My two cents worth...

The request doesn't seem to be for a debate thread, but for a thread that accepts certain studies as authorative so that you can learn along with like minded folks what those authorities state and perhaps imply might be in the future.

As in, if you were taking a course on Kant, your task would be to learn what he said, perhaps realize some inconsistencies, but being disallowed outright rejection and questioning of his project.

Or, another analogy, Sunday school class is set aside to extract the wisdom from the Scripture, not to challenge the very validity of it.

So, if I've charecized the inquiry correctly enough, i turn to our guidelines. It says nothing about an OP being necessarily phrased as a debate, but it does say this:

"Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having."

So, to open the discussion...

Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule?

Trump isn't ending democracy. He's dismantling every policy and institution he disagrees with with reckless abandon, precisely as his supporters want him to do.

His supporters comprise the majority. Such is democracy. To the victors go the spoils.

"Elections have consequences" as Obama noted.

I don't understand what you mean by eternal being and state. If the act of creation is necessary then the scenario in which the existence of God and the act of creation lay at the same point is feasible otherwise we are dealing with a scenario in which God as an agent is able to not create and this means that there is a situation in which only God exists. — MoK

This is your point:

Let us suppose that God creates the universe on 2/11/25 at 3:22 p.m. If God made that decision to create at 3:21 p.m., you argue that God changed from 3:20 to 3:21. At 3:20, his mind was clear of any decision. At 3:21, his mind had a decision within it. God therefore changed from a non-decision making thing to a decision making thing, and so God changed between 3:20 and 3:21.

This is my point:

God's decision to create the universe on 2/11/25 at 3:22 p.m. has always been a part of God and when it occurred on that date and time, nothing changed in God. It was always his decision within him. The decision didn't occur at 3:21. It was always there, forever and ever, just like everything else about God.

P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state — MoK

You are assuming that a decision making process must occur that didn't previously exist and then concluding what you've assumed, which is that the entity went from State A to State B. That is, if you assume that God is in the undecided State A at T-1 and then he moves to the decided State B at T-2, then you're assuming your conclusion, which is that there is a change from A to B from T1 to T2 and thus the entity is different and changed.

If you assume though that the eternal being God is so constructed at his inception that he will decide at T2 to create the universe, then nothing changes in God over time. Every instance of behavior of God could be posited to exist eternally within God within his initial constitution and he would not be changing.

If you're going to creatively construct what you believe is the constitution of God, it seems easy enough to create it however you want it to be.

Greatest dance video ever.

What I'm saying is that in order for there to be something good, there must be something. If there is nothing, there is no good, but that doesn't necessitate it being bad. It just means the weight of nothingness is undefined, but not that it's zero. To be zero presumes a scale, but we presume no scale in nothingness.

And let's not pretend we have a conceptual grasp of nothingness. We must impart existence upon any concept for any understanding of it, including the concept of nothingness.

To the question of is something better than nothing, I can't evaluate the something universe from the nothing universe to compare them.

All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim

If the answer is that it would good for there to be no existence and bad for there to be existence, then the best scenario would be for there to be no good because once you eliminate all existence, you eliminate good too.

And this is just to draw out the absurdity of suggesting nothingness can have a value, as if there can be an evaluator or evaluation system in an otherwise empty void.

If you eliminate all things to be measured, you also eliminate the measuring sticks.

Ok. And what of a tradition which finds Justin Bieber referenced throughout the entire Bible? My question is: Are all interpretations equally valid/equally grounded in a reasonable interpretation of Scripture? Scripture that was written in a certain time and place. — BitconnectCarlos

The eating of the apple as being the impetus for God to cause Mary's immaculate impregnation so she could give birth to a messiah to rid mankind of all its inherented sin is no more or less a better interpretation than positing it means Justin Beiber is God if one thinks the text is what is to be referred to for interpretation.

But not to pick in Christianity, Jewish midrashim are stories built seemingly from scratch in efforts to interpret biblical passages.

https://jewishcurrents.org/midrash-the-stories-we-tell

And not to pick on religion. Did you know that for 50 years, the following meant that a woman had diminishing rights to abortion based upon a trimester framework?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

We establish an authority and then we attribute our norms to that authority.

Job never says that God is unjust or bad for the misfortune that befell him. He suffers acceptably. — BitconnectCarlos

That is obviously your narrative, but not the only one that would flow from that.

Judaism rejects the corporeality of God. Regarding whether God makes verbal utterances we'd need to go the text on that one. I'm fairly certain he's described in the Bible as having a voice and I've never heard of any branch officially denying that he makes verbal utterances but I could be wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

You only go to the text to search for literal meaning if you think that literal meaning of the text is truth. Liberal traditions view the text as allegorical and orthoodox traditions consider many passages as entirely metaphorical. Orthodox Jews, for example, reject the notion that God speaks in a literal sense (because he has no vocal cords, for example) even though the text references speaking, and they do not consider the written text as a stand alone single source document of authority unimpacted by oral tradition.

See:

"Maimonides thus contends that even the greatest of all prophets, Moses, through whose agency Israel received the Torah and the mitzvot, did not really hear a voice speaking to him in the inner sanctum of the miškān. The Torah is not to be taken literally when it speaks of a divine voice emanating from between two cherubs on the ark cover. The notion of a talking God is – for the enlightened – as preposterous as the idea of a God possessing form or composed of matter."

https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-lord-spoke-to-moses-does-god-speak#:~:text=Maimonides%20thus%20contends%20that%20even,inner%20sanctum%20of%20the%20mi%C5%A1k%C4%81n.

The meaning of certain passages varies significantly depending upon tradition. Christianity finds foreshadowing and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible, where other traditions do not.

The point here isn't to reject any one particular interpretation of the Bible, but it's to point out that anyone who says "this is what the Bible means" is asserting an ideology, even if that ideology is that Bible is just an over-rated meandering of stories.

I meant epistemic humility, as demonstrated through the book of Job. — BitconnectCarlos

Is this humility of understanding peculiar to the Bible or is something that you'd assert exists with any ancient writing? Claiming that the Bible is shrouded in some degree of mystery incapable of full understanding suggests an ideological bent toward the divine nature of the book, which would be a religious assertion particular to certain traditions.

But to judge God is a different matter. — BitconnectCarlos

Job 9:19 to 9:24.

19 If it is a matter of strength, [God] is mighty!
And if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him?
20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me;
if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.
21 “Although I am blameless,
I have no concern for myself;
I despise my own life.
22 It is all the same; that is why I say,
‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’
23 When a scourgel brings sudden death,
he mocks the despair of the innocent.
24 When a land falls into the hands of the wicked,
he blindfolds its judges.
If it is not he, then who is it?"

Psalm of David, 22:1:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?

God provides divine revelation in the bible that we can all work with. E.g. he interacts directly with Moses and reveals things to him. — BitconnectCarlos

You'll have to define "directly." The text references God speaking to Moses, but not all traditions accept that God actually speaks in a physical sense, particularly Orthodox Judaism that rejects any suggestion that God is corporeal and actually speaks.

So the biblical worldview requires humility. — BitconnectCarlos

You'll have to define "humility" here. The Christian concept of humility that centers around meekness and the fallen state of the soul is very different from Judaic concepts of humility which do not hold meekness a virtue nor that the soul of man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation.

My point isn't really though just to get into a back and forth about what the Bible says, but it's just to point out that it means very different things to different people and its meaning and use has changed over time. Our use of the Bible today as a definitive documentation of social norms is not the way it has always been used, but is a product of societal decisions and changes.

It's for that reason I have a problem when someone wants to declare its universal, non-contextualized meaning. It means different things to different traditions, and I understand each tradition wants to declare theirs correct, but I don't think there's a solid basis for that.

The basic idea of the Daoists was to enable people to realize that, since human life is really only a small part of a larger process of nature, the only human actions which ultimately make sense are those which are in accord with the flow of Nature — Gnomon

I don't understand this. The naturalistic fallacy (which this position seems to celebrate) holds it's a fallacy to equate is with ought, as in, it must be the way things ought to be because that's the way things are. In order to avoid the truism that everything is moral because everything is as it is, you must position something outside of nature, which I assume are humans. That is, unless you grant that a human can act unnaturally, you can't designate his behavior as immoral because it is by definition in accordance with nature. If we go down that road, then we've granted special status to humans and we've apparently given them free will. If we're now going to judge people based upon how they otherwise interrupt nature, then I wonder why have humans at all. Wouldn't the world be better off without the potentially disrupting influence? But then if you say that humans are obligated to facilitate the flow of nature, that creates the odd suggestion that nature is behaving more naturally when unnatural humans are there to assist.

My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out.

God, like the universe and all that occurs within it, is beyond our understanding. God is understood as being both transcendent and immanent. A "God" that falls within our rational understanding would be an act of hubris effectively placing ourselves as judges and evaluators of God. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't know that it follows that an understanding of something dictates that we be judges of that thing. I also don't know why a religion couldn't hold that humans have the ability to understand God. I'm not saying your views aren't valid, but I don't think your description of religion is necessary. If you're going to allow that religion be beyond empirical and rational discovery, you've sort of opened the door to the concept of us each having our personal religion else how else do you intend to persuade me to your position?

That is, I fully accept that there are those who reject religion outright and would not find any greater happiness turning their brains off to scientific reasons just due to the fact that they're not wired that way. It's for that reason that I find proselytizing offensive, as it fails to take seriously someone else's justified rejection of that viewpoint.

I'd also admit as well that my objections to proselytizing are rooted in my religion, which forbids it and openly discourages conversion to it. This admission is just to state the obvious, which is that social norms are learned and gathered from the community at large, which none of us have ever avoided, regardless of how free thinking you might be. Everyone has drunk the Kool-aid. I advocate for choosing the flavor that you like best.

"My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

Isn't this the whole trinity problem, as in how can one thing be three things at the same time? If you have truly seperate things, you have polytheism, which I think Christianity wants to deny, except for the Mormons, who just go ahead and accept the polytheism.

It is entirely possible that the theology just doesn't make sense at a basic level, which is a problem if you place a high value on making sense. I don't say that sarcastically because it is the case that (1) many people do get great fulfillment through Christianity, and (2) Christianity doesn't make sense at a basic logical level and it is also based upon a false factual narrative. This isn't me picking on Christianity. I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions.

Living life based upon the dictates of scientific reason, empirically verified information, and logical truth is a personal choice, and it's not necessarily the only good choice.

My point is simply that the passage you have located that gives you trouble is doubtfully going to be the only one, and the obvious conclusion you will be forced to reach is that the hodgepodge of beliefs that have been handed down since antiquity will not be consistent, will be obviously false, and some will not make any logical sense based upon an analysis. The question is what do you do now that you've realized the obvious?

Doesn't 1.1 come after 1 but before 2?

I'm reading "How the Bible Became Holy." As in how did it find itself as a book that dictates our social norms and moral beliefs.

Spoiler alert: It's not because God wrote it.

Chaotic organ, off the wall lyrics. Psychedelic absurdity at its finest.

"The mansion is warm, at the top of the hill
Rich are the rooms and the comforts there
Red are the arms of luxuriant chairs
And you won't know a thing 'till you get inside
Dead president's corpse in the driver's car
The engine runs on glue and tar
Come on along, not goin' very far
To the East to meet the Czar"

1. "Before the earth existed, in the midst of the primordial darkness, before things were known, he created that which would be the foundation of human language, and the true First Father Ñamandu made it part of his own divinity." (Guarani Myth of creation, as recorded in the Ayvu Rapyta) — Arcane Sandwich

Wonder if there is a correlation with that creation myth and John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

I was thinking about this, and this is what I came up with:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

What do you think? — Ayush Jain

I think there were trees in the forest before anyone saw them.

I'm no expert but it may be a positive sign that gender dysphoria is on the rise. — Tom Storm

Then it's oxymoronic because it can't be dysphoric and be good. The opposite of dysphoria is euphoria, but I don't know that we can consider those who believe they're something they're not in a state of bliss, nor can we can generally call those who medically alter themselves euphoric. Maybe they find some benefit, but transitioning has hardly shown to be curative of the depression and other symptoms associated with gender dysphoria.

There simply is no good logical explanation for why gender can be entirely removed from ontological reality and be declared entirely a social construct and yet other genetic designations cannot unless you say that we as a society have the right to arbitratrarily decide which designations to allow be linked to reality and which to societal choices.

And that is a long way of just saying you can't say that gender is not associated with chromosomes but race (or any other genetic condition) is unless you just arbitrarily decide to do that. As indicated by the OP:

For some, the solution is to dismantle traditional categories entirely, embracing fluidity and rejecting labels. For others, the answer lies in retreating into the comfort of established norms, reclaiming what feels like authenticity in an increasingly disorienting world. Yet neither path fully resolves the underlying problem, as both are reactions to a distorted reality. — Benkei

What this means is that the reason you refuse or permit someone of Nordic descent to declare themselves of Asian descent is based upon one of two reasons: (1) we choose fludity and allow the person to call themselves Asian, or (2) we choose the comfort of tradition and insist he call himself Nordic.

My response it that the decision is based upon neither, but it's based upon the unstated #3, which is that we don't call the Swede Japanese because he's not, and he will not be regardless of how he might change appearance, dress, speach patterns and whatnot.

If we deny it's my #3, but instead insist we've just chosen option #2 in this instance as it pertains to ethnicity because we arbitrarily have chosen to do so, then you have no reason to object to the person who choses #2 as it pertains to gender. They have just acted arbitrarily differently than you.

And this was the crux of my initial response to the OP, which was that it was correct in noting the problems, but that it still had buy in to the notion that we as a society have complete freedom in declaring what reality is. Your post suggests we should celebrate as each traditional shackle is removed and handed back over to society to decide what to do best. I'm disagreeing with that because there is a right way and a wrong way regardless of what society says.

Either we declare immutable truths or we don't. The consequence of not is what we're currently dealing with. You can base the immutablity of truth on God or just plain stubbornness if that suits you better, but without it, you end up with the anything goes chaos described in the OP. And your question is when should we do this, when should we declare we've reached a barrier and not permit society to allow the change.

I'd respond by saying that we shouldn't allow the Nordic person to be accepted as Asian. If you don't agree with me, why not?

It's all a matter of conflict resolution. We appeal to reason, we draw straws, we file lawsuits, we throw eggs at their house, we throw a punch, we fire a weapon, we level their city. There are all sorts of ways to resolve issues, some more costly than others.

Within civilized societies, we reject the concept of "self help," which means we don't allow people just to figure out the best way to resolve their problems on their own without regard to standards, but we set up processes. If you violate the rules in football, the referee calls the penalty, and failure to follow his rule will result in greater and greater penalty.

The problem arises when there is no accepted authority and no rule for adjudication. We can't sue Putin for the damages exacted in Ukraine and we can't imprison him.

It's a thought I had about the international court issuing the warrant for Netanyahu's arrest, where they went through what they felt to be a legally binding process such that they are now authorized to arrest him. I would suggest that the capture of foriegn leader who does not accept your way of conflict resolution would be an act of war and and an expected warlike response should be anticipated. It's not a matter of whether the arrest warrant is justified under some moral theory or another, it's whether the enforcement is an accepted one by the entity being affected and whether that entity is ultimately powerless to resist it.

The breaking down of traditional, cultural and national identities in favor of the communist 'identity' of total uniformity is commonplace historically. — Tzeentch

I suppose if you see it through the lens that the effort is at converting the population as opposed to opening it to other norms, then i guess the argument could be made, but i think it ultimately fails.

I don't see how the argument can be logically maintained because it assumes a pervasive culture being attacked by a rising discontent where the discontented must be defined as collectivist. Why wouldn't the currently existing culture be also collectivist if it's aim was just a uniformity of a different brand?

It's hard to follow how you can call a society with an entirely homogenous ideology and routine less collectivist than a diverse one. I think of 1950s US and certain Asian cultures, and I don't see how their homogenuity correlates to individualism. I think the 1950s US example as individualistic, but not the Asian one.

I think much of this is a misuse of terms. We're comparing homogenuity to diversity and somehow this is being morphed into a capitalism versus communism discussion. I think a case can be made that Marxist countries are more subject to social discord and infighting and internal purges and whatnot than more capitalist ones. The stereotype is that conservatives are too busy to protest.

I also see the collectivist/individualistic distinction a sociological one, rooted in history and often available resources. Poverty demands sharing. Collectivist social customs also don't foreclose capitalism, like Japan, for example, and especially among Asian immigrants to the US.

Anyway, this just feels like all social ills are being blamed on the boogeyman of communism.

I've got nothing good to say about communism either. I just think the objection raised is inapplicable.

The fragmentation of groups into other groups and the rise of identity politics is the business of collectivism. Replacing one group identity with another is a collectivist act. And none of the categories listed are in any sense individualistic in practice or in principle — NOS4A2

I don't follow this. How can hyper-individualism be collectivist? Feels like a McCarthyist response, where all that is objectionable in the world must be rooted in communism.

I share your disdain for communism, but I don't see how you see that here.

One of those rare people who 'knows' what is true and good. Would you also consider yourself a conservative (socially/politically/culturally)? — Tom Storm

Not sure if this is sarcastic, as if to imply everyone thinks they know right from wrong, yet no one does.. Are you arguing for a subjectivism, or just being snarky? Not that snark is bad, but I'm just trying to understand your criticism, if that's what it is.

To the other question, I think I'd fall right of center in the US. On TPF, farther right of center.

So essentially you believe in tanscendent notions of truth and good and you see these as stemming from God? What would count as an example of barbarianism? — Tom Storm

I think it's clear I used the term metaphorically and hyperbolically, referencing those immoral things we wish to keep out of our society. This sounds again like your first question, which challenges absolute notions of morality, suggesting a subjectivism.

I'm really just trying to cut to the chase of what you're asking. You're sounding Socratic and I'd rather you just say you think my bold assertions of certainty are foundationless rants of a right winger if that's what you think. It won't insult me, but that's the best I'm deciphering from your questions.

That would align with the Trump movement too, but I understand you may be ambivalent about that. — Tom Storm

Probably accurate, but I think this thread suggests a reckoning with the political shift to the right that goes beyond Trump and American politics. The OP implies an abandonment of unified values leads to fragmentation and alienation. My response was agreement, but moralizing and saying that the OP doesn't just identify a sociological phenomenon when you don't share a common culture, but it identifies what happens when you do what is wrong.

And, if I've got this right, that moralizing resulted in your seeing a Republican in your midst and so you called me Trumpesque. I'd have preferred Jefferson. Donald has more baggage than I'm willing to accept.

This sounds demure. Wouldn't we require barbarians to be vanquished? — Tom Storm

Sure, if we take metaphors literally, we don't want to be besieged by wild eyed maniacs pounding at the gates or whatever picture you envision.

But, if we take the metaphor to mean we don't want to be besieged with that which violates our moral norms, I don't think the wholesale murder of our adversaries is in order. Maybe we just vote.

My first vote is to end the use of the term "demure." I made it 50+ years without it, and now it's a staple. I've now identified a barbarian for you.

My given name. — NOS4A2

People use pseudonyms to hide their identity. I've seen it before. Like now.

I do not call myself that. You call me that. — NOS4A2

What do you call yourself?

How does one hide a real identity? — NOS4A2

You call yourself NOS4A2 for example.

So, what do you think? A fever dream of mine, or do you recognize something similar happening in our world? — Benkei

For others, the answer lies in retreating into the comfort of established norms, reclaiming what feels like authenticity in an increasingly disorienting world. — Benkei

I generally agree with the observation that modern society's embracing of non-traditional values has led to general alienation and lack of direction.

The part I might disagree is in your phrasing of the second quote above, as if traditional value systems offer a safe harbor of retreat, to suggest their value is simply pragamatic, a quiet space in the corner away from the noise. I'd suggest the comfort derived from them is not simply that they happen to work because of their stricter standards and their clear offers of direction, but it's because they are true. It's not as if any standard will do as long as we have a standard, but it's that we have a correct standard. That is, I don't fall back to my traditional systems because I can't take my neighbor's chaotic system, but I stand firmly in my traditional system because it's the correct way to think and to act. That is, by doing right, one ends up without the psychological stresses of those who do wrong.

The distinction isn't subtle because it gives a nod to absolutes, to right, to wrong, to immutability over fluidity. It is not just living by clear dictates that avoids the stress of chaos, it is the belief that there are clear dictates that are with certainty true that avoids those stresses and it's adherence to an actual true standard that matters.

This isn't to suggest that the way things were were the way things should have remained because not every expression at any given moment is consistent with the way things ought to be, but I do see what "ought" to be as an objective question, not just a personal expression for the moment.

It's as if we erected all these fences so long ago and we forgot why, so we tore them down and barbarians invaded we never knew existed, so we frantically try to protect ourselves until someone suggests we might wish to reconstruct some of those fences. My metaphorical point here is that we ought re-erect those fences not just because we wish to find personal peace, but because those barbarians are evil, not just an inconvenience we don't know how to accomodate. If we don't take that stance, then we're just going to keep tearing those fences down again and again, thinking he can make friends with the barbarians and all get along.

And don't misunderstand all this to mean I'm looking to force certain behaviors out of people. People get to celebrate their uniqueness and ultimately make their own decisions how they see fit, but they don't necessarily get to be saved from hearing the commentary regarding their behavior from their opponents. I do think though we've reached a point that we might be finally be relenting from where we could not even question whether every personal expression is a good one.

I did not indicate how long it took me to read the book. — T Clark

Neither did I. I provided the outcome of a hypothetical situation and then I commented on your ability to perform in that hypothetical situation, which would have been poorly.

Laughably poorly. As in, ha ha, Clarky can't even read 1/2 a page daily.

The only one on your list I've read is "The Wisdom of Insecurity." — T Clark

To complete that book in a year, you would need to read 0.44 pages per day. No way you read that fast.

That is a total of 11,720 pages, which would be 32.1 pages per day if all read in one year.

I dumped that into ChatGPT and asked it. I didn't actually look each one up individually. Had I manually looked up each book for the number of pages and then did the math myself, GPT says it would have taken me about 1 hour and 20 minutes.

just don't understand why aliens from distant planets want my used appliances and furniture. They could at least offer to trade something -- maybe their old orgazmatron couch, or some nice floor covering? — BC

Aliens are huge thrift store shoppers. They like a good deal and love knick knacks. The clutter in their space ships looks like a grandma's house.

Atheists believe in UFOs because they don't believe in God. Theists don't need to believe in UFOs because they believe in God. — Leontiskos

I think my reasons set out to 180 directly above makes more sense, but I'm interested in why you think an atheist would need there to be UFOs to impart meaning on their lives and why you think theists would lose something if they accepted that UFOs existed.

My view is that there aren't aliens because I've never seen one in the zoo. If you can show me one, I'll change my mind. It's sort of like bigfoot. I'll believe in it when it walks through my backyard,.

Just as atheists are less likely than religious people to "believe in" angels & ghosts. As you're well aware, we (confabulatory metacognitive) h. sapiens are quite often (virally) delusional. — 180 Proof

UFOs and bigfoot could exist under our current concept of physics and scientific reality. Gods and angels, not so much. Many theists subscribe to Creationist accounts, and most such literature makes no reference to otherworldly creatures, except for those who reside up high or down low and have supernatural powers.

I think that's probably why atheists can better accept UFOs and fundamentalists cannot.

"UFOs" = angels & ghosts :roll: — 180 Proof

I wondered about that, but this article says religious people are less likely to believe in UFOs than are atheists.

https://religionnews.com/2021/08/23/for-atheists-the-idea-of-aliens-seems-real-religious-people-doubt-it/

Shoot them down and wait to see who sues you. Problem solved. — Leontiskos

Where do you get a surface to air missle?

It is hard to wade through all this, but given the framework I provided of context, evidence, and sources, how should one evaluate claims? — schopenhauer1

I don't view this through an epistimological lens, as if suggesting the meaning of "truth" has shifted or that there is some paradigm shift where we now accept non-scientific perspectives when deciphering what is true or not.

I view this through a political lens, as in who is saying it, why they're saying it, and what power they wish to gain through saying it.

It's a strange turn of events, but the right today represents a counterculture perspective in some regards. They no longer believe in traditional institutions. They reject what the government tells them as all being propoganda. They reject consensus scientific view as being designed for a malicious purpose. Vaccines are designed solely for profit and population control, climate science is designed to offer support for Robin Hoods to control wealth, the FBI is designed to eliminate freedoms, and theories get thrown around about how the entirety of Washington is a massive pedophelia ring. Universities are viewed as powerful mechanisms of control and manipulation of the average citizen, bringing about a 180 degree change from the day when the universities viewed themselves as the speaker for the average citizen.

The UFO thing is consistent with all of this. It's another instance of someone or something having taken over society in some surreptitious way, with a final plan to take the hard earned belongings and freedoms from average Americans. It's all the result of distrust and paranoia.

The problem is that the distrust and paranoia has been earned. It's not that the right is rational in its response, but it's not that the left has maintained a moral high ground either. Do what you want, say what you want, try to get what you want, and if you get caught, be more clever the next time.

Meanwhile, drones fly over NJ and no one is entitled to an explanation.

Any ideas, thoughts, observations, theories? — schopenhauer1

Someone must know what they are or they'd have been shot down by now. So far, they've not done anything interesting.

My feeling is we work so hard to maintain the right to be armed in this country, you'd think we'd be more excited to finally have a menacing target to shoot at.

Lastly, is it just me, or is there some truly unfortunate, bitter irony in holding faith and hope in prayer when unanswered prayer results in an increase in skeptical atheism and/or agnosticism? … Nevertheless, the following poem is for the growing number of people for whom there’s nothing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving Day, or any other day of the year. — FrankGSterleJr

How do you know the prayer was unanswered as opposed to the answer having been no?

As to the OP, you should be thankful for nothing to the extent that what you haven't received is part of your bounty as well.

so be it. — Mikie

Then it is.