Phi for All

I used to think I thought this way. It seemed like a compassionate stance with a common sense foundation. But then I found out that, in the US at least, fiscal conservatism is the noose around our necks. Socially liberal means nothing if you can't appropriate the funding for it. I guess my worldview right now is that we need what we've needed since we started societies, an economic system that allows everyone to live well instead of a few living fabulously while most suffer. I'd like to see a real change in thinking, a modern Renaissance. We all need to remember that the band of atmosphere around this planet, the one that keeps every living thing we know of in the universe alive, is something we can destroy or maintain, and we should stop choosing, over and over again, to destroy it. Most of us want to exist in peace with each other, and stop doing harmful things so some can have more than their share. Of course, I think this concept of allowing your "betters" to pillage the village so they can have the nicest house is based in religion, so if we could figure out how to unwash a bunch of brains, that'd be great.

! Moderator Note You're the opening poster, so the thread would make no sense without you, and waste the contributions of others.

I PMd Dave to see if the settings were changed on us.

What a ridiculous assessment! How hard did you look for evidence that shows they're "better"? If you want to be taken seriously, use some meaningful parameters. Assumptions aren't evidence. Please get a clue. NASA admins have ALWAYS used foreign space agencies as motivation for further exploration. Your point here is nothing special. Going to be?! Seriously, you can't make assumptions like this and expect it to be taken as evidence. After all, Boeing could suddenly focus on a better design. See how easy it is to assume? The capacity?! More assumptions that they will build them. And when measured nominally, it's not. < yawn > And frankly, the rest of your points are equally meaningless when used as comparisons. It's easy to list accomplishments of one country while ignoring the accomplishments of the other. And your title question lacks meaning as well. Replace? As the number one economy, perhaps, but you imply so much more by bringing up battles from 80 years ago. Your anti-West mindset always taints your arguments. You may have some valid points, but they're lost in your prejudice and discrimination. I get it, you hate the USA, but your points don't resonate much with me. I know China makes cheap electric cars, but I don't know if that's a good thing in the long run. We have many problems on this planet because of cheap Chinese products choking the air, water, and minerals from us.

Please cite the cultures that use Catcher in the Rye as a blueprint for society, because it seems like a Red Herring argument designed to lead a discussion off the rails. I've been quite clear about why I think the Abrahamic religions are like a poison people have been drinking for centuries. Do you really think the direction of personal moral compasses aren't influenced by treating the believer like someone who deserves eternal torture unless they do what they're told? Humans have adapted to the teachings in many ways, and you might call some positive, but on the whole it's a belief system designed for oppression and corruption that smiles on you if you obey, based on Iron Age superstition and ignorance. I'd be happy to start a separate thread on this. I'm fairly certain I can compile the evidence to support calling these religions a plague on humanity, causing far more harm and destruction of life than the good they pretend to be interested in. Their holy books are an abomination of deception, greed, and patriarchal control, and the things they teach are often hideous examples of moral misdirection. They've caused so much abuse for generations and I think we need to start using these big brains that evolution gave us (not a god) and stop this harmful, sheeplike acceptance of absurdity.

There are theories that describe more than one universe, but this is in Astronomy and Cosmology, and the best current models tell us there is only one, and it is expanding but not into anything, since the universe is all there is. The same models describe a time when our universe was (what we would now call) microscopic, extremely dense, and extremely hot.

I'm talking about all the people who are going to try to advertise their own YT channel.

! Moderator Note Just a reminder of the relevant part of our Rule 2.7: Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned.

! Moderator Note Thread closed.

The books that teach the spirituality say basically the same things, that you're flawed and deserve eternal torture and misery unless you believe the way they tell you. It doesn't need much corruption from there, does it?

Trust me, in online discussion, you want the conversations to be very specific. The probability of reaching some kind of consensus or meaningful stance is much higher when the topic is more focused. And as swansont mentioned, people responding to multiple ideas in the same thread is chaotic and hard to follow. If you want a better topic than moving away from capitalism, what about changing our education processes? I've heard some great approaches designed to better prepare children for modern life, and I've often thought we leave too much to parents in the early years, and then wonder why kids get so screwed up.

My stance, the stance of those I'm talking about, or something else? Never mind, I don't care what it's kinda like. It's what I said, what I meant, and you should feel free to be clearer in your responses. You think that's the point? That your concept of religion/spirituality should only lead to outcomes you approve of? You're asking why would the Abrahamic religions reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks? But you don't ask WHY ARE THEY doing it, like you're wearing blinders and can't see it happening all over the world?

For me, it's about the time and effort others put into their responses to make them as clear and meaningful as possible for the rest of the folks in the discussion. You often seem to be listening (and responding) to only what you're thinking instead of what other people said. You're even quoting yourself now, like we aren't that important. You also often seem to put special emphasis on the vagueness of your responses, like a guru claiming, "Life is a river". I mostly ignore it because questioning it only brings more vagueness. I have to admit it offends me for two reasons. First, it seems intellectually lazy for a science discussion site (which is probably the exact opposite of the way you think of it), because you can never be wrong if you're vague enough. Second, you often talk about how much you've had to drink while posting, and I'm over 30 years sober, and enough of a snob about it to think we aren't getting to talk to the real you. I'm not looking for arbiters, truths, or wisdom nuggets. I'm here to talk to folks about life on Earth, their experiences, and to share knowledge. I like that knowledge wrapped in transparent cellophane with a simple twist tie, not covered in opaque brown paper, glue, and duct tape.

Yes, and we all know men who wouldn't assault a vulnerable woman, and we all know politicians we believe tell the truth, and we all know conservatives who aren't racists, but how do we protect ourselves from the others? By assuming they're all the same until they show us otherwise. I've heard enough stories about god-fearing, righteous people who did unspeakable things to their children in the name of their god to know that nobody who claims to be religious can be trusted. I've heard many religious people claim to be looking forward to when the bombs fall and the righteous are called to heaven, and quite frankly I wish they'd leave now, and let those of us who care about this life live it in peace, away from all those toxic judgements from those who truly believe God thinks humans are pieces of shit that deserve eternal torture. I don't deny spirituality. Wish it didn't have to reduce humans to garbage, spread lies, and oppress so many folks, though.

I think we need to divest ourselves of capitalism, personally, and the best way to start that is to focus early on teaching children ways to succeed through cooperation as opposed to competition. And I'm not talking about getting rid of competition, just educating young people on how humans get more positive outcomes by cooperating with each other than we do competing against each other. A few generations of that type of focus might remove much that is highly toxic in our societies.

Thanks for sharing this. I didn't think you were trying to be a philosopher, and I certainly wouldn't require you to explain it further before validating the realization. I hope being dismissed out of hand doesn't stop you from elaborating further.

! Moderator Note And that person, who isn't part of this discussion, needs to stop it or they get their privileges taken away.

At least part of the problem is the inherent disconnect between the three religions that supposedly share the same progenitor. The religions of Abraham are distinctly at odds with each other, and they even demand their own holy books, which automatically creates discord and ill-feelings. They're distinct enough that when they each preach about monotheism, it's like they mean three different gods, which means only one can be true in the minds of believers. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34340/chapter-abstract/334356122?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false Exposure to the Abrahamic religions has stifled many other areas besides science. None of them are stellar examples of morality and ethical treatment, and the teachings they pretend to follow just point out the hypocrisy of the three church's stances. Women in particular are treated as cattle in the Bible and Koran, and continued exposure has created the horrible patriarchal systems that still makes life miserable for so many. Quite frankly, many of us are sick of the violence the churches pretend they don't have a hand in. Many people claim to have closely held spiritual beliefs, but they organize under banners so soaked in the blood of innocents that it seems like flat out hypocrisy. Modern churches give lip service to the tenets they supposedly hold dear, all the while funding terrorism, human trafficking, slavery and worse. Most of the problems we have today can be traced back to a rigid adherence to some part of either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. You might claim it's only the extremists, but these are the people the religious have chosen to lead them. Netanyahu, Raisi, Orban, all are extremists who hold (or held) the fates of their followers in their righteous, blood-soaked hands. I think the current US Republican party has continued to weaponize religion, and I think people who object to their closely held beliefs being labeled generational abuse need to seriously ask themselves if they get enough spiritually from their Abrahamic religion to offset all the torture, rape, murder, broken lives, and broken minds those religions also foster. You may not be the problem, but you're supporting the problem, so you're the problem.

I think what iNow is referring to is how the abrahamic religions often support multiple things that are contradictory, allowing the leaders an answer, no matter how absurd, to any question a follower might have. If they get you to believe one bizarre thing, you're much more likely to believe the next thing they tell you. Sunk cost is definitely part of the larger question of how we lessen the grip of religion in our society, as well as the grip of politics, imo. They aren't what will save us, they're part of this obsession with populism that's killing us.

! Moderator Note This is pure supposition. If you want to use this as part of an argument, you need to provide some credible sources that support it. This is a mainstream section, so we need more rigor.

I'm a Humanist, and I believe in humans. Are you saying your gods are just as real? Are you saying humans aren't more real than any god people believe in? I don't have to dip into my trust fund to believe in humans, they're very observable.

This is what I'm choosing, since it makes more sense than cultural choices. I like the French educational system, where everyone is schooled with a public curriculum. Private schools increase class divides. I like the German road system. They know potholes cause too much damage to well-made cars, so they don't put up with them. Actually, most problems I see around the world are because of too much focus on private ownership. The People in a democracy and the State should own certain sectors of the economy, especially wrt infrastructure like roads, ports, and power grids. Some things are more important that they work efficiently and sustainably than that they make a profit for the owners. So I'm not sure if making certain countries the leaders of the world will work. We need leadership that decides it's important to put a computer with internet hookup in every household, so everyone has a chance to participate in modern life on the planet at a cost that reasonably reflects such a massive endeavor.

If they were beating people over the head with a hammer, am I supposed to consider the hammer harmless? Or should I treat the hammer and those who wield it carefully like the deadly weapons they are? What if you consider just about everything in that book has caused abuse for generations of humans, told believers what pieces of shit they were born as, and has allowed the Church to rape and pillage its way throughout history, until today where they serve as a real estate holding scheme for pedophiles and murderers? I think you're making the mistake of conflating an enormous, multigenerational scam perpetrated by various Abrahamic Churches with anything remotely ethical or moral. And when it comes to unacceptable morality, I don't need to read what it should be about, I have their unacceptable behavior as my guideline. So shame on you for the "out of hand" part, like you're the only person who'd thought hard about this.

Bad question, makes it look like you're linking low serotonin levels to ALL depression. The claim is actually that impairing serotonin function can cause depression in some circumstances.

Not copied and pasted, but rather generated by AI in the first place. Against our rules of arguing in good faith.