@Enrique, excellent post!

I take it you do not see a distinction between being sentenced to death and being prevented from living forever. — Fooloso4

I didn't/I don't. The two are equivalent. In both cases the persons in question die, oui?

God does not want man to become gods. — Fooloso4

:up: Like the tower of Babel story shows, God doesn't want us anywhere near Him and that includes paradise. Why then are we trying to go there by being (so) good? We would be unwelcome guests for sure.

I have a theory: Morality is, I believe, an unsolvable puzzle and God knows, very well, that humans will never get to the bottom of what good and evil are. Hence, he puts down one condition for citizenship in his kingdom of heaven: be moral, avoid immorality. It's like the time when Buddha sent Kisa Gotami to fetch him some mustard from a house that has not known death if he is to resurrect her dead son; she couldn't of course for it was an impossible task. :chin: :sad:

We are not born evil. We can rule over sin. — Fooloso4

How do you know we're not born evil? Are we not ignorant as babes, isn't ignorance (avidya) the prime evil? I'm doing a mashup of religions.

It's merely the result of being convicted of more than one crime, for each of which a sentence is imposed. So, you sometimes hear of sentences being served concurrently, and sometimes you hear of them being served consecutively. Consecutive sentences can add up to any number of years, and sometimes have no practical effect — Ciceronianus

Thanks for edifying me on the matter.

I don't see the logic of serving concurrent sentences though. Does it mean if I kill two people, I get only one life sentence, assuming they don't send me to the gallows? I hope the judicial system is as merciful as that. :pray:

It doesn't establish that those sentenced to death are all evil, or that those who are evil are all sentenced to death. — Ciceronianus

A fine point. My reply would be that the intent of the law is to put extremely evil people to death. This, I suppose, explaining why I drew the conclusion that those who have been executed are really bad people. Everybody makes mistakes. Can we afford to in the case of the death penalty?

Christians will call this a transgression to God (See Luther's Smallcald Articles). The evil here is qualified in this way.
Also, this is affirming the consequent, a fallacy in logic. You are saying we are all sentenced to death BECAUSE we are evil: if you are evil you will be sentenced to death, we are sentenced to death; therefore we are evil. Is this your thinking? — Constance

An argument from analogy doesn't have anything to do with modus ponens last I checked. I could be wrong and, now that I think of it, your point seems to make complete sense. Please sort it out and lemme know if that's not too much trouble. Thanks.

They were sentenced to immortality prior to being sentenced to death — InvoluntaryDecorum

Isn't that like saying someone was sent on an all-paid vacation to the Bahamas as a disciplinary measure? :chin:

Could immoratlity be a form of punishment? Sisyphus comes to mind - make an immortal's life a pointless one and s/he will beg for death!

Tithonus was granted immortality, but not eternal youth! "What do you want?" isn't a question that can be answered carelessly. Reminds of genies & the regular 3 wishss they grant (I'm reading The Arabian Nights).

Yep, seems sound to me. There's no need to invoke Christianity, however. One can arrive at the conclusion by reason alone, as I have done. — Bartricks

:up:

The rest of your post, par excellence!

And pray tell, friend, what was the deed that is regarded as original sin? — Garrett Travers

Disobedience is the standard answer, compounded by knowledge (of good and evil). A double sin. See Fooloso4's post (vide supra).

Sure, why not? — Garrett Travers

It was a movie reference. You'll need to watch the movie to get it. A minor point (only) I thought, but if you really look at, quite significant. God seems certain we'll never suss out ethics and He's using that against us - how can we enter heaven when the condition is that we have to be good, the very thing we seem to be in total darkness about/on? God's a very shrewd bloke, devilishly clever. En garde, peeps!

@Enrique Good post!

In a boat built for 12 they would take on another 32. Bernie says, 'We all live or we all die.'

. Human folly at its best, perhaps worst!

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or...the one. — Spock/Kirk (Star Trek)

Here's what separates genius from intelligence:

Upon being told mulgere hircum (milk a male goat), the intelligent one exclaims "male goats don't produce milk!" and begins to laugh hysterically. A genius, on the other hand, quitely fetches a pail and proceeds to milk the male goat. :grin:

Engage in dialogue. Like the "Turing Test" or "Chinese Room", if we dialogue like we understand one other, then for all practical purposes we do understand one another. :smirk: Of course, Beckett says otherwise, but... — 180 Proof

Rule following paradox (re Ludwig Wittgentein)? The pattern, though it extends for both us, it does so divergently - soon we'll experience a break down in communications as my rule and yours, up until now in agreement, go their separate ways.

What does Beckett say?

Have nukes. — ssu

It's a MAD, MAD world! :up:

Magick seems to be a combination of

1. Dexterity (all body parts, not just the hands).
2. Technoloogy (gadgets, machines, prosthetic arms, etc.).

As technology advances, the need for training/apprenticeship to become a magician becomes unnecessary; anyone with the right button-operable gadget can create illusions that even veteran conjurers can't.

N. B. What's the difference between so-called religious miracles and magick? It all boils down to what the audience is being told: if they're informed that it's all an elaborate trick, it's magick and if not, an attempt is made to subscribe the events to the supernatural, it's a miracle.

Isn't it time for Jesus to admit that he was a magician and not a divine being?

Lesson to be learned from the Nato-Russia standoff: An extremely effective way to prevent all-out war, by extension violence of any kind, is to make it a really expensive affair (economic sanctions, even just threats thereof, seem to work like a charm). Money (profits/losses) is a universal language. I wonder what Leibniz, who wanted to invent a logical language (calculemus) that could solve the world's problems and finally establish pax mundi, would've said about buying peace?

mortality is both a blessing and a curse. — Fooloso4

True!

The rest of your post: Muddled, but that's human! Who wants to be Mr. Spock? Anyone?

When Khaled refers to "it", Khaled means Bartricks. — god must be atheist

:rofl: No offense Bartricks.

:smile:

I wouldn’t say wholly responsible for any calamity that befalls me — Possibility

I took it a little too far. Thanks.

Mishaps happen — Possibility

You mean shit happens! You can say that again.

how often do those we love bear the brunt [...] — Possibility

Too often. :sad:

Acknowledging our own part in the mishap - our lack of awareness, consideration or care - should eliminate the majority of blame and therefore the anger directed towards others, but it often compounds the anger instead — Possibility

Not necessarily, but :ok:

unlikely to reduce future instances — Possibility

Nature's bloodlust!

Better to direct it towards increasing our capacity for awareness, consideration or care in future situations. — Possibility

Sound advice!

Sure it works for you, otherwise I couldn't read or respond to your posts. — 180 Proof

:chin: That doesn't make sense to me. How do I know you're not misreading me or, more accurately, projecting your own thoughts on my text? Pareidolia/Apophenia? :grin:

Therefore, we are not innocent. — Bartricks

Therefore we are not creations of God. — Bartricks

Deduction at its best.

Just wondering though, wouldn't it be easier (on our egos among other things) to simply give up the idea of God, come to terms with the Sky Father being merely a figment of our imagination, a sign of our desperation?

Have fun! — ZzzoneiroCosm

I hope I still remember how. The last time I had fun was when I was 12. :sad:

The notion of hypothetical consent, its invalidity to be precise, would need to refute the position that any person, compos mentis, given the info available (premises) would, upon applying a valid argument form to the info, would arrive at the exact same conclusion as anyone would.

Have you noticed, perhaps it's just me, how the so-called laws of nature aren't really life-friendly or well-being oriented. If morality were actually woven into the fabric of reality, it should've been impossible to drive a dagger into someone's chest, or for a bullet to blow somebody's brains out.

God, as having created our universe, seems to have fashioned it in a way that evil is permissible. What does that tell you about divine command theory?

It's a "myth" that works. — 180 Proof

Are you sure about that? It never works for me and I daresay there are others like me who're in the same boat so to speak.

Divine command theory is basically dumping the (hard) work of reasoning for yourself on to an authority figure, here God.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy if, for instance, said authority is defective in some way. God's perfect, He doesn't make mistakes and if, perchance, one has any misgivings regarding a divine command, it can only imply our inability to comprehend true/real goodness. Sounds to me like the emperor has no clothes tale: The emperor is naked I tell you! No, imbecile, your stupidity and lowly rank prevents you from seeing the emperor's splendid attire! :grin:

Conspiracy theory, oui?

@180 Proof

One can't decide what to think, but we can, it seems, decide whether to act out our/those thoughts or not. There seems to be a filter of sorts (between thoughts and actions) and the "mesh" that does the actual filtering is made up of, inter alia, our values. Some of us have good quality "meshes", others have broken ones, some don't have one at all.

Is the logical theory that we're capable of step by step linear reasoning, moving from some propositions (premises) to other propositions (conclusions), a myth?

We can let ourselves know that we don't (fully) comprehend God by the existence of apophatic theology, the way of negation/denial (via negativa). It seems we're more certain of what/who God is not than what/who God is. The Hindus have a similar, let's just agree, technique known as neti neti (not this, not that).

Is it proper to say that I know/grasp/comprehend x if all I "know" is what x is not? Have you, for instance, come across a book on Mars that goes "Mars is neither an apple nor a dog. Mars is not green. Mars is not 3 million cubic meters in volume, etc."?

It's that old chestnut that people are drawn to religions because of the fear of death and/or meaninglessness. About ten years ago I asked a Catholic convert friend of mine about why they did it. A Suchet style answer: "I couldn't allow myself to accept that this life is all we have." It's a pity when such self-knowledge isn't applied more acutely. I'd opt for Camus over Catholicism. — Tom Storm

Nuance and subtlety, not my strong suit. There's a difference between "I'm shit scared of death & dying" and "there's got to be more to life than just this", both being reasons for religiosity. One is clear enough - dread (of nonexistence/death) - the other is not so obvious - hope & dissatisfaction (with life as it appears, very/too physical).

blame — L'éléphant

blame — Joshs

Speaking from my own personal experiences, I'd say blame only enters the picture in the presence of a free agency (someone who's free to act as s/he chooses and thus is responsible/culpable).

Let me relate two kinds of incidents in our lives:

1. You've parked your car under a tree. You go do whatever it is that you had to. After a coupla hours, you return only to find that a branch has broken and has smashed your hood & windscreen. You fly off the handle, but there's no one to point a finger at i.e. there's literally no one to blame. If you do, like most of us, still feel the need to blame someone, anyone, you blame yourself for having lacked the sense to foresee the falling branch (it is after all a possibility, no matter how improbable, that you should have thought about). Then there's always your luck you could hold responsible for your troubles. The bottom line is, in such circumstances, it's either you (your idiocy) OR (bad) luck.

2. Someone drives carelessly and rams his/her vehicle into your car. This person is what I would call a free agency (s/he had a choice and still...). In such cases, you blame the person/persons that injured you or damaged your property.

Thus, on the whole, there are 3 blameworthy individuals.
1. Yourself [your stupidity to be precise]
2. Displeased Fortuna [your (bad) luck]
3. Other people [a free agency]

No reason why all 3 shouldn't work in concert to spoil your day, week, month, year, so on.

What's to note, nevertheless, is that if you'd been (more) careful, if you'd thought things through, if you'd been just that much more wiser, you could've easily eliminated the uncontrollable variables in the anger-blame equation (Fortuna & other people) and that empowers you (you're in charge of your life, emotions, etc.), but at the same time, that makes you responsible for any calamity that befalls you (you yourself are to blame for your mishaps, small & big).

No. One, however, has a better chance of reducing misery (i.e. frustrations, dissatisfactions, self-deceptions) than not. — 180 Proof

:up:

I think the function of philosophical reflection is to cultivate effortless escapes from "escapism" (i.e. ego-fantasy) as a way of — 180 Proof

:up:

Why is it people are so susceptible to ego-fantasy? The other day, I watched a David Suchet (British actor from Agatha's Poirot TV series) interview and his reason for being religious was that he - his mind & heart - just couldn't accept that this (physical reality) is all there is, there has to be more. He did some soul-searching and found solace in the catholic faith. Is this an ego-fantasy, is this what we'd call being in denial (of truth/facts)? Does this underpin our escapist psychology?

I don't think there's any shame in anger, one doesn't become less of a person if one loses one's temper. Ire is as natural to emotions as sneezing is to noses.

If there's a drawback to rage, it is that judgment is hampered and when that happens, as we all know, things begin to spiral out of control.

Is it better to nip it in the bud, or learn to express in a way that's gentlemanly, if you catch my drift. In a way, it's like a nuclear reaction - yes we have atomic weapons that can level entire cities, but we also have relatively safe nuclear power plants.

I would guess the Father is the past, the ground of being, the Son is the present, as immediate experience is only interpretable by cognition through the Logos (Christ), and the Spirit would be the future, where hope resides. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

Isn't avoiding / striving against this ↪180 Proof not a prescription for eudaimonia? — 180 Proof

Yep, it is. How could I have missed that?!

How did you put it? Align expectations with reality and all will be well, oui?

If that doesn't work, one can always resort to some form of escapism/fantasy, no?

From a Darwinian perspective, one's objective is to survive; how one does it is up to one! There are rules, values, standards, but if one can find a loophole and jump through it, and if one is fortunate enough to do this when no one's looking, amen to that! I'm beginning to sound like a crook now! Crooks, cheats, bucaneers, what else are we? We didn't climb to the top of the food chain by playing fair now did we?

You've quoted the value I've plugged into Socrates' "good life" variable. I suppose mine is more of a criterion (which, of course, can be unpacked further but in this context doesn't need to be) than a "definition". — 180 Proof

I half-expected you tor reply eudaimonia which I understand is to flourish. Is the good life not eudaimonia?

What about someone driven to suicide by bullying and harassment or bad parenting? — Andrew4Handel

No comment!

You don't actual have to strike a fatal blow to be accused of causing or arranging a persons death. — Andrew4Handel

Just "contribute" in your own little way, yes!

Americans like to say guns don't kill people people kill people. make of that what you will. — Andrew4Handel

A gun merely increases the number of successful attempts (at offing someone).

1. Life + Agent Smith = Happiness + Agent Smith

2. Life + Agent Smith = Happiness + Agent Smith (Cancel Agent Smith who appears in both sides of the equation)

3. Life = Happiness [The anti-Buddha and her (gotta be a woman, right) 1^st anti-Noble Truth]

Yes, been mulling over this a while. Suicide, for instance, give it some thought, isn't actually suicide in the sense a person killed himself/herself. Any evidence? Well, someone can murder you and make it look like suicide; see?

Also, I don't believe anyone dies of "old age".

:grin: I'm going to end my own life. :wink: :wink: nudge, nudge! To further complicate my passing, I'm old enough to die of (ahem, koff, koff) "natural causes" :grin:

Well, I think, according to most 'lovers (seekers) of wisdom', to engage in incorrigibly foolish (maladaptive) conduct and/or relationships is demonstrably "a wrong way to live". — 180 Proof

:up: Yet, beware of the man/woman who never makes mistakes, eh? I don't know why I feel like that. Some say having a smart person on a team saves a lot of trouble, others would like to surround themselves with idiots, no matter what the cost. I guess people are looking for different things in people, explaining this rather intriguing puzzle.

What about Socrates' the good life? Do we have a definition to work with here or is it left (purposefully) undefined?

Speaking for myself, if life resembles theater as Shakespeare thought, I've been given the worst role possible (the uncredited stunt double). :lol:

Imagine ol' Sisyphus happy, Smith. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Sisyphus reminds me of how poor I'm at reading. I start at the beginning of a sentence, then word by word I work my way to the end. Then I realize I didn't understand the sentence. Back to square one I go. This is called rereading, a bad habit according to reading experts and indicates poor concentration.

May be Sisyphus has severe ADHD and so has to, well, "read" life again and again, ad infinitum to finally comprehend what life is all about. :grin:

For the sake of discussion, I think it's reasonable to claim 'to the degree a philosophy is fundamentally disembodied (immaterial) and/or transcendent (essentialist), it functions as a religion'. Spinoza has it right (reread his quote in my first post above) that philosophy is first and foremost an internal critique of its own religiousity (re: the disembodied, the transcendent), which, as a consequence, undermines any rational pretenses for justifying religious ideas and practices (e.g. theology, theodicy, theocracy). — 180 Proof

:clap: Self-criticism. Feeling blue lately, o philosopher true?

Warning: Philosophizing is injurious to health.

Kant's idea:

1. The thing in itself (noumenon)
2. The perceiver/subject/consciousness.

The two interact (perception/phenomenon)

Question: Is it possible for perceptions/phenomena to occur in the absence of noumena (hallucinations). Idealism! There's nothing out there, it's all in our heads.

The existence of noumena is uncertain; its existence can't be confirmed and so we're left studying/analyzing appearances (phenomena).

Question: How would we prove/disprove that noumena and phenomena are the same thing! Impossible? It seems a bit extravagant and paranoid to hold that noumena and phenomena differ.

Ok, so we have a fairly good handle on the philosophy in religion. What of religion in philosophy or to what degree is philosophy religion?

Ok, so god as something a greater than which cannot be conceived. Fine. — Banno

God: That than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Nobody can win. The game has been rigged. — god must be atheist

The house (always) wins! Re: Pascal's wager.

what you claim is precisely what religion denies of its followers. — god must be atheist

So, all the arguments for God's existence are rationalityization at its best, perhaps worst.