place. A true humanist does not need a subterfuge to understand or interpret their beliefs or ideas. They just have another point of view in aspects as morality, ethics, peace, behavior, metaphysics, etc...
For example: if I do an action (buying alcohol when I am not adult) I do not really care about what God could think about me. It is me and my own decisions as Ortega y Gasset explained.

Be careful, a humanist doesn't mean necessarily putting a "human in the top", according to Cambridge dictionary this is the the meaning of humanist:

a person who believes in humanism (= the idea that people do not need a god or religion to satisfy their spiritual and emotional needs)

humanist. Cambridge dictionary.

Artificial societies are like Pakistan. — frank

I don't think Pakistan is an artificial society. What happens today in Asia comes from all the mess the British empire did back in the day mixing all the tribes and ethnics each other. I guess they were forced to create a state because it was impossible to belong to India due to religion and cultural facts and issues. The Nobel prize winner Abdus Salam, explained so well what happened in their construction as a nation. He was born as a "British Indian" but his identity belonged to Punjabi Muslims. Thus, an ethnic which was important to the creation of Pakistan.
So, I guess UK was guilty here of mixing them all in an unique colony when they always were been so different from each other. Result? Civil wars due to territory issues and a big mess when UK left.

That news completely pissed me off... When public workers or representatives are so damn useless they tend to spread their incompetency to others and even make risky actions which put people's or animal's lives in dager. This time was a poor humble dog which are the most honourable animals ever. Australia should punish so hard that NSW council as a pay back for the poor dog!

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

I think furthermore Healthcare or basic needs, the State is responsible for not teaching the citizens how to live properly. It is interesting your example: "pregnant teens." this is an issue which are the states have to deal with. It is not about to provide a good health care service to avoid a pregnancy or even promote "free" abortion due to no consent (or promiscuous) sex but a better biology/ethical/sexual education system.
When a citizen goes to a hospital demanding health care because he or she had irresponsible relationships or took drugs, is also a fail of the State.
But, if you keep promoting a better system, then you will have less situations like those.

Note: I am not want to make negative prejudices. I do understand that probably someone could take drugs or been promiscuous without bad faith. I do believe everybody deserves an opportunity to be cured and rehab. What I want to say is that the state has to be responsible to avoid all these dramatic at all costs.

Investigation of alleged Australian war crimes could be hindered by fall of Afghan government

The long-running Brereton inquiry found “credible information” to implicate 25 current or former Australian Defence Force personnel in the alleged unlawful killing of 39 individuals and the cruel treatment of two others in Afghanistan.

Brereton said that the circumstances of each, were they to be eventually accepted by a jury, would constitute the war crime of murder.

Let's see what is going on with this issue in the following months...

I know another one:

"How the tables have turned" it doesn't mean that literally a table has turned their side but how a situation changed so drastically in comparison to it was before.

No doubt the English, Germans, Swedes, et al are 100% as capable of corruption as anyone else. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. It is true that corruption is along all the countries but at the same time there are some countries which tend to be more corrupt than others. I personally believe that the issue of corruption depends on the educational system.
All of those countries which encourage a better education tend to be "less" corrupt in terms that see it as a misery. On the other hand, we have countries which sadly they are already used to live among corrupt politicians and the common thought is: "well, everybody is corrupt in politics so vote whatever you want"

Favoring friends goes on in the highest circles of business and government everywhere. Why would it not? What distinguishes favoring one's friends from outright corruption may only be how crudely the favoring is done. — Bitter Crank

Yes, you are right and I guess this is one of the basic principles of politics. All the governors or senates have to be ready to make a lot of favors to the lobbies: trade unions, church, urbanism issues, promoters, etc... To keep being in the power or controlling the city/state/town etc...
We are both agree here that these "favors" could be "accepted" if do not affect people that much. But the ambition of the people is so big and they only want more, more and more... Yet at the end of the day, you see that due to their unstoppable ambition the public resources are gone...

You are welcome and thanks for the feedback about the painting :up:

Madrid. This oil was painted by Antonio López in 1994. It is so beautiful despite the city changed a lot since then because there are some towers that do not appear. They way this artist represents urbanism is so accurate. It is weird to express but this paint gives me sensations both of nostalgia and uncertainty because in a big city of Madrid you will not know what will happen but I promise you will remember it forever :flower:

This is the most interesting part! Gypsies were always been migrants walking through different states along the world. In the paper of the European Union, it says that despite the fact they are in EU for centuries they never founded a state or nation by their own, so this is why is difficult to put an order. The same reason that clearly a gypsy from Spain is not equal to a gypsy from Czech Republic.

I am worried if one day they achieve some parts of the State. Imagine these dudes as ministers of justice, economy, taxation, international affairs, etc...

This was so embarrassing... :groan:

I would sound quite platonist but yes, my bet goes to idealism as a theory of conciousness.

Agree! Somehow it was our fault to make them poor and ignorant. But it is now our duty and responsibility the inclusion of these citizens in jobs and institutions. It sounds so difficult but not impossible :up:

Interesting facts Bitter, thanks for sharing it. I guess when someone is an immigrant in a different country from own, the situation would be not so easy to live according to their context and culture. I knew Germans were also a big group of immigrants in USA but I do not know why they tend to hide it because they tend to think being an immigrant or immigration is related to poor people... and Germany is no longer poor as much as back in WWI and WWII right? But it is interesting how they occult their past in this situation.

Here in Europe the situation is so different from yours. It is Germany, Nordic countries and UK which are full of immigration. They tend to be racist even if you are European too but you know we come from the south and this label makes a lot of negative prejudices. It is true that the situation has changed and I bet money that the youngest are more open minded but... We still have two stereotypes: We are lazy and "corrupt" (if corruption would only occur in Mediterranean countries!). For this reason, when we have to negotiate about to the European funds, the North European countries do not have a clear trust on south ones due to these prejudices. Even the PM of Netherlands and Austria wanted to put over Spain an administrator to keep the money clean because they think Spain is full of corruption and is a untrustworthy country... It is so sad when you have to carry with this heaviness...

I don't know if Spanish Gypsies call themselves "Roma" instead of "gitanos", but apparently they call their language "calo" or "cale".

Good question. No, in Spain they do not call themselves as "Roma", they just say "gitano" because sadly they are pretty ignorant to understand and know where they come from... It is true that they do understand "caló" and they even speak this variation of Spanish. For example, pestañi means police in caló.
It is all confused because most of them tend to not go to school neither college so the percentage of illiteracy is so high

Spanish “gitano” from egiptano (“Egyptian”), from Ancient Greek Αἴγυπτος (Aíguptos). — Apollodorus

It is true that here in Spain is used the word "gitano" because of the popular thought that they came from Egypt. Nevertheless, there is also the negative prejudice of the same word. Cervantes, in his books, like Quixote or "Rinconete and Cortadillo" uses the word "gitano" as a really bad context or connotation. Also, I remember that the catholic kings (Ferdinand and Isabella) wanted kick all the gypsies out of Spain as the jews and Muslims, but they did not do it at the end beacuse it was so difficult to search them due to the wandering spirit they have.

I think it would make sense for Gypsies to be called "Gypsies" by others, but to call themselves "Romioi" or "Roma — Apollodorus

Interesting. Here we have now a lot of political parties that are developing tiny laws with the objective of removing the word" gitano" in all the possible areas. These political parties say is a racist and xenophobic word and is more appropriate to start calling them "Romaní"
But I guess this will not fix the big dilemma of their inclusion in society and works.

At one time, Scandinavian (or Norwegian, Swede, Finn, Dane) was not a very positive term in Minnesota — Bitter Crank

Interesting fact! This is why we should include this debate into philosophy of language. Here, the word Scandinavian is so positive. Most of the people tend to think that they are excellent workers and loyal citizens. Also, there is a general thought that those countries are better and more developed than ours. So this is why "Scandinavian" has a positive overall impact on our minds.

'Mexican' gets a positive or negative spin is (probably) related to whether the word-user views Mexican immigration (documented or not) as a positive or negative factor I their community. — Bitter Crank

Yes you are right. Here exactly happens the same but furthermore "Mexican" it is related with the word "Latino" and all the immigration stuff related to this word. It could be positive or negative depending on the people.

No, I am not Roma but it is interesting to me for two reasons: There are a lot of Romas living in Spain so I guess I should be concerned about the issue and probably take care of.
On the other hand, it surprised me the negative etymology of this word. I never thought until today that the negative prejudice of "gypsies" is around the world.

You are right. It should be in the way around. I meant to say "gypsy" but I do not why my paper only appears "gyp" as if it would be ancient English or something.

I promise I was thinking about Kierkegaard as a good example of individual and "being apart of the church" too. K was a very important philosopher, they way he changed the interpretation of the Bible in his books like "the concept of anxiety" impact me even when I am an atheist. It is completely worthy. I remember one phrase of Sartre: "Kierkegaard could have been the most complete philosopher if he wasn't so religious"
I am agree with you. It can be done but... We never had another philosopher as Kierkegaard again...

Another thing I have noticed is that Spaniards in general like to be Spanish and something else at the same time, which is why you hear them saying things like “I am Spanish and Andalusian”. — Apollodorus

Completely. I am from Madrid and I feel more "madrileño" than Spaniard itself. I am really proud of the city I was born and raised and to me it looks like so different from the rest of the state. Probably, others would say or feel the same if they were born in Catalonia, Andalucía, Basque, etc...
So, seeing and speaking about Spain as a whole is very complex or even impossible.

How did they manage to preserve a language that is totally different from other European languages, or from any other language? — Apollodorus

Easy. Their government put a lot of money on the table to make sure basque language is not forgotten. They even use this language as a "weapon" against the Spanish state because for them basque is a sign of freedom and fight against fascism, and then they think Spain is so related to fascim. Every kid in Basque country go to public schools which only teach in basque and English. I remember meeting one girl from Navarre that she didn't know how to speak Spanish. Her parents and school never taught her how to. Interesting right?
I guess Basques and Navarra just hate Spain and Spanish culture or people :lol:

I personally think that a secular educational system would provide open minded people and a great developed society.

I don't think so. Energy is always working, no? But God spends eternity not doing anything. — bert1

:up: :100: excellent!

One can be perfectly and rightly religious just sitting in one's own room, and be religious happily reading the holy scripts, meditating and praying to one's own God. — Corvus

Well... I guess when you want to be baptized you have to pass through a church or institution. You cannot be part of "God's blessing" if a priest does not make the average "ritual" in the church.
Also, most of the people just go to church in Sunday and hear a lecture.
It is weird to see a person who reads the Bible in their own home or room but... Yes I agree with you that these people can exist.

Agreed that of course there are persons who truly believe and care about religion. It is true. But I guess the real target here is the church or episcopal institutions. I totally think that those are simply powerful lobbies that work for politicians (conservative most of them). If you live in a tiny town and somehow you want to be the mayor or council you will need to work or debate with the church in the town because it has a lot of power of influence.
My point here: I respect and understand all the individuals who truly believe in God and they act in this way. On the other hand, I not respect the Church as an entity at all... I guess they should not be part of important things as homosexuality or educational system. This is why it can seen as dangerous by atheist like me.

It is true that all the arguments I wrote are pretty general or opaque. I guess the points of what really wanted these authors I quoted are two: A) free will and free thinking without depending in a subterfuge like God. B) A good criticism of church or all religious entities which somehow seems to be dangerous due to their practices and roles.
We can be agree here with the point that not all religious people are the "same" but sadly, there are a big percentage who act like this way. Most of them feel completely disappointed if you or me critique the image of "God" and the role of religion in schools (which are pretty chaotic and I demand for a secular education system so urgently)
It is interesting when they say they have the right to believe in God. Sure they have! But at the same time I have the right to opposing their dogma then.
There is a big problem since the moment where they try to impose their religious ideas or beliefs. This happens a lot acting the church or religious entities as lobbies which can control the citizens and power. I guess this is why those authors said how dangerous they can be.

Europe looks for solutions as it grapples with catastrophic wildfires

As wildfires ravage the Mediterranean region, many have asked if such blazes are an inescapable part of global warming or whether steps can be taken to reverse the trend.

I think it is both. But one of the things that tears me off is the fact of how some persons can be so evil. They burn down all the forest and vegetation in a period of year where there is a lot heat and lack or rain. Obviously, the fire spreads so quickly around all the Mediterranean making a completely catastrophe.
What I want to share here is the worrying of notice the existe of such bad persons without ethics and moral. I can't even understand what they see as "fun" burning down trees and destroying the environment. I wish if they are catched by police officers they would receive a heavy sentence.

is it just pseudo philosophy? — Ross Campbell

To be honest, I guess it is just pseudo philosophy... Probably sometimes he thinks and talks about this kind of philosophical thought but as a basic thinker. It seems he does not has a deeply knowledge on philosophy.

According to your own personal beliefs, what is the Pure Spiritual Dimenson?

Peace

Si Vîs Pacem, Parâ Bellum
If you want peace, prepare to war.

Good question. I think existentialism is pretty individualistic because the main objective is explain our behaviour when we are not part of the society. I mean, these authors want to contradict the "social" principle of Aristotle (Man is a social animal as you wrote above). Probably, we can consider that existentialism has as a base the person itself and how is the role without being affected by the mass. It is interesting to emphasise that most of the theories and essays about existentialism tend to be pessimistic. Most of them want to explain that life is not worth living at all and when you look deeply at the person it doesn't seem to have motivations to keep living. Even, some of them develop this thoughts explaining the absurdity of life and the anxiety when you try to interact with others.
Kierkegaard:

is an Existentialist because he accepts, as fully as Sartre or Camus, the absurdity of the world. But he does not begin with the postulate of the non-existence of God, but with the principle that nothing in the world, nothing available to sense or reason, provides any knowledge or reason to believe in God. While traditional Christian theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, saw the world as providing evidence of God's existence, and also thought that rational arguments a priori could establish the existence of God, Kierkegaard does not think that this is the case. But Kierkegaard's conclusion about this could just as easily be derived from Sartre's premises. After all, if the world is absurd, and everything we do is absurd anyway, why not do the most absurd thing imaginable? And what could be more absurd than to believe in God? So why not? The atheists don't have any reason to believe in anything else, or really even to disbelieve in that, so we may as well go for it!

Probably you would like to read: Existentialism

In Defense of Bramantip

The Arch of Aristotelian Logic

Understandable then :up: