Total posts: 14,582
-->
@Ramshutu
You are basically dismissing an avenue as irrelevant -
Souls and Consciousness are irrelevant.
based on two things that you state are true,
(1) Souls do not properly "exist" (as Quantifiable phenomena) and
(2) Consciousness does not properly "exist" (as Quantifiable phenomena).
you have no evidence for,
You cannot "disprove" Souls or Consciousness (because they are unfalsifiable ontologically Qualitative personal experiences).
and have as much inherent factual validity as something you just decided to make up.
Well, they have as much inherent (non-factual) validity as a persistent cultural myth normally does.
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
We need to treat the country like our homes, because it is...
I see, so I'm guessing your home has a functioning economy and you print your own money and you have signed peace treaties with your neighbors?
You probably also make people fill out applications months in advance before visiting your home.
Is your home run by a democratically elected leader? Do you have free and fair elections?
Please tell me more about how your home is like a country.
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
I find it mesmerizing that the people with so called "empathy" do not see this problem that they are causing.
FACTORS:
Immigrants came for new opportunities because in Europe, peasants displaced from agriculture and artisans were made jobless from the industrial revolution. Some immigrants received "American Letters" which were encouraging friends and relatives to join them in America.
IMMIGRANTS:
German (escaping economic problems and seeking political freedom), British, Irish (poverty and famine encouraged emigration).
FACTS:
-The Roman Catholic church was the single largest religious body in the United States by 1850.
-Steamships and railroad companies recruited immigrants as customers.
-About 40 percent of the immigrants from the second wave came from Ireland. [LINK]
Another major wave of immigration occurred from around 1815 to 1865. The majority of these newcomers hailed from Northern and Western Europe. Approximately one-third came from Ireland, which experienced a massive famine in the mid-19th century. In the 1840s, almost half of America’s immigrants were from Ireland alone. Typically impoverished, these Irish immigrants settled near their point of arrival in cities along the East Coast. Between 1820 and 1930, some 4.5 million Irish migrated to the United States.
Also in the 19th century, the United States received some 5 million German immigrants. Many of them journeyed to the present-day Midwest to buy farms or congregated in such cities as Milwaukee, St. Louis and Cincinnati. In the national census of 2000, more Americans claimed German ancestry than any other group.
During the mid-1800s, a significant number of Asian immigrants settled in the United States. Lured by news of the California gold rush, some 25,000 Chinese had migrated there by the early 1850s.
The influx of newcomers resulted in anti-immigrant sentiment among certain factions of America’s native-born, predominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestant population. The new arrivals were often seen as unwanted competition for jobs, while many Catholics–especially the Irish–experienced discrimination for their religious beliefs. In the 1850s, the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic American Party (also called the Know-Nothings) tried to severely curb immigration, and even ran a candidate, former U.S. president Millard Fillmore (1800-1874), in the presidential election of 1856.
Following the Civil War, the United States experienced a depression in the 1870s that contributed to a slowdown in immigration. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
Did you notice that the right wing media is not calling them illegal immigrants anymore? They are just calling them MS13 drug dealers and rapists and invaders when referring to the people seeking legal entry. They have phased it out in the media. Watch the crap news tonight and see how they refer to them. It is brainwashing and it is working.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It doesn't matter if loyalists believe the comments were (Qualitatively) "racist" or even (Qualitatively) "offensive".
The point is that the loyalists don't think it's a big deal (the other side says stuff that's just as bad or worse...).
"People shouldn't be so quick to take offense" they say, and yet they all freak out when someone suggests they might be racists.
They sound like precious republican snowflakes.
You can't constantly tell everyone else to "toughen up" and then scream like babies when someone else says something you don't like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
It sounds more like conditional human rights.- Law is, by design, conditional. In the Islamic Tradition, there are two major camps on this issue. The Hanafi camp which deems Inviolability (Ismah) a human right, for humans are essentially dignified by God. Thus, the default interaction between individuals & states is that of peace, regardless of any social contracts or treaties -that's why they call it Human Inviolability (Ismah Adamyyah). The Maliki-Shafii-Hanbali camp deems Inviolability rather a social right, for it is granted by participation in society. In this case, the default interaction between individuals & states is that of non-inviolability unless otherwise established.
Hanafi scholars refuse to control a human religious or spiritual destiny, and refuse to give that right to any human institution. Among the Hudud crimes, those crimes against God, blasphemy is not listed by the Hanafis. Hanafis concluded that blasphemy could not be punished by the state. The state should not be involved in deciding God-human relationships. Rather, the state should be concerned only with the violation of human rights within the jurisdiction of the human affairs and human relationships. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Terrorists are bad. I hope that's something we can all agree on.Being a Muslim does not in-and-of-itself make you a terrorist.Here's your STEEL MAN. [LINK]- Yeah, no! Sam Harris is an ignorant moron with a knack for words. He has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.
Sam Harris does seem slightly more reasonable than Stephen though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
The whole question revolves around your chosen definition of "radical Muslim".Generally I take that to mean terrorist or supporting terrorist tactics.By that standard, approximately 20% of Muslims can be described as "radical" or "extremist".- That looks like an obscenely high number. It's probably more like 0.1%...
Al-Qaeda still commands double-digit support despite its mass killings of Muslims and widespread conspiracy theories that it is a puppet of the CIA and Mossad. Altogether, 13% of Muslims in these countries have a favorable view of Al-Qaeda and 57% have an unfavorable view. [LINK]
I'm not personally convinced that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist groups, but Al-Qaeda seems pretty clear-cut. Let me know if these numbers sound reasonable to you or if you have alternative sources that contradict them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
When will the Christian masses rise up to protect the witches!!!They did, and they won, you clown,
I knew you were a witch apologist!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
"Islam" is made out of people and those people are members of groups that often believe very different things.You have decried me "pointing fingers" at Islam. Where then should I be pointing the finger if not at what I believe is the threat?
Pretending that there is some uniform monolith called "Islam" is ridiculous.
Do you understand that not all Christians believe exactly the same thing?
Do you understand that not all Jews believe exactly the same thing?
Do you understand that not all Buddhists believe exactly the same thing?
It's time to hang up your BROAAD BRUUSH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
This is interesting.You know there are blasphemy laws in -progressive- Europe too right?
What we see in the news is clearly sample biased.
Even where these laws are rarely implemented, they can still lead to fines and imprisonment in some countries, such as Italy and Greece. Moving beyond strict EU borders, into Russia or Turkey, the sentences become harsher and more frequent. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Digging up a 17th century Philosopher and attempting to confound with definition and gobbledygook, doesn't prove a sausage.
Feel free to re-invent the wheel if you wish. This issue has been settled for quite some time.
(IFF) a hypothetical god "exists" (THEN) everything that "exists" must be parts of god.
It's a purely ontological choice. You can't define a god into existence without making everything that exists into god.
The problem here is that "does god exist" is actually a magnificent RED HERRING.
The questions that are obfuscated here are, "is the YHWH (or any other theistic "being") logically coherent" and "is there any compelling evidence that supports the belief in any one of the thousands of historical theistic "beings" over all the others?" and the answers would appear to be a resounding "no" to both.
Spinoza's god is de facto Monism, which is functionally identical to Atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A mechanism of how we do act I can understand, but a mechanism of how we should act sounds odd to me...
It probably looks something like, "what is your goal in life", or "how do you decide on a (provisional) goal?", or "do you try to choose a goal that has the fewest risks while still retaining some reasonable potential for maximal goal achievement?"
Do you think you are currently equipped to predict what you will want at the end of your life?
Created:
Posted in:
if determinism holds then whether we blame or punish wrobg-doers is iteself pre-determined, as is the outcome of this debate. 'Que Sera Sera'.Sorry i'm not very motiated by the 'free will' topic anymore. I'm faking it!
My primary aim is to expose the underlying mechanisms that inform "how we should act".
It appears that most of the identifiable "winners" of recorded history were primarily motivated by unadulterated self-interest (charismatic sociopaths).
The law in particular seems to be a thinly veiled cudgel used to intimidate and destroy the challengers of those privileged to wield it.
When I was young I thought the law was an unfeeling machine that grinds up anyone who crosses its path regardless of individual talent, wealth, or power.
Now I only wish that were true.
Ironically, the concepts of "objectivity" and "freewill" make us complacent slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think the only person I'd trust to be objective about this stuff is a Martian.
Even though we tend to intuitively believe "an objective (disinterested) 3rd party" is best able to provide clear analysis, I have trouble believing any "Martian" (or hypothetical proxy) would be able to understand the subtlety of the problem with enough insight to provide a workable real-world solution without making some appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Ex 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', which resulted in thousands of innocent people suffering horrible executions. Theocracy sucks, whatever the religion.
Good point. When will the Christian masses rise up to protect the witches!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A lesson on the principle of inviolability and the difference between Hanafi and Hanbali jurisprudence doesn't explain why there were days of rioting over a village peasant's alleged passing remark. May be to explain that we need an insight into the 'realpolitics' of the Islamic world, not its theology.
Dumb stuff goes viral. Rioting is often simply disempowered groups blindly grasping for any excuse to lash out and manifest their simmering frustration.
You know, kinda like that Evergreen State College thing.
It is important to clearly distinguish between a proximate cause and a root cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Well stated.- It was never about "extreme" & "non-extreme" interpretation. That's a relative notion anyways. It's about *authoritative* interpretation whatever that might be, not "progressive" bs interpretations either. In this sense, many Muslims have strayed away from the traditional Islam & scholarship into a Protestantist way of approaching religion, either towards superficial sterile interpretation (like Wahabism) or towards liberal western-compliant interpretation. Traditional authority in Islam has been struggling the past century, especially after the fall of the Ottoman Empire & the mass decimation of Madrasah system by the colonialists. You have the Salafis saying, 'we don't need the traditional schools, everyone can interpret the Quran & Hadith, we only follow the Prophet not schools', whereas in reality they are following their own superficial & ignorant understanding instead of following thousands & thousands of highly qualified scholars throughout history accumulating in these schools. Then you have the liberal Muslims who have zero scholarship & zero qualification trying their hardest to bend scripture to comfort to western lifestyle, whatever that might be at the time. Before divorce was allowed in Europe, they were talking about how bad it is. Once it was allowed, they switched to making a case of how good it is. Basically, slaves of the west. I don't blame them, it's very hard to resist the times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
If a person can lose their own inviolability, it doesn't sound very inviolable.
It sounds more like conditional human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I believe Judaism has a similar system.Only authoritative opinions & rulings are acceptable in the religion.
The fragmentary Oral Law passed down from generation to generation was assembled in a collection know as the Mishna.
The Mishna resulted in the creation of the Talmud, which is a commentary on the Mishna. The words of scholars (amoraim) who studied the Mishna, made comments explaining the Oral Law, this became known as the Gemara or Talmud.
When the Jews returned from Babylon, the Torah was the sole authority, but the people needed to understand and apply the meanings to the new situations following the fall of Babylon. The Midrash and Targums helped them to apply the Torah to their lives.
Today, the Hasidic branch of Orthodox Judaism and Kabbala both look to this [the Zohar] book for instruction and guidance. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
That being the case, there is plenty of room to allow so called "extremists" to get away with what they do.- That's the case for non-traditional Islam, like Wahabism -who resemble Protestants in their approach & methodology.
It seems so obvious all of a sudden.
If you want to know what Muslims think, try asking one. If you want to know what Scientologists think, try asking one.
I appreciate your contribution to the conversation.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer.
It's a very simple ontological choice.
Define "exist".
Define "god".
Check for logical compatibility.
Spinoza already proved god exists all the way back in 1665.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It always helps if something makes sense right?
Of course, that's more than fair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
So when you speak to a Hindu or a Muslim or a Scientologist or a Sikh, and they ask you, "why should I leave my traditions behind and adopt yours";What do you tell them?No one has ever asked me that before. I think that might catch me off guard.
Well, it's food for thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you were convinced because what you learned about it "made sense" to you.The writing output of the faith is consistently high quality. I recognize it as what it is, Truth worship.
But you can't remember anything specific?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I don't mean to be disrespectful. That just doesn't make much sense in a Judeo-Christian light. They aren't idolaters.
So when you speak to a Hindu or a Muslim or a Scientologist or a Sikh, and they ask you, "why should I leave my traditions behind and adopt yours";
What do you tell them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We did not create the church from the bible. We wrote the bible.
So, you think its true because your church (people) wrote it?
Why would you choose to join that particular church instead of one of the thousands of other ancient truth seeking traditions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
What makes you think that "the ultimate reality" is better described by "YHWH" than by Brahman for example?I don't think like that.
How do you decide which god is "the one true god" when there are so many to choose from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Not compelling evidence supporting a bridge between "the ultimate reality" and "YHWH".Not compelling what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
"I AM" is not a leap.
What makes you think that "the ultimate reality" is better described by "YHWH" than by Brahman for example?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
You are starting off with the pretense of a character.... so that is all you would be discussing. Is that easier to understand?
I used an example to drive home a point.
Anybody can say "I AM". That statement, by itself, is not compelling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Well, I think you will find if you were to study the writings of the church that we have always understood God as being reality as it truly is, the truth, etc.
That part sounds great.
But what I'm asking is how you get from that to, "this old book is (mostly) true and all the other old books are false"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Simply asserting "I AM" does nothing to strengthen your argument.I mean, you can't have an honest conversation about the nature of our existence or what have you if that's not what you want to talk about to begin with.
Any number of characters, real and imaginary can make the exact same claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In the Greek it is "ειμι ο ων" which translates into English roughly as "I am who Exists".
This sounds a lot like "because I said so".
You're going to need slightly more than a naked assertion to bridge the gap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Yes, that would be excluded among the multitude of ideas not qualifying "I am without [A PARTICULAR THEISTIC] god"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I refuse to join your cult until you explain exactly how you make the astronomical leap from "ultimate reality" to "YHWH"."I AM"
So do you believe Popeye is a god too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I refuse to join your cult until you explain exactly how you make the astronomical leap from "ultimate reality" to "YHWH".I think it would make more sense for you to humble yourself and make a sincere effort to be educated in what it is we actually believe, as we have thousands of years more experience in this matter and the oldest continuous organization on the planet.
I'm all ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
According to your logic, a rock is also "not a police officer" and "not a criminal" and "not a baptist".It's not a fallacy (okay, its a sarcastic fallacy) because its analogous to what you are actually doing. You made the fallacy, comparing two different things and calling them the same. I pointed it out in English so that you can relate.
If we had a specific word for "not a baptist" then it would also apply, EXCEPT FOR THE OBVIOUS FACT that these words only refer to HUMANS.
A Deist is "not a theist" and as such is ALSO an Atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Awesome, we both believe in the same god(s).As you admit God is The Ultimste Reality, you are a theist, because God is THE IS. Get it?
So when are you going to leave the church and throw away your bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
That's true. Namely, "there is no compelling reason to subscribe to any particular ancient rule-book".This isn't a theological supposition.
You're right, I should have left out the word "theological".
A theological supposition would be, "there is a particular god or gods with particular attributes".
Atheism makes no such claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
A rock is not a theist.
A literal Argumentum ad lapidem. [LINK]
Atheism makes only 1 theological supposition.
That's true. Namely, "there is no compelling reason to subscribe to any particular ancient rule-book".
Atheism is not compatible with seeking God.
Atheism is perfectly compatible with seeking any number of non-theistic versions of god(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
According to your understanding.But believing that God exists is the opposite position that God does not exist.
The "problem" isn't, "does some sort of god or gods hypothetically exist or not exist?"
The "problem" is, "how do you know which god(s) and what difference does it make?"
An Atheist is simply "not a theist".
A Deist is also "not a theist".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is there no problem in 'determining the weight'? I think its not worth stating that one should give more credence to something with good evidence than to something with little or no evidence. Well, duh! The problem is evaluting the quality of the evidence.
Bingo. Standards of evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Deism is functionally identical to Atheism.If you believe God exists, you should not be offended when I say atheism is not an intellectually defensible position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The [EASTERN ORTHODOX] Church certainly does not condone the killing of others for their beliefs. It is built into the faith that we prefer to patiently wait in hopes that they are lead to repentance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
As long as you make God anything other than The Ultimate Reality, you prove what I am saying is true.
As a devout Deist, I believe god is the ultimate reality (and necessarily everything else too).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That is good enough reason to be skeptical of atheism. Behind all the sophistry, it is nihilism, pure and simple. The denial of Truth itself.And it stands to reason, and is even proven time and time again that the atheist has noo other argument other than to twist and pervert langusge to conform to their own superstitions. This is the type of arbitrariness that can even be predicted simply on knowing what an atheist is. A nihilist, a denier of truth itself.Their arguments are a matter of what is convenient, what they believe will sound the most convincing to the hearers. They have no real weight.For no argument against God can stand, and at best an atheist can only disprove a little god of their own conception, but not The One True God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The very God that existence itself proves.And they would rather deficate on their ancestors and the billions living today who believe in God in their pursuit of vanity and chaos than admit what is obvious. That God exists or it isn't God.
Straw-men, poisoning the well, ad hominems, and naked assertions.
Why not throw in some special pleading for good measure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
...but they don't question the process of rational inquiry itself.
They question methodology (which is never perfect) but you can't seriously question "rational inquiry itself" without throwing logic out the window.
Do you think it would be fair to say we have faith in logic?
OR do you think it would be more fair to say we have sufficient evidence of logic's efficacy (negating faith altogether)?
Created: