Well first, I wasn't talking about laws in these countries. I specifically said culture. Second, there no need to pick a country, as Im not talking about the countries laws. Third, how do you know where Im getting my information?
Straw-man argument followed by a straw-man argument followed by a gross assumption.

No. I was saying that its a double standard to look at Muslim cultures when it happens all the times here in the States and in other western countries. I think what you're hell bent on is seeing it in the news as proof of a daily occurrence and if that is true then that is another animal to discuss especially when it comes to what the media wants to highlight and doesn't. I'm merely looking at it from a general issue not specifics. — Anaxagoras

No, its not a double standard. The standards are different between the two cultures. One is much worse on the gay issue. Clearly, much, much worse. Its not even a part of the culture in the west, its bad actors who are actively condemned by the culture who do it. In many Muslim countries it is supported by the culture, or a blind eye turned. Russian culture too. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

I'm sorry excuse me for reminding people of the exordium of introducing how the pot met the kettle. Of course I think being killed for your sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, gender, or species for extremist views is morally wrong. I want to also apologize further because in addition to that, I work in a hospital and most of my time is done in the emergency department where people of homosexual orientation as well as encountering those in the prostitute profession are assaulted daily. Of course being killed is worse than a beating, but the fact remains that being assaulted for the aforementioned identities period is bad. — Anaxagoras

You address a bigger problem by talking about a different, smaller problem. Thats not the pot and the kettle. False equivalence.

Neither does the west. Just because we aren't actively throwing gay people off buildings or performing public executions does not mean the west is significantly better. Excuse my French, but there are gay men/women trans men/women still getting their ass whooped on the streets for their orientation. There are still Christians shooting at Jews and Muslims and are attacking black churches. — Anaxagoras

Just how far gone are you? You cannot see that throwing people from buildings IS FAR worse than a beating, and the rarity of the occurrence (or any act of bigotry towards gays) in the two cultures are not even close. Instead what do you do? Jump track to the False Equivalence Express. Staggering.

Issues should be prioritized based on individual necessity not by virtue of group identity. Identity politics have failed for thousands of years, and now that we have a far better system in place that promotes equal opportunity and individual freedom and liberty, a variety of fringe influences, some of them making ground, are pushing for regression into the dark ages. We're again bound to face an evil our ancestors fought to overcome. — whollyrolling

Very well said sir.
I believe I agree 100%.

:lol:

Well then you arent really saying anything interesting. They are weak on the god issue and you are strong on the god issue, or they are “cowardly, fragile, reliant” on the god issue and you “brave, resilient, self seficient” on the god issue. Alright then, I understand.
Also, you were not being very clear or I wouldnt have to clarify what you meant. It started with you dropping one word answers, following up on how you meant them doesnt seem out of line.
Anyway, I got it now.

Islam is under attack world wide? By who, other than themselves? Everyone is under attack by somebody, presumably you are saying Islam is under attack “worldwide” more than all other religions?

You might be weaker or stronger in other ways, and vice versa. Why does it have to be a broad stroke of “they are weak, I am strong”?

So your really just talking about weakness/strength concerning a few specific traits, the god belief traits such as fear of death?
Is it that they are weak, or possess certain traits such as a need for spiritual meaning?

So there are no people who believe in god that are brave, resilient and self - sufficient?

What do you have in mind in how you are using “weak” and “strong”? What attributes define those words?

We just addressed this, you haven't answered the question. Im beginning to think you cannot. Is that the case?

...its an axiom...an axiom is not an argument. Its actually the complete absence of argument. An axiom is not evidence either.
So, do you have an actual answer to my question?

That is not evidence. Thats not even an argument.
Can you answer the question?

Please tell me how something can start by itself? — Devans99

Im not claiming something can start by itself, I do not know.
You DO know, so tell me the answer. How do you know that simething cannot? What evidence do you have for this claim?

Tell me why things cannot start by themselves.

Time had a start. Things just don't start themselves (just like it is impossible to create one's self). — Devans99

Prove that. Tell me why things cannot start by themselves. How do you know that? What evidence allows you to draw that conclusion?

For the love....I call troll. — NKBJ

Indeed!

What are you trying to say here? If you know what something is then there is no need to ask yourself if it exists because it certainly does. — Daniel

Do unicorns exist? Cuz I know what those are. Please spare me any “unicorns exist in our minds” silliness, unless you are a fool you know very well thats not what we mean.
“Spirit” has even less going for it than fictional creatures.

Well Im always open to better uses of a word if it serves better. I guess we disagree that the way you are defining philosophy is the standard way. It seems broader than the usual use of the word.
I also don’t put a lot of stock into “traditional” philosophy, if we are using that term the same way.
Critical thinking seems pretty universally useful, but I wouldnt say thats something only under the perview of philosophy.

Ok, so what is the benifit of using the term philosophy in such broad terms? Whats the usefulness of doing so if you have to operate within catagorical parameters in order to work and think in these “sub-catagories” of philosophy anyway?

Science is more than just theory though, its physical experimentation. Even if the scientific method is philosophy in the way you describe that doesnt mean science is philosophy in the same way.
Also, science can entertain. Indeed, most entertainment has a basis in science these days. Does that mean entertainment is science?

Well those two things require logic and analysis, but I take your point. It seems a strange way to phrase it to me. Isnt science based on philosophy, rather than is philosophy? Science can be a part of philosophy, ie there is a philosophy to science, just like there is a philosophy to baseball, or the movie The Matrix but those things are not philosophy. Or would you say they are?

Lol, fair enough. I should have been more specific.
So: isnt all things involving thinking philosophy then? If that is so, why are you specifying science?

Are naturalism and uniformity of nature the domain of philosophy? Isnt anything philosophy then?

In what way? Obviously you don’t mean the two are synonymous, but Im not sure what else you could mean.

Lol, that thought had occured to me. I think we are done anyway.

Lol. Well at a certain point it becomes impossible not to mock the person. I try to wait until Im pretty much past discussing before going off on someone, but I mostly just observe anyway. You and Terra have much more patience than I do.

Ya, I agree. Dogmatic folks tend to defend other dogmatic folks so it reinforces their own dogmatism. Everyones beliefs get equal merit so none of them have to really justify their own.
Not that your and Terras sass helps the problem, but Ill be damned if I can blame you lol

Well to be honest Im not really behind either side of that debate. Ive been following along, I just don’t think of morality in either terms. That having been said, the mental gymnastics and emotional attachments to “objective” morality you guys are dealing with is pretty painful. You guys are not even able to get a proper understanding of your positions through that stubborn wall, let alone actually debate the sides.

Its astonishing! The resistance you get for asking simple qualifying questions. I guess I get it, answering pesky questions like “what are you talking about” interfere with the feel good mental masterbation and whats a circle jerk without masterbation but still...you would think a philosophy forum would attract people who can think. Thats why I think Terra might be right about learning and reading disabilities here, are we getting the mentally challenged rejects from other, less tolerant of bad philosophy forums that are out there? Half of the folks don’t seem to know the difference between philosophy and therapy. I seem to remember this Pattern Chaser guy saying he got kicked off another forum by scientific zealots or somesuch. Small wonder! They were probably talking about such zealotous things like “facts” and “rationality”.

I already DID stop posting! :lol:
YOU are the one that keeps talking to ME!
Go back to your circle jerk you thoughtless fool, your authoritarian need to be rude and obnoxious under an obvious mask of civility and open mindedness is nauseating. I doubt many people are fooled by your illusion of enlightened virtue, under which resides a disgusting insincerity and pretence.
You go ahead and have the last word, Im done with you.

Of course it doesn't. :up: But, if you consider this discussion pointless, what are you doing posting here, in this topic? — Pattern-chaser

You might find it helpful to think before posting, and take the time to read and consider the responses you get. As I just explained, I exited the discussion once I realised it wasnt a discussion of anything of substance but a circle jerk for folks who seek to put some framing on their irrational, feel good conceptions. The only reason Im here responding now is because YOU directly addressed ME.
Its ok to be simple headed, you have no control over that, but its obnoxious to be aggressively simple headed.
Now, if there is nothing else you can go back to your feel good discussion about nothing. I, unlike you, have no problem with simply ignoring people with different sensibilities.

If I choose not to “enjoy a general discussion” that doesnt mean I lack understanding about any aspect of the discussion. This is just you being condescending because I have no respect for the nebulous terminology demanded by a feel good discussion about nothing. You are perfectly welcome to your irrational, substanceless circle jerk, I stepped out and left you all to it after it became clear thats what you were all interested in.
Your desire to bring me back in has nothing to do with actual engagement, but rather a need to satisfy your offended, authoritarian sensibilities.

Not really. A new discovery has a place its found or it has something about it...a trait, a relation to something else...it will have something that differentiates it from a figment of imagination. No one discovered “spirit”, someone made it up. If it is something that isnt made up, then just tell me something about it that indicates the difference.
Anyway, besides the point. You cannot sensibly answer a question about somethings nature if it has no definition.

Why did you include me in that? Did I say something about it and forget?
Anyway, there is a simple point in amongst the run on string of thinly veiled attempts to sound intelligent, but its not very interesting. You are easily impressed.

Had to look that one up lol
“hebephrenic“. Good to know.

Lol, I see what you did there.
The reason why im asking HIM to clarify, is because its not obvious it IS rhetoric considering the exchanges Ive seen between the more prolific posters.
In other words, I cannot tell if he was joking or not because it might actually be a case someone could make.

If you want to know what people think “spirit” means, then ask that.
If you want to know if people think a “spirit” exists, define what you mean by spirit and then ask that.
I do not think Im being picky, your framing just wasnt clear, or sensical. Generally, it is the responsibility of the OP to set the terms of the discussion.