I can't understand how this would be the case. Unless you take "the science of morality" to just be sociology focused on social norms? I would also posit that given the extreme expanses of time that would need to be "number crunched" in regard to their moral outputs, lets say, across history, that this science could never be used. — AmadeusD

I believe a moral is a matter of cause and effect and that science is very important to our moral judgment. The science of good and evil can begin with studying animals. Earth sciences are very important to moral judgments about how we use and dispose of resources.

I wish we all agreed the Biblical story of creation is a fable and most likely a plagiarized Sumerian story based a real climate event of a drought and flooding and return to a climate favorable to farming. And from there use science to understand creation, our earth and being human.

The stories we tell ourselves are very important and a failure to include science in our understanding of reality is a serious mistake.

Not sure how you can say it is hardly a problem. We fail to agree over the fundamental building blocks of civilization itself, forget the flat Earth or vaccine debates - they are symptoms of a bigger issue, aren't they? In increasingly diverse and polarized societies, if there is no shared mainstream narrative, chaos or internecine tribalism would seem to be a consequence. Is it any wonder that some people are calling for a return to religion or Christian values as a kind of nostalgia project, harking back to a perceived golden era? — Tom Storm

Very wise comment.

In the US we used literature to teach good moral judgment. That liberal education was replaced with education for technology and we left moral training to the church as Germany did. Today I don't think anyone understands what good moral judgment has to do with liberty and justice, or what the enlightenment has to do with our accomplishments.

Is there truly "no agreement?" People seem to agree on a lot of the basics. For example, no one seems to think that being ruled over by instinct, circumstance, and desire, with no rational reflection on one's impulses is a good thing. There seems to be a fairly wide agreement on epistemic virtues as well. The good learner doesn't jump to conclusions and then refuse to relinquish them. They listen to other people and take their words in. They are patient. They desire to know the truth, rather than being wholly motivated by some other end, etc. But if the Good isn't obvious, then the good person needs to be a good learner. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Woo, how does anyone become a good person? Why would anyone just naturally want to be a good listener? Teachers would be ecstatic if students were eager to learn. I think a whole lot of environmental factors are missing in what you have said about good people.

A big, hierarchical society can afford to waste a portion of its human resources in order to keep the population under control; it can waive the benefits of each member reaching his or her potential in favour of a few gaining more power and wealth. — Vera Mont

I want to argue your point about being able to waste a portion of our human resources. The idea that we can waste human potentially is totally opposed to the reason for having a democracy. Our wars are about defending democratic principles and everyone's human dignity. I think we are dealing with a little social unrest that may be as explosive as Trump says it is.

As we prepared for WWI and WWII the defined purpose of education was mobilizing for war and raising patriotism that touched everyone in a great united effort to defend our democratic ideals.

The US went from a very technologically backward country to a technological leader in a very short time when education for technology was added to education.. Had Industry not realized the need for this focus on technology, the US may have closed its schools. Industry had argued for closing our schools, claiming the war caused a labor and they were not getting their money's worth because they had to train new workers. Teachers argued it was our nation's best who understood our democracy and why it must be defended, who were the first to sign up for military service. They argued if we did not maintain education for the young, when we won the war, we would not be able to replace all those killed in war. Education for technology became part of the US education in 1917.

However, until the technology of WWII education for citizenship remained our priority. This was changed
by the National Defense Education Act, and since then the federal government has played a much larger role in education. This increased federal control of education is arguably against the US Constitution. And we have a serious culture war threatening our future. We have had a shift in power and authority. Our liberty is being taken away as we try to rule by government policy controlling every aspect of our lives, law, and authority over the people, instead of educating for good moral judgment and a moral culture in a country that gives everyone equal opportunity to give our nation his/her best. Our experience of life has been radically changed and we have fought every war for nothing.

giving them a far broader view of the world and of the scope of knowledge they might wish to pursue later. — Vera Mont

I think the Evanglical Christians are having a hard time with this. I also see problems with tearing up our social rule book and preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values.

Our cohort makes a difference. In my day, I remember wanting to be accepted by people of color and join their fight for social justice. Today it is thinking "Maybe I want to be a different gender" and taking some serious physically changing steps. I don't think this will turn out well. Our personalities do not stabilize until around age 30 and I think the young need to postpone permanent physical changes. That includes avoiding pregnancy.

I am reminded of what a fellow in prison told me. "You may think shit tastes bad, but you don't know how bad until you eat it." Rushing into life-changing decisions is not wise.

@pursuitofknowlege, I think your question is the most important question that can be asked because at this time, many of us think the US is about to self-destruct. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and the US stopped doing that in 1958. We replaced our liberal education with education for technology and left moral training to the Church. Now we are in crisis.

You mentioned Prussian education and I want everyone to understand that education goes with a bureaucratic organization.

"Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power." Tagore poet and seerer of India. Sara H. Fahey, a teacher, quoted him at the 1917 National Education Association Conference. We were preparing for the first world war and she used that quote to define our enemy.

Again as we mobilized for second world war, we used public education to mobilize us for war against Germany. Correct, we did adopt the Prussian model of education when we entered WWI, but very incompletely because our bureaucratic organization and democratic values demanded preparing individuals for a democracy that empowers individuals and prepares them for good moral judgment essential to liberty. Also, we believed it was patriotism that won wars as we had not fully grasped the importance of technology until after WWII and atomic weapons and the ability to deliver them overseas.

Franklin Roosevelt, in response to the Great Depression, saw the government as the solution to the problem of economic swings and increasing economic inequality even mass homelessness and malnutrition of citizens. With the help of Republican Herbert Hoover, Rosevelt, and Hoover adopted the German bureaucratic model to give us The New Deal. Social Security and all things requiring government control today could not exist so without the change in bureaucratic organization that is what we defended our democracy against.

"In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon government inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely." Aldous Huxley

We adopted the Prussian model of education much more completely with the passage of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That was the end of education for democracy, and education for good moral judgment, and we left moral training to the Church. The result is Christian Nationalist and Trump deliving the their message of a blood bath if he and the Christian Nationalist do not win this next election. Hail Hitler We have been on the same path Germany took and now ministers are advancing the Christian Nationalist agenda, while the extreme left is intent on tearing down our social structure as well.

In the meantime education for technology has eroded past barriers and spread the wealth and power. It is as Zeus feared, with the technology of fire we have learned all other technologies and now we rivel the gods. The right and the left are fighting to see who will rule our new technological society with unknown values.

I recall a similar thread from about the same time (or maybe I am confusing it with another website), and the replies were, reasonably, "both". — Lionino

I think it is agreeable that both the leader and the followers manifest success or failure. Recently TV programs have focused on the racial struggle for justice. One program focused on the terrorism committed by Whites to keep those of color in their place. This terrorism successful prevented people of color from fighting for justice, until people from around the country supported the people of color in their efforts to get fair voting laws and justice. One of them publicly announced the error of not supporting the movement for fair voting laws and justice that effectively supported those who imposed the injustices on the people of color. That summer we had civil war and we saw changes but clearly we still live with the problems of racism.

Some of the most successful actions are taken by song writers and musicians and those who paint pictures and write books.

Right now the gay community has gained a lot of power within our institutions and I am opposed to this. I will defend the statement if anyone cares.

Higher wages is also a power shift. I am not sure this is a good thing. I can not understand how people's wages can increase without inflation. However, their power to get higher wages is curious to me. Why hasn't the working class always had this power? Is there a relationship between higher wages racism and power?

I hope I edited correctly.

At least your avatar is very attractive.

We are operating in different dimensions if you do not read the above as Supernatural. I don't think its worthy continuing about Qi if you do not understand its most basic properties and bases for belief in it. — AmadeusD

That is a perfect way to explain my frustration. You do not understand its most basic properties and bases for belief in it and you reject the modern acceptance of Chi.

Here is a modern explanation of acupuncture https://restorewellness.com.au/2016/05/1387/\\

Rejection of it as wrong as rejecting today's earth sciences because native Americans explained the earth needs our care. Science has proven them correct. The earth is a large living organization and disrupting one part of it affects another part.

The explanations have changed but the truth has not. And we don't think of Christians as being superstitious like other natives, but the religion is built on miracles and laying hands on someone to heal a person. These folks are working with Chi but that is not the word they use.

I have asked you, if something is unknowable, how could you possibly learn it? It is impossible, was my point. I wondered how you dealt with it. You didn't :P — AmadeusD

Where did I say something is unknowable?

This makes absolutely no sense. No one would ever, in their right mind, attempt to debate something incomprehensible. What I am trying to ask is why are you talking about hte possibility of knowing things which are, by your use of hte words, impossible to know? Seems like a pointless starting block to a pointless exercise in mystic thinking (nothing wrong with that, but it's not philosophy imo). — AmadeusD

I would appreciate the quote you are objecting to because, worded as you worded what I said things don't make sense. I am quite sure I have repeatedly said our brains are limited. What we can know is limited by the fact that our brains are limited. You may use your brain to study brain surgery and that will not make you a good mechanic. We can expand the number of people in a pool of shared knowledge and still there is limit to what these people know. What group of people do you think have the most knowledge?

In 1600, what the most intelligent people on earth could have known, was extremely limited compared to what we know today. In 1600 they did not have the technology that we use for gathering information.
Also, the more we know the more we can know.

I don't think I ever said anything was impossible to know. I have spoken of the limits of what we can know, not something that we can not know. With a good microscope, we can know much more about microscopic things we could learn before the microscope. With our satellites traveling the universe we can learn far more today than we could a hundred years ago. Finally, what man on earth can know everything? What group of people can know everything?

The entire concept is beyond natural laws. It is posited, as i've noted, that Qi carries multiple supernatural properties and exerts its force, supernaturally, upon the body and mind. I've outlined that, and your quotes don't approach those outlines. — AmadeusD

Can you direct me to that outline of what is supernatural about chi? To me what you said in the above quote, is like saying gravity has supernatural properties. Chi is simply a life force energy. That life force may be mitochondria.

"We now know that eukaryotes can live happily without any remnant of the mitochondria." Mitochondria are the descendants of bacteria that settled down inside primordial eukaryotic cells, eventually becoming the power plants for their new hosts."
https://www.science.org/content/article/first-eukaryotes-found-without-normal-cellular-power-supply#:~:text=%22We%20now%20know%20that%20eukaryotes,plants%20for%20their%20new%20hosts.

My line of reasoning is cause and effect, not supernatural.

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew.
— Athena

This doesn't answer either part of my question - but ftr, I am aware. I did not posit it was anything else. — Athena

I do not understand why that does not answer your question. You posted.

Are you speaking about Logos as the Christian notion, or some other concept? In the former light, it seems a little weird to speak about in conjunction with Eastern, supernatural concepts.

Your question was

I don't know how these three are related, other than in a bit of esoteric thinking. What's the controlling force of the Universe in your view? Reason?

Logos, reason, and the controlling force of the universe are 3 aspects of the same thing, the same as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three aspects of the same thing. That is Greek thinking and it did not work for Romans until they created new words to convey the Greek idea of a trinity. "Triad is the form of the completion of all things." Nichomachus of Gerasa (c. 100 A.D. Greek neo-Pythagorean philosopher and mathematician.

You are right my focus became my own interest. I want to thank you for arguing against chi because that has pushed me to give chi, and energy in general, much more thought than I have given any of this stuff for many years. This feels like a return to youth when life felt much more interesting than it has felt in many years.

A fellow who uses the hot tub the same time I do, said we can become aware of our chi by cupping our hands as if we are holding a ball. In the past, that was obvious to me as I could feel the energy. Today I tried to feel that energy and it isn't there, which would make sense as I am having some health problems. My next thought is to get an aura reading to determine where my aura is weak and strong. Which falls back on our argument about chi. So now I am considering buying my own imaging equipment and eperimenting with it. Is it all hogwash or can aura imaging be another way to be aware of our chi and where it is flowing in a healthy way or where it is blocked and not flowing?

Does acupuncture change the aura? How about deep breathing and other health practices? Does music change the aura? If we can see change we can know something has caused the change.

If nothing else this could make an interesting youtube. Everyone can witness the experiments and give me feedback about what they think. Just hogwash or something to take seriously.

Then what is capable of knowing things our minds are not able to know? It seems to me this is a bit backwards - If we can't know it, how can it be knowable? — AmadeusD

Even if you are brain surgeon, there is a lot you do not know. We rely on the experts and what each of them knows is very limited. Our brains are very limited when it comes to knowing a lot. That is a lot is not very much, but if we want we can google for information and maybe we will learn something or maybe not. Sometimes we put a whole team of people onto the task of learning something, like how to get to the moon. Or think historically before there was science. Not even the smartest people could know what we know today.

I just can't understand why you're invoking 'God' as a gap-filler in your knowledge. It seems to illustrate the very basic misstep almost all religious thinking requires. "I don't know, therefore God". I understand you don't ascribe (from what i can tell) any Abrahamic notion of God, to that issue but you're using it as a proper noun so its hard to ignore :P

Until you understand how little we can know, it might pointless to argue what is beyond our comprehension.

The purpose of what?

The purpose of accepting how very little we know.

"That notion of God has closed people's minds to anything else.
— Athena"

Then what, in your view, is the use of the term? It seems that the Ancients as you're positing, were extremely misguided in their use of the concepts they pretended to. Calling the Sun a personal God is... wild... which is what Apollo is, essentially.

If you think you know God, you know not God. You wrongly think you know God and this is why we should not name Him or make images of Him. We should stop deluding ourselves with the notion we know God.

"I do not know enough about physics to answer your question. Somehow there was an energy and that energy became manifest. This is the kind of thinking that goes with understanding the controlling force of the universe...
— Athena"

Huh. Fair enough. This appears to be magical thinking to me and is logically followed by "in the beginning there was the word, and the word was made flesh' type of stuff. Not my bag.

Scientific explanations of the beginning of the universe sound magical to you why? Logos is about empirical knowledge, not magic. You have me very confused. Is there any information that is not magical to you? I think you giving a good demonstration of the problem religion has caused.

How did those gasses lead to the manifest universe?
— Athena

They didn't. They are included in the manifest universe, not prior to it. So, i think this and the next response are a bit out of step with reality, to my mind.

I did not say those gases existed before the universe was manifested. It was manifested in an order and became increasingly complex.

What is supernatural about chi?
— Athena

The entire concept is beyond natural laws. It is posited, as i've noted, that Qi carries multiple supernatural properties and exerts its force, supernaturally, upon the body and mind. I've outlined that, and your quotes don't approach those outlines.

You will have to explain those supernatural properties before I can respond to what you are thinking. However this morning in the pool I was pondering why you are so resistant to the notion of Chi. How can you imagine a nervous system that connects the body with the brain and not Chi? What makes it different?

There is connection with mitochondria and our breath that is also related to chi.
— Athena

I cannot see any connection between any of these things in your comments and quotes, so i'll leave that part - I reject the notion still, though. [/qoute] Yes it is obvious you are not getting what I am saying and I am not getting what you are saying.

What keeps our heart in rhythm?
— Athena

Its own electronic impulse - the cardiac conduction system. It is separate from the rest of the body's electric system as far as I know.

Some people may think that is a spiritual explanation.
— Athena

They would be mistaken. Music's ability to 'heal' is squarely psychological, as opposed to medical (though, I agree both are essentially physical issues). It does not have any effect on specific functions of cells or healing properties of the body itself. It is like rest increasing your ability to heal..

I have to hurry this along as I have to get to work. From my point of view you are not thinking anything through. I wish I had more time. This link is about music affecting the growth of plants. https://www.google.com/search?q=music+effects+the+growth+of+plants&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=music+effects+the+growth+of+plants&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMgoIAxAAGA8YFhgeMggIBBAAGBYYHjINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCjExMDE5ajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew.
— Athena

This doesn't answer either part of my question - but ftr, I am aware. I did not posit it was anything else.

But I want to defend the good of a man supporting the family financially while the woman supports the family emotionally and socially in many very important ways.
— Athena

Agreed. my family works this way. But the idea that your dad actively discouraged you from education is wildly shitty to my mind.

then post a link that does
— Athena

No. That is not what this link does. I does what I outlined immediately before posting it, funnily enough.

There is evidence that acupuncture may
— Athena

Whenever you read this, the fact is there's no evidence. It just hasn't harmed anyone.
What is the success rate of acupuncture to quit smoking? — Yonsei Med J.
That was made perfectly clear and the demonstrations of Chi are very real. I think it may be time to quit.
You can not understand anything if you are unwilling to do the thinking. Denying what is scientifically accepted such as proof of acupuncture brings us to a dead end.

Not because I understand these points of view, but because I don't and some good arguments might resolve that problem.
— Athena

I would suggest that if you don't understand a point of view, no argument will be truly relevant - but it can be a lot of fun! — AmadeusD

Yes, fun! :grin:

Along with what is chi, what is harmonic resonance, rhythm, and organic balance? Math helps us understand such things, and then we get logos an understanding of cause and effect.
— Athena

I don't think these are coherent leaps in discussion. I'm unsure how any of the following three items relate enough to Qi to be relevant

The object is to understand energy and all 3 words are about energy. If our heart is out of rhythm, we are in deep trouble. Agree? What keeps our heart in rhythm? Damn, asking Google what keeps our heart in rhythm gets links to drugs, not an explanation of how nature works, but here is a related answer...

Listening to music may boost exercise ability, ease stress and anxiety, and enhance recovery from strokes. — Harvard

Some people may think that is a spiritual explanation. Now the problem is, how do we understand spirit. Does that mean angels and demons, or our mood, we are high-spirited or low-spirited, happy or sad?

Music can heal and that is about harmony, rhythm, and resonance. Can you now see these things as related to music and healing? My thinking is influenced by Jose Arguelles's explanation of Pulsation-rays explained in his book The Mayan Factor, Path Beyond Technology. That book is totally rejected by the science community and that is understandable, but I think we have something to gain by considering these different expressions of energy.

Are you speaking about Logos as the Christian notion, or some other concept? In the former light, it seems a little weird to speak about in conjunction with Eastern, supernatural concepts.

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew.

The only education my father wanted me to have was home economics
— Athena

Absolute bollocks, and I'm sorry that was the case.

I am not totally opposed to women putting family first because so much good can come out of that, but both the man and woman need to agree what is best for the family. I assumed way too much and made a bad choice. But I want to defend the good of a man supporting the family financially while the woman supports the family emotionally and socially in many very important ways. Especially today when we live so long and can do both raise a family and have a career. My plan was to return to college, get a degree, and then have a career but I didn't begin my marriage with a discussion of such things. As I said, I assumed too much.

Do you want to go there?
— Athena

Sure. The quotes don't support your contention. Those quotes shows that the AMA accepts that TMC practictioners merely believe that those things are the case (i.e that Qi exists, acupuncture deals in it, etc..). The claims are all hedged in the language of the claim, and nothing there suggests the AMA thinks Acupucture, or meridians, are legitimate medical practices. Even integrative health doesn't take it.. that.. seriously:
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/acupuncture-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=There%20is%20evidence%20that%20acupuncture,shown%20to%20improve%20lung%20function.

I am confused. You say the quotes don't support the benefit of acupuncture and then post a link that does. "In addition to pain conditions, acupuncture has also been studied for at least 50 other health problems. There is evidence that acupuncture may help relieve seasonal allergy symptoms, stress incontinence in women, and nausea and vomiting associated with cancer treatment. It may also help relieve symptoms and improve the quality of life in people with asthma, but it has not been shown to improve lung function."

I will add this to what your link ....

What is the success rate of acupuncture to quit smoking?
According to Ballal et al.,14 performing smoking cessation acupuncture for six weeks produced a smoking cessation rate of 50.1%, 45.5% of the subjects reduced their consumption to 5 cigarettes and 4.3% failed to reduce smoking.
The Effects of the Acupuncture Treatment for Smoking Cessation in ... — Yonsei Med J.

Something is happening and because this is proven insurance now pays for acupuncture treatments.

Reducing pain can be physically understood as an externality of the practice, unrelated to the spiritual aspect supposed to be inherent in acupuncture (from a TCM perspective). Just as aligning the spine can be nice and very helpful for eg Athletes, it wont cure a disease (the analogy being chiropractic).

I do not understand why you speak of "the spiritual aspect"? What do you mean by spiritual? Is this in line with believing in angels and demons? There seems to be a gap between my consideration of energy and your consideration of the spiritual realm. Whatever, I have spent half the day reading your post and looking for better explanations and it has been fun. :grin: This is a whole lot better than talking with neighbors about the current gossip. Thank the powers that be for the internet and stimulating discussions.

The Tetragrammaton. YHWH. Definitely discussions/disagreements around that particular thing - but it doesn't touch what i'm trying to ask. How could you conceptulise something beyond comprehension? If that's the definition of a God, it's necessarily useless. — AmadeusD

It is fascinating to me how our minds grab onto something and that something becomes essential to our thinking, while millions of other possible thoughts have no effect on us. Long ago I read an old book about logic and I was grabbed by the thought we can never know enough to be totally sure of what we think we know. No matter how strongly we believe our thought is the correct one, we must always hold open the possibility that we could be wrong. For me, that is a God beyond comprehension. There is nothing about a god that makes this so, but it is about the limits of our minds. Our minds are not capable of knowing all that could be known. The purpose is to keep ourselves humble and preferably out of holy wars.

Absolutely agreed, on the reason for that, though. I think the conceptions of God used throughout religions are necessarily formulaic in that they must meet some image parity, or else be redundant for the above reason.

I take issue with ideas/definitions of God, because the God of Abraham is so different from any other notion of a god. To me it is pretty obvious, as we name new physics particles, the ancients named new gods when they became aware of a useful concept. Each god represents a limited concept. That far different from one god associated with demons and miracles. When the ancients had many gods, they could argue with each other and develop the consciousness of all things. Where can you go with one god? One god giving people rules leaves our consciousness undeveloped. The God of Abraham thinking annoys me so badly because it makes people so narrow-minded. Even when they do not believe in the reality of that God, the religion is so powerful, that any mention of God is assumed to be a god just like the God of Abraham. That notion of God has closed people's minds to anything else.

"logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe.
— Athena"

I don't know how these three are related, other than in a bit of esoteric thinking. What's the controlling force of the Universe in your view? Reason?

I do not know enough about physics to answer your question. Somehow there was an energy and that energy became manifest. This is the kind of thinking that goes with understanding the controlling force of the universe...

What were the first gasses in the universe?
These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe.

The early universe | CERN — Wikipedia

How did those gasses lead to the manifest universe? The laws of physics are the controlling force. This law regarding gasses is the reason for gas being as it is.

What was the first gas law?
Boyle's Law - Definition, Equation, & Facts with Examples
Boyle's law is a gas law given by the Anglo-Irish chemist Robert Boyle in 1662. He stated that the pressure exerted by a gas is inversely proportional to the volume occupied by it at a constant mass and temperature. — Wikipedia

All of that is logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe and because our minds can discover the way of logos, we can be as the gods and because we can be as the gods, we can have democracy that is rule by reason, not rule by an absolute god or God chosen authority over the people. This belief system is not compatible with Christianity.

"Okay, chi is just another word for energy
— Athena"

(to the underlined): To my understanding, it is clear that: absolutely not. Qi is conceptualised as a substance which makes up the practical notion of the body in TCM, and functions in supernatural ways. It's understood as a basic, all-defining mechanism of the body which can cause or cure disease, allows for motion, and is the psychologically-motivating life-force in humans. It is definitely not analogous with Western (or even Middle Eastern) concepts of energy. I think it is very misleading to assess it as 'just another word for energy". It is closer to a wide-ranging use of the Western term 'consciousness' with less strict limitations in action.

:lol: Please let me share my merriment with you. I laughed because your comment tickled me. What is supernatural about chi? Is electricity conscious? How about the energy that moves clouds? What of the energy that makes our hearts beat? Is there consciousness with all forms of energy?

Here is a statement about chi.

Electricity is required for your nervous system to send signals throughout your body and to your brain, making it possible for you to move, feel, and think. — Irving Yee

When speaking of energy, it might help to have an understanding of mitochondria. Mitochondria is its own organism and they are essential to our lives.

These energy slaves are the mitochondria, and there are hundreds or even thousands of them inside every one of your cells (with the exception of red blood cells) and in every other human alive. They still resemble their bacterial origin in appearance, but we can no longer exist without them, nor they without us. — Dr Steven Zuryn

There is connection with mitochondria and our breath that is also related to chi.

The classic role of mitochondria is oxidative phosphorylation, which generates ATP by utilizing the energy released during the oxidation of the food we eat. ATP is used in turn as the primary energy source for most biochemical and physiological processes, such as growth, movement and homeostasis. We turn over approximately our own body weight in ATP each day, and almost all of this is generated by mitochondria, primarily within muscle, brain, liver, heart and gastrointestinal tract.5 The pre-eminent role of eating is to provide the fuel for mitochondria, and the pre-eminent role of breathing is to provide the oxygen and to remove the carbon dioxide produced during oxidative phosphorylation by mitochondria. Similarly, a major role of the cardiovascular system is to deliver the substrates (glucose, fatty acids, oxygen) and remove the products (carbon dioxide) of mitochondrial activity. — Br J Dermatol.

I am separating your comments so the thoughts aren't so complicated they are useless.

**this OP should be merged into the Trump thread** — Wayfarer

It would be unfortunate if no one sees the cultural impact of his education policy. I like the subject of education and culture better than the subject of Trump. It really is not all about him. It is very much about the people who support him. The racism is as serious today as it was the day slave owners justified enslaving people from Africa.

Never mind, the replies I read have nothing to do with education or culture. It can go in the garbage. I am done with it.

The only problem with Dostoevsky is that the characters in his major works are always in the wrong place at the wrong moment. — javi2541997

That doesn't sound like fun. But it is an interesting approach to writing a story. Making the circumstances the protagonist instead of a person. I like that idea very much.

Did you know Tolstoi and Dostoyevsky had an entire discussion about whether great men were great or simply people at the right time at the right moment? This resulted in War & Peace and Crime & Punishment.

I'm a historie totale guy myself (camp Tolstoi). — Benkei

No, I did not know that and I do not care. Threads are great in the beginning and then they wander all over the place and die. People stop posting and the thread disappears in the past. Bringing it back from the past does not return it to the vitality it had.

Threads are fun as long as we are participating. Old threads are already done and those who were interested have lost interest in the thread. What fun is it to add something to an old thread?

I understand what you're getting at, but that category is far too broad to have a name. What aspect of 'beyond our comprehension' are you pointing to? Anything beyond our comprehension? Seems a bit of a McGuffin. — AmadeusD

That is perfect. Isn't there an argument for not having a name for the God of Abraham? The word "god" is generic, isn't it? The idea that God is beyond our comprehension is not mine. I think the God of Abraham religions deal with the problem of creating a god in our own image. The problem is a personal god meets our human needs better than a force that is not made in our image.

[/quote]We must stay awake to learn the logos, the reason why things are as they are and can we change this or not
— Athena

Isn't this the entire thrust of philosophical thinking? What's the special occasion in this case? [/quote]

:up: Absolutely, this is the thrust of philosophical thinking and why I keep mentioning logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. There are no temples built to logos, but the pagan temples were places of learning. Math was important to our ability to grasp reality in these pagan temples that were destroyed by Christians. Unfortunately, that is not common knowledge.

I truly, seriously do not think there is anything to support this position.

Could you please present me with unbiased, peer-reviewed work that shows that 'chi' is real? Having been ensconced in new-age groups and thinking for a decade or more, I did look into Qi very deeply because i 'bought' it at the time. It seems to me there is literally nothing, anywhere at all, that can be trusted to legitimate that concept. Would be very much open to something which shows - without ideological investment - something reasonable about it. While I'm, not able to run the video right now (at work) from what I know of him, Jesse Enkamp is a typical McDojo internet talking head with very little in the way of sensible takes. Have run in to him/his work around Jiu Jitsu many times over the last few years and its routinely been shown as nonsense designed to make money.

Okay, chi is just another word for energy, and that most certainly is worth arguing about. I think especially in the West ever since Rome and the fall of Athens, we totally fail to have a good concepts of energy. And from here I want to leap into Aztec explanations of energy and Michael S. Schneider's explanation of math. Not because I understand these points of view, but because I don't and some good arguments might resolve that problem.

Along with what is chi, what is harmonic resonance, rhythm, and organic balance? Math helps us understand such things, and then we get logos an understanding of cause and effect. Do I know what I am talking about? Heck no. I am embarrassingly ignorant but grade schools never opened my mind to such knowledge, and when I got to college, the only education my father wanted me to have was home economics. It was his son who was encouraged to study engineering. But I love Einstien's comment about how important imagination is. I read of these things I do not understand and I get as excited as a child full of wonderment.

The American Medical Association accepts acupuncture as a legitimate medical practice. Science has proven it is a second path of energy that is expressed in pain.

Traditional Chinese medicine explains acupuncture as a technique for balancing the flow of energy or life force — known as chi or qi (chee) — believed to flow through pathways (meridians) in your body. — Mayoclinic

What is meridians?

a circle of constant longitude passing through a given place on the earth's surface and the terrestrial poles.
"the European Broadcasting Area extends from the Atlantic to the meridian 40°E"
2.
(in acupuncture and Chinese medicine) each of a set of pathways in the body along which vital energy is said to flow. There are twelve such pathways associated with specific organs.
"the slow movements and postures of t'ai chi open up and align the meridians of the body" — Oxford languages

There is a lot to think about. Do you want to go there?

deleted it because I didn't mean to post it.

It is such a pleasure to converse with you that I regreet not having more time.

Thanks for giving a pass on my use of the word, God. I think some theoretical thinkers have argued God is beyond our comprehension. The religious rule that Christians love to break but Muslims firmly adhere to, is we are not to make an image of God. We are not to think of a god as a being, like Zeus but obviously, that is what Christians do and by deifying Jesus they have a very personal God that meets a human need to be loved, cared for, and protected.

How about if we think of god as beyond our comprehension instead of a person with supernatural powers? That might clean up a lot of religious problems. When I say math is the language of God, I am poking at the notion that a personal god spoke with his favorite people and not everyone else. And I also mean we should not be too sure of what we think we know. However, if we can say it with math then we might pay attention and explore what the math tells us. We must stay awake to learn the logos, the reason why things are as they are and can we change this or not.

For sure Pythagoras's school was a source of discovered knowledge! Professors learn a lot from their students. Keep in mind, mathematically, the question is more important than the solution. With the right question, we open the door to discovery and the answer closes it. You are a pleasure because you make me think about what I think and because you do so without putting me on the defensive, I am free to think about what I think and can change it without feeling ashamed for being wrong before I knew more.

The best proof of chi is acupuncture. The American Medical Association refused to accept acupuncture because even though they witnessed that it works, a person can have surgery without pain when acupuncture is used, but they did not know why. Remember the question is the most important thing. With the question of why acupuncture works,a second system of pain messages was discovered and with that chi was proven. Here is an explanation of chi.



Keeping in mind the most important part of thinking is the question, and you want the fun of watching a demonstration of chi here is the link I found https://www.google.com/search?q=demonstration+of+chi+in+martial+arts&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=demonstration+of+chi+in+marcial&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBECEYChigATIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAhGAoYoAEyCQgCECEYChigAdIBCjIxMDgwajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think I goofed. I looked back and didn't see the post I was talking about so it could been a discussion in a different forum. I will check that forum. Found it. This comedian is worth our attention.
https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/

Okay . I don't agree with you but I don't have time to argue this morning. I think math is the language of God and there is not rock evidence of that, so it is more of a poetical notion. I am not sure Pythagorus should get credit for the proof of a triangle, but a math book I once read said Egyptians were well aware of triangles but did not have a concept of a proof making the notion of a triangle universal. I think the difference here is the concrete triangle and the abstract triangle. Which is more real, the many imperfect triangles or the prefect one- Plato.

In my fuzzy mind is a notion that the drive to find proofs is a sharp contrast with mythological explanations and that this difference is what separate the Athenians from the rest of the world. We see that difference coming up in math and medicine. Not that the rest of the world did not have medicine but their approach to it was different. The Chinese notion of chi has proven very useful but it is not at all like believing our health depends on our fluids.

The bigger issue being one of how we think and that is important to our understanding of morals as a matter of cause and effect, or a mythological notion of morals. I am good because a god told us this is the way to behave, and how to treat our slaves. Verses, if I don't get this right, things will go wrong. And it is "if I don't get things right, things will go wrong, that is vital to morals and democracy.

The link you gave us is great. I have listened to his explanations before and I highly respect this ideas.

Ouch, I am out of time. :cry: but I have to say, the explanation of the importance of education and voting is great.

I screwed up and lost a couple of hours of arguments about reason and morality and I really don't have time right now to do all that again. Until we have a argreement on what math has to do with proofs and empirical thinking, continuing may be futile so I don't mind losing all my work and starting over again. Your last argument seems the most important, so I will focus on that. I really look forward to continuing but getting my paperwork done has to be my priority or I won't get paid.

Did you read the math quotes?

By it being entirely separated from Western Thought from about 1100AD. By religious warfare, ironically.
We stole from Arab scholars, for sure, but that doesn't mean our thought are intertwined systems. We nicked sources and ran away with them. Islam stayed put, and is still there today, for the most part. Developing algebra isn't relevant to what we're discussing here. — AmadeusD

Oh, oh I love your statement BUT algebra, or math in general, is relevant to this discussion. Man, I need a better emoticon . See me excitingly jumping up and down and screaming what math has to do with everything I say about democracy and morals.

Empirical thinking, give me proof. Math is at the foundation of empirical thinking and proofs. This is what separated the Greeks from the rest of the world and replaced the gods with logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. It is all about math, the whole universe, and everything we do. Just because people don't know, does not mean it is not so.

Please bear with me and give math some thought. This link to math quotes may help you realize what math has to do with everything we value and its connection with morals being a matter of cause and effect and also the very reason some believed democracy, rule by the people, is possible and even superior to a God-appointed king. https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/math-quotes/

teleogical divine command theory. — AmadeusD

I had to look up "teleological divine command theory". Like I knew that thinking has been behind the more aggressive military behavior of the US. Bill Graham did such a great Christmas about how God wants us to send our sons and daughters to fight in Iraq that I almost enlisted myself and I am strongly opposed to that military action and Christianity. But I didn't know this is a defined theory. Reading a name for it and the explanation still is shocking to me. How horrifying that humans can think a God wants them to fight wars, so they engage in war.

Come on you are very knowledgeable what do you think of the Greek and Roman gods of war? I love that the men of Athens did not believe Alexander the Great was the son of a god but they said, "If he wants to be a god, let him be a god". Of all the stupid things to believe, in this day and age. Believing it is a god of war we should follow is a bit horrifying isn't it? :scream:

Okay, and we are back to the great controversy. No man can win a war alone, but if they are charismatic the people are superstitious enough to believe their leader is a god or chosen by God, this leader can lead his people to war and win. It has gotten my attention that men who have been called Great are men of war. Why is that! How can we believe such a person is a god or chosen by God, in this day and age?

We were anti-imperialistic. That is a real choice and democratic principles are anti-imperialistic. For a long time, I have thought Christianity was the cause of our warring history. Believing we do terrible things because it is our evil nature instead of believing a false belief is the problem, distresses me a lot! What do you think?

Yes.....quite right. Unsure what the implication for our exchange is here. My points essentially rest on this. — AmadeusD

I am not pleased by my failure to put all my thoughts into linear form and clarify what one thought has to do with another, but if we have an agreement about the contrast between Christian thinking and the Enlightenment, maybe things can start making more sense. Those are two totally different understandings of reality. Understanding that difference is understanding it extends to a moral reasoning difference. Empirical thinking is good for moral judgment. I am not sure how good religious moral thinking is.

Here is a thought I don't know how to get into the discussion. European countries were almost constantly in a war. Like thinking a God has favorite people and will protect them in war while He weakens the enemy, maybe problematic thinking? Believing when people win a duel or a war, that proves God favors them, might be problematic thinking?

The whole belief system may be problematic and empirical thinking might result in better morality? What is the good?

Oh yes, self-determination! I think we are giving each other and our young much more space for self-determination and here I cringe and turn around. When I hear of young people killing themselves and the role the internet plays in this, I think we need to limit self-determination and at least do more to protect our children. But I see this as next to impossible because we don't have shares values and agreements. Our morality is not keeping pace with technology.

I would love to share a good drink and continue this discussion but it is time for me to run. I promise I will keep thinking and return. What might we instill in our children before we set them free with self-determination?

But people are only driven to the type of irrational acts of war, with the addition of a commanding ideology. — AmadeusD

How about they enter war because of a lack of principles and moral thinking? The child interprets "Thou shalt not kill". to mean what it says. The full-grown Christian rationalizes the word should be "murder" because there are times when killing is a good thing. Or we can go the other way- sure we can crush little countries and then rob them of their resources to cover the cost of the war, but in the long run this can escalate war around the world and severely damage our relationship with the world increasing the need to have a bigger more expensive military force. Moral thinking does not stop at defining and accomplishing goals, it considers cause and effect long into the future. It is sad the media left us ignorant of the neo-cons who wanted military control of the Middle East and what Bush and Cheney had to do with the neo-cons and the invasion of Iraq long before 911. What was the ideology that made that invasion okay?

the Enlightenment has acted as a shield against runaway Christianity for the most part. We have nothing similar for Islam given it's self-imposed exile from Western thought. — AmadeusD

I have been reading about the war issue and see this is a very complex subject.

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.

— Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775[10] — Wikipedia

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Anti-Imperialist League used Faneuil Hall to protest America’s growing imperialism. The league argued against militarization and the creation of an overseas American Empire and asserted that the principles the United States had been founded upon needed to extend to foreign policy as well. — Boston National Historical Park

What are those principles and why is Jefferson in such a huff?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."[62]

"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. — Wikipedia

All this talk is talk of nature and human rights are a totally different way of thinking about humanity and human rights and the best way to organize ourselves than how the Holy Roman Empire presented reality and God's will. What is our nature and what does a god have to do with how we organize ourselves and behave? The Creator and Nature's God is not the God of Abraham. The enlightenment is about empirical thinking, not being a subject to authority that must be obeyed.

Islam's separation from Western thought? How does that work? Islam is a blend of Judaism and Christianity with the same god and prophets. While Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages, Muslims were advancing and thanks to them, we were able to retrieve our Greek and Roman past that had been preserved in writing but had no value to the Christians who struggled in fear of losing their souls and immortality, and so subjected themselves to Church and the King's authority. To this day Evangelicals fear that unfamiliar information could be Satan and should not be trusted, so do not wear a mask or get a vaccine but turn against the government based on empirical information because it is the handmaiden of the Devil trying to steal our souls. :brow:

Oh man, the religious issue makes a mess out of everything. I am trying to get back to being our own authority instead of subjects, and how this extends to international relationships and the ideology of anti-imperialism. Like the original Star Trek, we don't engage with others unless asked and it is not our mission in life to go around the world making everyone Christians. But if they want to learn better farming technology, we gladly share that. The Enlightenment not religion and being subjects to authority.

t partially the Enlightenment has acted as a shield against runaway Christianity for the most part. — AmadeusD

You are stirring my thoughts! However, I am a little explosive on this subject, :rage: That emoticon needs to be jumping up and down and throwing a tantrum. That being expressed, I will take a few deep breaths and see if I can be rational. :lol:

Right now we have run away Christianity and a serious lack of knowledge of what the Enlightenment has to do with democracy and all the brakes that were put on going to war. I don't know if I can explain this without a pack of cigarettes and I quit smoking over 30 years ago. Stupid emotions. Hey, my doctor gave me a little pill that may help. Hold onto those thoughts. I will be back I am going to see f if I can boost my reasoning and reduce my emotional reaction.

The problem, I think aptly identified by Sam Harris, is the ideology, not the people. There are varying degrees of commitment, but the further from a true commitment we get, the less problematic things become. Which is a serious indictment of the ideology, rather than elements of human nature. You can get almost every positive aspect from religion (particularly the Abrahamics) without it, or at least without the type of commitment religion requires.
Conversely, you can't randomly get the type of despicable behaviours we see out of the depths of religion (particularly hte Abrahamics) without that kind of commitment, and in most cases, without that particular ideology.

I've a love/hate (take those words very lightly) relationship with those who 'adhere' to a religion by bastardizing it - they avoid the negatives, but also avoid a genuine commitment. — AmadeusD

Why not the people and the psychological and sociological causes of their behavior? As I see the mess in Israel and Palestine millions of people of just trying to live their lives and a handful of people have brought them to war.

The leader of Isreal was elected. Why did he win the election? What about all those who did not vote for him and do not approve of his behavior? I don't think ideology is the point of power but male egos.

Billy Graham made a terrible mess of things when he bonded Evangelicals and the US government. Now we have people who think God favors Trump and their Christian mission is to get Trump into the seat of power so he can do what God wants him to do. I don't know if that is an ideological problem?

The Muslims who are in favor of war are the same as the Jews and Christians who like to believe they are doing to the will of God whenever they engage in war. Worshiping the God of Abraham and David, may be an ideological problem? But the people who all worship the same God do not agree on the ideology. I sure wish we could resolve this problem and change the behavior.

The brain is still connected. I take it that the reason the body is still moving is because the brain is still receiving and sending with the body, as though still in its natural state. But I may be misinterpreting. Difficulty ti know. — Patterner

Difficult to conceive, but a wonderful opening for further consideration. How about Socrates and the cave? Just how much can the bodies move and experience life? Can these bodies give each other pleasure or cause each other emotional pain? Can they experience the thrill of discovery or the satisfaction of saving a life? What in the world can give these bodies meaningful lives? Like a dead frog twitches when given an electrical shock but is that equal to living? Of what can that brain be conscious?

One more thought, what is happening in Israel and Palestine today is the same old Jewish conflict that makes some Jews as easy to get along with as Christians and some Jews being passionate about elementing any who interfere with their claim to absolute power.

Orthodox anything is bad for peace. Jew, Christian, or Moslem. We make a huge mistake in speaking of these religious groups as though they are not divided and in conflict with themselves. Antisemitism my ass! As some Muslims are peaceful people some Christians and some Jews are peaceful people, and some of each are the enemies of peace on earth and we need to be honest about this reality.

The premise is that the brain is still connected. No explanation as to how, but that's the premise. It is still getting the same information from the body, through whatever unspecified means.

At least that's my interpretation of the premise — Patterner

I am sorry I have no understanding of your opinion that the premise maintains a body/brain connection. I am left with the impression that the argument lacks awareness of what the body has to do with awareness of one's self.

What is the source of the claim that the revolt was in response to a threat to their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit? — Fooloso4

Here us one explanation of the power struggle. There are differing opinions about why there was a conflict. But for sure there was a power struggle.

In the 2nd century BCE, Judea lay between the Ptolemaic Kingdom (based in Egypt) and the Seleucid Empire (based in Syria), monarchies which had formed following the death of Alexander the Great. Judea had initially come under Ptolemaic rule but fell to the Seleucids around 200 BCE. Judea at that time had been affected by the Hellenization initiated by Alexander the Great. Some Jews, mainly those of the urban upper class, notably the Tobiad family, wished to dispense with Jewish law and to adopt a Greek lifestyle. According to historian Victor Tcherikover, the main motive for the Tobiads' Hellenism was economic and political.[10] The Hellenizing Jews built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, competed in international Greek games, "removed their marks of circumcision and repudiated the holy covenant".[11] — wikipedia

The author of the First Book of Maccabees regards the Maccabean revolt as a rising of pious Jews against the Seleucid king (who had tried to eradicate their religion) and against the Jews who supported him. The author of the Second Book of Maccabees presents the conflict as a struggle between "Judaism" and "Hellenism", concepts which he coined.[16] Most modern scholars argue that King Antiochus reacted to a civil war between traditionalist Jews in the Judean countryside and Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem,[17][18] though the king's response of persecuting the religious traditionalists was unusual in antiquity, and was the immediate provocation for the revolt.[19] According to Joseph P. Schultz, modern scholarship "considers the Maccabean revolt less as an uprising against foreign oppression than as a civil war between the orthodox and reformist parties in the Jewish camp",[20] but John J. Collins writes that while the civil war between Jewish leaders led to the king's new policies, it is wrong to see the revolt as simply a conflict between Hellenism and Judaism, since "[t]he revolt was not provoked by the introduction of Greek customs (typified by the building of a gymnasium) but by the persecution of people who observed the Torah by having their children circumcised and refusing to eat pork."[19]
— wikipedia

Interestingly, Christianity is also about the conflict between orthodox Judaism and Hellenism.

Well, that is a very old problem with the eldest son being in the best position to inherit the family's wealth and the younger sons relying on Vikinging.

Fortunately trading increased the opportunities for wealth and industrialization increased opportunities even more. Eventual education plus new technology increased opportunities and national wealth. Merit hiring was practiced by the ancient Greeks which led to a revolt with the Hebrews who wanted to maintain their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit.

The Maccabean Revolt (Hebrew: מרד החשמונאים) was a Jewish rebellion led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and against Hellenistic influence on ...
‎Maccabees · ‎Judas Maccabeus · ‎Battle of Elasa · ‎Seleucid army — Wikipedia

How about considering it is as we believe it to be? We can experience a wonderful love or not.
— Athena

I found 'the grass is greener' nature of Tom Storm's perspective and mine amusing. I'm not seeing how what you said is related.
3 days ago — wonderer1

:chin: It is as we think it is. I am acknowledging people have different experiences and there is not one truth that makes all others false.

I do not understand what you mean by 'the grass is greener' nature of Tom Storm's perspective.

Great men and women make big changes because imagine things could be different and they make them so. Often this requires many followers. Humans can imagine what can be and make it so. That means life is more than matter. How do some have such vision?

No, you were just trying to stay calm and carry on. Avoid panic in a scary situation and use your focus to think your way out. I also got lost in the Scottish hills once, with a companion, in bad weather. We had no equipment to stay in the hills overnight. We got back, almost 9 hours late, exhausted and confused, scrambling in the dark, with one small torch, losing its power. We learned to be better prepared. Nowadays, the GPS software on mobile phones, makes the chances of getting lost in the wilds, much more unlikely. Your 'Artemitris' appeal has been rendered even more unnecessary, by mobile phone tech, how's that for an example of science making god appeals more and more defunct? — universeness

Right, I was just trying to stay calm but the is the goddess Artemis who helped me do that, the same as Jesus helps a Christian. It does not matter what gods we call upon, they all help us in the same way. I think this is a truth we need to share. One reason this point is important is to realize the futility of arguing with a Christian or Muslim about the existence of God because in their minds they experience the power of this God every day. They experience God as surely as I experienced Artmetris helping me get to safety. :lol: A GPS can not help us out of our life problems as well as a god can. But in some situations, a GPS is more helpful.

I agree, and the best way to do that is to do all we can to discover better and more robust ways, to protect human life against all scenarios that might destroy or damage it. Practical, logical, effective methodology, not appeals to non-existent sources of aid. The placebo effect is only useful for encouraging a PMA or positive mental attitude but it is a very limited and 'hit or miss' type methodology. It should only be used in desperation. It is pretty close to a 'if you are falling from a high building, you are as well to flap your arms, perhaps you will grab a flagpole on the way down,' act of desperation, just like 'oh please help me Artemitris!'

Here we have to be careful. I don't think life would be as much fun if we didn't have our problems. For darn sure the young do not want to listen to older people who desperately want to impart their wisdom gained through experience. The young want to experience life and figure out how to resolve their problems on their own. Someone asked Jesus why he spoke in parables and he explained people will listen to stories. Parables and folk tales have been passed down for many centuries because even the young will listen to them and learn the moral of the story. We might want to pay attention to that wisdom when we consider making textbooks to teach children how to read. The old reading books taught children more than the ability to read.

I am not suggesting being literally minded in all scenario's. But I am also saying that we should never, ever, ever value special pleading to gods as anything other that acts of sheer desperation and it is far far better to keep as calm as you can in difficult situations and use your rationale and whatever practical and logical skills you have to survive whatever threat you are facing.
In your scenario, planning your way back to civilisation and applying that plan, was much more useful and significant, than your self-comforting(placebo effect) appeal to a non-existent.

I think you are missing the power of a story. It does not have to be a god. If can be the story of "The Little That Could", or "The "Red Hen" or the puppy who learned how to be brave. IT SHOULD NOT BE, stories that teach our children ideas we do not want them to have, such as "Captain Underpants" stories about a school principal wearing only his underwear and a cape. Those books, as many books in school libraries today, are disrespectful. While I was volunteering in a school library I listened to teacher reading a book that was nothing but socially inappropriate behavior, because the jerk thought it was funny. He must have felt my outrage as I glared at him because he began explaining those things are funny because they are socially inappropriate. If I were a parent with a child in school, I would be furious if my child came home and did inappropriate things to be funny because that is what my child in school. Think Socrates and his outrage about the harm that could be done by some stories of the gods.

Stories are powerful and they can bring out the best in us or the worst. That is what schools need to consider when picking out books for the library not just pleasing the children by feeding them junk food and junk literature. I feel so sorry today for parents having the schools undermind their efforts for their children to be mentally and physically healthy. As one teacher told me when I questioned why the library had junk literature and not the classics, she said that is what the children will read. :gasp: The job of the school is to teach the children better.

And my walks along the river on a perfect are not desperate moments. I love being overwhelmed by the beauty all around me and expressing my appreciation to the Mother Goddess. Like some people are racist because of the stories they tell themselves, you are prejudiced against the gods because of the stories you tell yourself such as a person has to be desperate to think of a god. I am glad this came up because our feelings can be love and appreciation. We can love the tree spirits and hug them. I think I have a different experience of life than you do. Lucky for me I live in Oregon where there are many tree huggers. :grin: Live is more than empirical and material things. It is also how we feel about it all, and how we feel depends on our stories. Everything I have said this morning is about our stories and feelings. That is real but not material.

I do not disagree with anything you said but find an issue with the connection between inheritance and family position determining one's lot in life. That is important to this thread of who has a chance of being great and who does not.

My head is screaming about what we know of redlining and the whole prejudice and property issue. We are living with a God who makes this possible and I think we need to do more about this. Democracy is supposed to give everyone equal opportunity and this begins with education but millions of people did not and do not have equal opportunity because we do not have equal education. People of color and Asians did not have equal property rights, equal educations, or equal opportunity and instead of pegging this as a racial problem, we need to peg it as a social organization problem in our democracy. If our nation, our democracy, is to be Great we need to follow the rules of democracy.

One of my favorite quotes is this one “Unless we’re motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there’s no coherence,” Kucinich That is not possible if we do not learn the principles and reasoning of democracy. Living by principles requires a lot of maturity and depends on education to do so.

This is completely different from religion and being as children who obey a Father in heaven. As you said there are serious problems with living with stories about people and God. Exactly how should we interpret those stories? A self-evident truth is one we can know empirically and Bible stories can not be checked as we can check self-evident truth. There may be some value to being as children, but democracy requires adults.