AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


teleportation thought experiment -proof of existence of self by Martha Brillerridge - Sat, 08 Feb 2014 05:50:49 EST ID:mFr+oxKM No.191303 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1391856649549.png -(94529 B, 733x579) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 94529
So I assume most of you have heard the teleporter thought experiment: imagine there has been a device invented that can instantaneously transport you to anywhere in the world where a receiving device is installed. You can step into your teleporter station which is installed in your garage, and in the morning, you step in it and arrive at work fractions of a second later. Every major city on earth has installed one that permits tourists to send themselves there, meaning you can live in New York and go on a weekend holiday to Tokyo for practically nothing. You now have the most amazing career opportunities, because you can work anywhere in the world, but still live in your old hometown with all your friends and family. Truly, this would be the most revolutionary and life changing device ever invented, and arguably, you'd be a complete fool not to use it. Right?

There's a problem though - it works by scanning your body and identifying the exact state of matter of every subatomic particle in your body, and then it transmits that data to the receiving teleporter station at the speed of light. From then on, your body its original destination is disintegrated and a new body - that is EXACTLY the same - is recreated in the target destination, all occurring in the same millisecond.

Basically put, the original 'you' has died, and there is now a new, distinct individual. However, the 'new' individual doesn't see it that way, he has the memory of getting in the teleporter, and arriving at the other end, and proclaims how fantastic it is that he can do this. He keeps using the teleporter, and he keeps destroying himself to give life to a new individual, each one proclaiming how marvelous and life changing it is, even though each of these individual's lives lasted less than a day. Now, you may say, my analysis is silly, because I am assuming that there is some mystical 'self' that is destroyed when you use the teleporter. You might argue it would be irrational to fear using the teleporter on this basis, because if the individual that arrives at the other end is physically indistinguishable from you when you entered the teleporter, then what you considered to be 'you' (jus…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
17 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jack Millerfuck - Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:01:55 EST ID:Ahbnco9i No.191440 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1392091315655.png -(916643 B, 684x3023) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 916643
Yes, I would. And I don't think it's unethical to teleport someone.
After all, it's the same you, atom for atom. Nothing changed. Someone got killed, but it doesn't mean he will be missed.

What are exactly the boundaries of consciousness? Is a lab rat conscious? Am I conscious when I'm sleeping? Does it mean it's ethical to kill someone while he's asleep? How about dreaming?
When I'm working hard on a math/prog problem, I think in terms of abstract quantities and relations. If I stop thinking about myself, am I unconscious?
>>
Esther Bunkinwater - Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:40:26 EST ID:jM1UUqVv No.191443 Ignore Report Quick Reply
how has nobody posted this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc
>>
Rebecca Mengerstock - Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:05:29 EST ID:Eftf7cPI No.191459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191440

>Is a lab rat conscious?

Obviously they're conscious. They have a functioning brain, remarkably similar to the human brain (although on a smaller scale) and a nervous system. They have sensory organs that are also remarkably similar to human sensory organs.

>Am I conscious when I'm sleeping?

Yes. You have a functioning brain and you can sense things. You can feel when you sleep, you can hear when you're asleep, your imagination runs while when you sleep.

You are not conscious, however, when you are under properly-administered general anaesthesia.
>>
Nell Fuckingford - Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:27:06 EST ID:EDeYbq/S No.191467 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191303

but can they teleport the soul?
>>
Henry Haddlekodge - Wed, 12 Feb 2014 05:23:46 EST ID:9/7ZE1yO No.191470 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191308
Nahh if you cloned a perfect copy OP both are valid 'originals.'


Societal expectations in relation to cleanliness. by Simon Greenham - Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:10:51 EST ID:D75JnYDE No.191447 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1392120651568.jpg -(717028 B, 1890x1299) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 717028
When plates, dishes and cups litter my room they are but objects existing in the space I reside for sleep, rest and relaxation. No space is taken up as to restrict movement, and no inconvenience results from this either. A room only for me, and smells if existent, adapted to and forgotten without unease or displeasure. A girlfriend not being sought, and fresh dishes always available before I finally decide to clean. Tell me, why should a clean room mean anything good when to me a dirty room is satisfactory and seemingly natural to me? Where is the negative of a dirty room so long as you are fine with it being dirty? Ideas of the connection between cleanliness and civility or acceptability baffle me and always have. Where lies the source of this societal expectation, and what are the reasons for it?

inb4; underage b&

Respond to my paragraph any way you see fit.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nathaniel Binkinsture - Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:45:55 EST ID:lNGf2dUx No.191453 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191451
Clutter is an ESTHETIC issue. Putrid shit is a HYGIENIC issue.

>How can we ensure our spaces are clean, and thus free from ethical qualm when we expect company, if we can't define what "clean" is?
Embrace the relativism and define esthetic cleanliness based on who is going to view it (if noone concerned minds the clutter, fuck it, if someone does, clean it), and sanitation standards when it comes to fighting filth (no dirty dishes in palces you keep your guests, flat surfaces clean from dust, dirty socks put along with other dirty clothes somewhere the people won't see or smell them etc). Clear boundary isn't defineable (let's not get aspergers about it), but you can eyeball it.
>>
Nathaniel Binkinsture - Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:53:22 EST ID:lNGf2dUx No.191454 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh, and I almost forgot: often the fact of having a clean place when you invite people (even excessively clean, as in, cleaner than it would be to satisfy both sides) can be seen by those invited as a sign of hospitality; that is, you show that you care about how they think of you, and you show that you are willing to put some effort in it.

Again, this is a heuristic regarding human behavior and by no means a rule.
>>
Simon Greenham - Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:42:39 EST ID:D75JnYDE No.191456 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191452
>>191453
>>191454

I must say, your answers are satisfactory. It's easy to ask questions, harder to answer them. It's like you did the work for me. Particularly like the distinction between aesthetic and hygiene.
>>
Whitey Shittingwater - Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:58:13 EST ID:RgQpGXYQ No.191457 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191456
Glad to hear it.

I've been thinking about it myself a lot, since I'm trying to revamp my life a bit, and not being a slob is one of the many qualities that modern society looks for in a successful person so I decided to start there. And since I don't like shit that matters to me poorly explained, I decided to delve deeper into the issue than "just clean up whatever this is, somehow"

Of course, we could go way, WAY deeper into the distinctions and definitions, but it's fairly pointless considering the scale we're talking about. Eyeballing aesthetic expectations based on a few people and judging which health risks are negligible and which are not does the trick for me, and I expect it to work for most.

>It's easy to ask questions, harder to answer them.
Ain't it the truth. Still, to ask the *right* questions is a skill in itself, but that's another story entirely.
>>
Ebenezer Cherringkud - Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:30:37 EST ID:D75JnYDE No.191463 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191457
Ah, a genuinely intelligent human being. I love /PSS/. You're right, we could be all pedantic and ask even more questions but the answers we already have will suffice. They are practical enough.

This topic was born in my head 2 years ago. A family member asked me, "Don't you think having a clean room is part of being civil in society?" I flat out said no, and they couldn't really give any satisfactory reasons for why it should define or indicate civility. I think it probably can INDICATE civility, however never completely define it, or be necessary for it to be defined.


Planned economy time! by Nathaniel Binkinsture - Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:46:31 EST ID:lNGf2dUx No.191446 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1392119191275.jpg -(85352 B, 720x716) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 85352
So, I've been thinking, and I thought that money in combloc countries didn't really fulfill the same role as it did in non-centrally planned economies.

First of all, the constant, intended shortage of everything created a market aberration - money was worthless because things it could be exchanged for things which were ALWAYS of priority. So, whenever a product appeared, it was almost immediately bought out. This was essentially independent from any and all monetary policy.

Secondly, monetary policy was treated as an absolutely arbitrary means of deluding the populace. Since the only way to counteract inflation and control the demand of, well, every good there was, would be to raise the prices (which would be raised up to the point where it'd balance out). Of course, announcements of price hikes weren't well received by the populace, so allowing money the populace has to lose value was preferred, especially since it disallowed those KULAKS to accumulate any kind of a larger sum. So, the prices, as given by the gubmint held companies, were, for most of the time, constant - and since it was an order-based model of economy, they didn't give a single shit about turning a profit (or maintaining a balace, or anything else than filling their quota and fulfilling the orders for that matter), so they took liberties in using availability alone to moderate demand (seeing as price didn't matter). Nothing lowers the value of money like having nothing to purchase with it. Whatever was outside the government-controlled sphere WAS subject to inflation, however, and so prices of independent merchants and service providers rose as money value fell - up until the point where they switched to barter and using western currencies to maneuver around being fleeced of their earnings.

Thirdly, inflation didn't matter for international trade anyways, since within the combloc, transfer currencies were used for that. It did, however, allow the government to fund itself at the expense of the populace, ESPECIALLY the remnants of the private sector.

Lastly, rationing cards and "coupons" (for cars or homes) pretty much limited WHO gets to buy shit that doesn't lose value. Another way of mod…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


GOD by David Huffingchire - Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:21:11 EST ID:uHpP5B/i No.190950 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1390526471464.jpg -(759873 B, 1440x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 759873
I'm not religious and I'm not atheist nor am I agnostic either.

I'd like to hear from an atheist's point of view how they believe we got here to this point in time.

How is all this possible?
What do you believe in?

I don't want this to become a debate between theists and atheists, just wanna hear atheists side of the story.
40 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Shit Ninningtut - Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:55:29 EST ID:uHpP5B/i No.191282 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191250

My butthurt is merely an illusion, yours is eternal.
>>
Cornelius Pivingsat - Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:17:54 EST ID:j9iGjpRM No.191309 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191282
If you're done trying to be taken seriously, how about you troll /b/ instead then?
>>
Faggy Crambleham - Mon, 10 Feb 2014 04:14:41 EST ID:uHpP5B/i No.191424 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191309

theres a difference between being taken seriously, and then dishing out the same dumb kaka games one has been faced with.
>>
Jack Cassleshaw - Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:44:52 EST ID:vl2Pd+VG No.191431 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>190950
i don't think you know what "agnostic" actually means

to an agnostic the word "god" is meaningless and thus the question of "does god exist" is meaningless because it's constituent terms are meaningless.
>>
Ernest Paggledock - Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:42:57 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.191435 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191431

this seems stubborn and just flat out wrong

gnostic-of or relating to knowledge
agnostic-of or relating to the lack of knowledge

somebody who's agnostic about god believes that there is no knowlege to be had about god, which is to say, we can only believe in God or no god, because knowledge is belief plus proof, and there is no proof of God or no god

i dont see why the agnostic has to be "unable to understand the meaning of the word god", it's pretty easy to tell what people mean when they say god, or at least, god has a bunch of easy to use connotations in his definition, you dont have to fully define him to refer to him


Heidegger and the end of metaphysics? by Simon Burringwodging - Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:59:41 EST ID:Ps7K2BgX No.191255 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1391723981544.png -(261316 B, 400x263) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 261316
So did Heidegger really end metaphysics or not?
25 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Edwin Lightworth - Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:57:42 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.191356 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191355

oh i was confused about that website, its like science fiction futurism type stuff
>>
Edward Girringkot - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:28:28 EST ID:rtB10VBv No.191367 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191350
>as far as I understand, astral projection is just out of body experiences
People who believe in Astral Projection think that whatever they hallucinate is actually happening. It's not just an experience, it's observation.
>>
Edwin Lightworth - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:05:29 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.191368 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191367

yeah i read the wikipedia on it and it seems i was confused because in my friend circle i have a couple of friends who are really into astral projection (also lucid dreaming, and meditation) and they see it as a mental exercise that doesn't involve non-physical planes nor does it involve changing your objective position in space, but they are clearly outliers
>>
Edward Girringkot - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:23:38 EST ID:rtB10VBv No.191369 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191342
I'd say that supports my claim really, depending on the religious beliefs you hold (like souls for example)
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:08:33 EST ID:AK4Vkp84 No.191429 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191355
>that website...its hard to trust it when they talk about "archaeilects" as if you could possibly know anything about them/know they exist?
The archailects are an idea of highly evolved sophonts such as AI that have surpassed some sort of toposophic barrier. They describe an archailect's mind as a giant multicored onion with each layer being another upon extrapolated simultaneous thought on top of the encased thought, with many thouysands to millions of cores being passed around at once, having layers intermingle.

Not saying they exist close to us right now, but it's a big infinite Multiverse.



>Why do they pretend to speak for aliens about their spirituality
The bodhology on OA is from a Terran sense of mind.

>how do you think discussing aliens and chakras results in enlightenment?
Speculating on alien biologies and thusly, psychologies, makes for a very interesting conversation and frame of mind.


Euthanasia by Phineas Dribbleford - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:52:03 EST ID:Eftf7cPI No.191384 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1391986323549.jpg -(112897 B, 970x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 112897
What qualifies as euthanasia? As in, what is it that categorically distinguishes as a specific type of killing?
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Betsy Nerryforth - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:06:15 EST ID:rtB10VBv No.191403 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191398
I was already aware of the problem while I was typing it, but it doesn't really matter.
>>
Phineas Nicklehood - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:09:20 EST ID:Eftf7cPI No.191405 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191403

Yeah it does matter.
>>
Betsy Nerryforth - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 21:20:49 EST ID:rtB10VBv No.191410 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191405
Nah, it would be redundant to take it into account, because then you'd have to re-evaluate everything else you think. And then you'd be back where you started.
>>
Phineas Nicklehood - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 22:33:30 EST ID:Eftf7cPI No.191415 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191410

>Nah, it would be redundant to take it into account, because then you'd have to re-evaluate everything else you think.

Either you're thinking of a different mistake I am, or you're kind of mising the point of philsophy.
>>
Ernest Paggledock - Mon, 10 Feb 2014 01:37:12 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.191417 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191398
>>191399
>>191403
>>191405
>>191410
>>191415

this is the most embarrassing 6 posts on /pss/ right now lol, just say what you mean! goddamn

so much time wasted on style points


The heart by Shit Blythelock - Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:51:52 EST ID:xMmvmjRR No.191258 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1391737912898.jpg -(130512 B, 1155x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 130512
Is the heart more than just an organ?
17 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:53:59 EST ID:AK4Vkp84 No.191341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191340
>Now you're moving the goalposts

I never designated it as either, it can be both or just one, though to be fair I do think everyone has a soul, including such things as trees and even rivers, though they change more than anything. For the sake of this discussion we don't have to address whether souls exist or not because we haven't the tech to detect them yet, but spirited people do exist, but people who ramp up their brains too much often cause a "break" or some sort of short-circuiting, wheras a strong spirit or will rarely breaks.
>>
Sophie Pittfuck - Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:28:31 EST ID:LgN9pO8c No.191345 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191340
you could consider someone's drive as an example of spirt, which is why people say someone that has alot of spirit, use that word because its a manifiestation of triumph of the human spirit and what ever act they did or acts they did or things they did during their life, or how they lived their life showed determination and required spirit and how they came through those evens would require a testing of the spirit that they must have overcome, therefore they have alot of spirit. All the line he was replying to didn't make it seem like you were saying their was no spirit but that for some reason it was redudant to have a spirit because there was no distinction between a spirit and what you already are, so its like a foot having a foot, or a person having a self. Which if you think about it however repetitive it sounds is accurate, we have possesion of ourselves that we fight for care for, watch out for, guard parent, hold onto, and we are ourselves as well. Its like an extension type of thing to.

all the freaking philosophers from kierkagard or heidegar tried to explain that to peeps. A being that takes issue with its beings, and ends up having a stance on its self, that is its self. A relationship that relates to itself.
>>
Edwin Lightworth - Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:25:32 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.191351 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191331

but no emotional "heart pangs" are a biological phenomena, not a spiritual one. Or maybe you want to claim they are the same thing. That's fine. I think most people will find that the scientific approach more successfully helps with their emotional heart pangs than those who use your chakra-magic-spiritual approach

lets say we grant all your metaphysical quirks, what follows from this?
>>
Sidney Sennerpudging - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:31:34 EST ID:Y9ZWiX73 No.191380 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191338
>For example, did Neil Armstrong have spirit?

That's a different definition of "spirit."
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:28:17 EST ID:AK4Vkp84 No.191416 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191351
>I think most people will find that the scientific approach more successfully helps with their emotional heart pangs than those who use your chakra-magic-spiritual approach

A scientific understanding gives one much more ability to their body, yes I believe that strongly, I believe this understanding helped me realize my own spiritual drive, whether it be metaphysical or "placebo", a mind over matter sort of thing, though I would call it spirit over matter.

What could follow is i people practice a personal spirituality as discussed early in the Consciousness Maps/metasets thread, they would have that much more drive from themselves.


Sharia Law by Nell Hogglefere - Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:16:19 EST ID:Riiuzu6o No.191208 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1391562979646.png -(36863 B, 600x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 36863
Sup /pss/, I'd like to hear your opinion on something.

Living in the Middle East for quite a while hopping from one country to another has influenced me to some extent, and what has amazed me the most that the concept of sharia law is not as alien and deplorable to the people of the region than to others who are not part of such countries. This is, of course, quite troubling, but that's not the issue at hand.

I'd basically like to hear your opinion on the following:

Sharia law, granted being the word of God, should be implemented in governance. Islamic states would be functionally stable and self-sufficient, and that the failure of Islamic states today (e.g. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, KSA, Qatar, etc.) are to be blamed on colonialism and the extent of damage they have done to these countries and not on the implementation of sharia law itself.

When discussing such things with people who hold the belief that sharia law must be implemented, what's typical of them is to avoid or ignore mentioning the sheer brutality its implementation would mean for the population, yet, they advocate it saying that it's basically the word of God and that its imperfections are only due to the inherent human defaults that incline towards vice and corruption and such. They basically share the philosopher king ideal of ruling, and I think would dismiss the brutal aspect of things (like beating women, dealing with homosexuals, etc.) as not so brutal in the sense that it's the level of literalism adopted in the implementation of sharia law. At this point, some contrast Pakistan and the KSA as relevant (while to me, they're pretty much the same in many ways).

When responding to the statements above of colonialism and such, I usually point out that the Islamic expansions helped Muslim countries/the caliphates to progress by absorbing the technology and scientific contributions of other nations and races/ethnic groups and so on, and that once this expansion stopped due to the emergence of other empires and the breakdown of the caliphate and fragmentation of the religion, Muslim countries have failed to adapt/evolve/progress as fast as other countries and have devolved into being the laughing stoc…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
James Ganderlock - Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:42:25 EST ID:Riiuzu6o No.191233 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191222
> I think it's up to people themselves to choose what economic and political institutions they desire
Agreed, but my question basically asks how would they possibly convince others that sharia law is the perfect system of governance while taken the OP into consideration?.And how could such people deny the shortcomings of such a system?

>>191218
>Destiny Disrupted by Tamim Ansary
Thank you for the suggestion, I'll rend the book soon. I also agree with the rest of your post.
>>
Ernest Sucklechog - Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:04:09 EST ID:oCR+zVrN No.191248 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191232
Thanks, that clears a lot up.

I was trying to say that that the national government in pakistan is weak, and not so much involved in the implementation of sharia law. However, the local governments (or mobs) are the ones doing so.

Is that a good assesment?
>>
Betsy Blappercocke - Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:42:56 EST ID:Riiuzu6o No.191288 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191248
>I was trying to say that that the national government in pakistan is weak, and not so much involved in the implementation of sharia law. However, the local governments (or mobs) are the ones doing so.
Fair enough. Rather than the central government taking hold of the actual governance, it's tribes and clans that do the enforcement of the law in many parts of the country, and most of them abide by the Taliban's rule as they are fierce and brutal, i.e. not to be reckoned with; I agree.

I'd still like to hear your and others' opinions regarding sharia law and what should be done in countries who have outspoken Muslim populations who advocate (and partially enforce at times) sharia law (e.g. France, UK)
>>
Cyril Sammleson - Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:57:12 EST ID:VUo7x2am No.191307 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191288
Im the prrson youre responding to. Different ip.

I dont think im anywhere near informed enough. Im not sure what sharia law is. Ive heard some muslims say it's not like you really have to chop iff hands and stome people. Im not sure if it's from the koran or if mohammeds followers wrote it, and how adaptable it is.

Im also not sure about how it's implemented in london. Ive heard it's basically private arbitration for civil matters. Then ive heard it applies to certain zones. The former sounds much more believable, but i wouldnt be surprised if some people were campaigning for the zones.

I'm all for voluntary, private arbitration sharia law. Why not? Im also sure some government with a nice mullah could soften sharia law into something acceptable in the mideast. I doubt theyll get far in france, a country with restrictions on headscarves.. And i doubt theyll get further than they already are in britain (just because their common law goes back so far).

Are you from america? My views are scattered, because sharia law is a major bogeyman here. I cant be sure if what im reading is true or not.
>>
Sophie Gattingfock - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:04:53 EST ID:RGF1x+Hj No.191365 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191288
I think it is OK and actually beneficial in some cases, like marriage, divorce and financial issues like loans. The other parts are kind of a gray area and have the potential to do more harm then good. From what I understand about Europe the private sharia courts there are only for arbitration, and if you look at many other religions they have a similar structure. I know jewish people have a religious law system, and I know catholics do too, and they aren't even allowed to get divorced. I think the crime and punishment part can be a slippery slope. Interpretations and laws change and people tend to go overboard. Many of the laws they have in the extremely conservative countries like having women cover their whole face are recent innovations, and some people have argued that those rules actually go against the spirit of the religion and are mutations from sayings and rules that were originally sensible. The full covering of women being a terrible interpenetration of "dress modestly". At the time the rules originally came about, veils were only for rich women so I am pretty sure that's not what was meant by modest. Most the places in the world where they practice a very hard line conservative version of sharia look pretty fucked up anyway with no stability, infrastructure or literacy. When you mix law with religion literacy is vital. They should be able to implement it if that is what the people want, and I think that a few decades of stability and prosperity would have a bigger effect on those countries and the way they try and enforce laws. Right now it seems like desperate people trying very hard to control what little around them they can and it is sad. If people had more options and means instead of slowly watching the world around them disintegrate, you may see countries that go by religious law, but it's not oppressive.


People claim the Christian Bible is self-refuting by Reuben Cruffingbodge - Wed, 25 Dec 2013 10:38:59 EST ID:EDM3QhWO No.190335 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1387985939568.jpg -(91469 B, 624x421) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 91469
Is that so? Does the Bible contradict itself?
44 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hugh Neshwutch - Sun, 05 Jan 2014 08:49:17 EST ID:mOyPT6TN No.190564 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>190376
>It's called being objective.

Being objective is not the same as deliberately rooting for the middle ground in any discussion.
>>
William Turveydale - Sun, 05 Jan 2014 10:34:17 EST ID:5G3UFwvh No.190570 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Words mean nothing without the observer to interpret them. Is the bible self-refuting? That really depends on how the reader interprets various passages -- I'm sure that for any supposed contradiction in the bible, you could find a Christian site online that attempts to reconcile it. And then, maybe even another atheist site that disputes that reconciliation

Usually though, interpretation reflects to some degree how the reader -wants- to interpret it. This is true with both sides. Ultimately, I'd say that there is no truly objective answer to your question, since interpretation is entirely depandant on the reader
>>
Basil Diblingfield - Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:20:40 EST ID:wDtBAezA No.190571 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>190564

And deliberately rooting for the middle ground in any discussion is not the same as criticizing arguments on both sides of an issue.
>>
Fucking Battingbury - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 09:32:32 EST ID:iMjpHxiZ No.191363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The bible at one point states God to not be completely omniscient, I've seen the passage before but googling "scripture disproving claims of omniscience" only results in you-know-what and some arguments against trinitarianism but basically it goes "then x asked the lord if he knew y would '...' and god then replied "i did not". Don't take my word on it though, try and find it the next time you folks read it. Also, as on ignored poster noted, much of Genesis and Jesus's trial appears to be derived from the Babylonian/Assyrian Bel/Baal. Myth, and the Epic of Creation which I am reading now, and highly suggest to Biblical "seekers" who are open to reading what may be considered heretical by some Jesus freaks. Here's a page on it that has a convenient table for the parallels between the trials of Bel and those of Jesus.


https://sites.google.com/site/religionsciencevsfaith/home/the-assyrian-and-babylonian-bel-myth-parallels-to-the-christian-jesus-myth

I'm sure that referring to Christ's tale as a myth may seem harsh, but I assure you it's an interesting read. I myselfwould not exactly call myself a Christian, but I do find these topics interesting, and the supposed reunion of the Babylonian tales of Earth's creation and the story of Bel's trial being reunited in the new testament just seems so fitting. Remember that in Matthew, what many historians believe to be the oldest account of Jesus's life, Jesus asks of Matthew to keep his nature a secret, and the Old Testament never misses an oppurtunity to slander Bel.
>>
Fucking Battingbury - Sun, 09 Feb 2014 09:49:58 EST ID:iMjpHxiZ No.191364 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191363

Meant Mark, not Matthew.


Taoist and Stoic Philosophy by Lydia Boshfield - Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:14:58 EST ID:EJEhEP+i No.191188 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1391480098737.jpg -(294025 B, 600x428) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 294025
So, I first read the Tao Te Ching a few years ago and it blew my mind. I found lot of the ideas in it both profound and meaningful. I read Zhuangzi as well and got pretty into the subject of Taoist philosophy (I won't say "philosophical Taoism" because such a distinction is a neologism, the same reason I would refer to the works of St. Augustine as Christian philosophy rather than "philosophical Christianity").

Anyway, more recently, I began reading up on Stoicism and a lot of the ideas seemed very familiar.

This culminated in me surfing the Internet for discussions about a possible connection, and seeing the following quote:

>Some men, when they do you a kindness, at once demand the payment of gratutude from you; others are more modest than this. However, they remember the favour, and look upon you in a manner as their debtor. A third sort shall scarce know what they have done. These are much like a vine, which is satisfied by being fruitful in its kind, and bears a bunch of grapes without expecting any thanks for it. A feet horse or greyhound does not make a noise when they have done well, nor a bee neither when she has made a little honey. And thus a man that has done a kindness never procaims it, but does another as soon as he can, just like a vine that bears again next season.

As I was reading, I thought, "Wow. What Taoist sage wrote this?" But then I found out it was Aurelius.

Which brings me to my point:

I think Taoism has an explicit mystical bent and implicit rationality, while Stoicism has an explicit rationality and implicit mystical bent, but that both are fundamentally expressions of the same Truth.

Agree? Disagree? Comments?
>>
Eugene Tillinggold - Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:41:26 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.191220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191188

Definitely very similar and many scholars of philosophy have noticed the similarity between Stoicism and various Eastern traditions

I see Stoicism as brilliant practical advice, and a great normative theory, but the metaphysics and theories dont really add up.
>>
Eugene Tillinggold - Wed, 05 Feb 2014 01:44:05 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.191221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191220

So to clarify I think that the Stoic idea of the righteous life is excellent and worth emulating but that the Stoics also have an entire philosophic worldview, a self-contained system that is supposed to justify their morals and everything else, and I think the all-inclusive worldview falls apart on close examination, but that this really says nothing about their moral conclusions, just that they try too hard to make them unassailable
>>
Nigel Penkinham - Thu, 06 Feb 2014 04:40:26 EST ID:K2cM2lh4 No.191244 Ignore Report Quick Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp0avlJ-uac
>>
Nell Hublingcocke - Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:08:41 EST ID:EJEhEP+i No.191254 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191220
>>191221
I don't actually find Stoic metaphysical claims and such incompatible with what I believed before I started reading it, or unconvincing.


Nomads. by Phoebe Drammlenon - Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:20:02 EST ID:PuV9xEgb No.191234 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1391656802095.jpg -(572392 B, 849x565) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 572392
All of humanity is nothing more than an adapted version of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Our bodies are built for the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, so shouldn't our minds be built for it as well?
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:46:59 EST ID:AK4Vkp84 No.191235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yup, that's why we have psychedelics, so we can explore farther than our consciousness would ever normally allow.
>>
Molly Ferryville - Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:16:37 EST ID:j9iGjpRM No.191251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Pretty much OP, this explains why humans can't seem to muster up much empathy for large groups of people, because we only have the capacity to care about the 100 people that would make up our "tribe".

It's also why you like to eat lots and lots of fat and sugar, because we evolved in environments where those things were scarce.


Existential Crisis by Nigel Bresslehood - Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:04:48 EST ID:9/7ZE1yO No.191087 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1390982688971.gif -(2089806 B, 339x247) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2089806
Could it just be another form of depression?
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Chennerville - Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:20:14 EST ID:j9iGjpRM No.191205 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191200
Ah, now I see your problem. You're using "genes" as the fundamental block of our being. But really only a tiny minority of our bodies are genes. Use the word "atom" instead, it makes everything a little easier.
>>
Albert Nonderham - Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:14:37 EST ID:mgpFi1wt No.191212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191200
You're a fool! If I read what you are trying to put across properly, you're saying that consciousness doesn't exist? You are a very closed minded individual. You should visit /psy/ or meditate instead of being a genetic nazi man
>>
Nell Hogglefere - Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:50:43 EST ID:Riiuzu6o No.191217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191091
>It causes depression in most people, you just have to stop thinking about it and focus on your life
This is true. It may cause depression, and may be caused by depression, though the latter I don't believe use depression and existential crisis interchangeably. Second.

>>191094
>I believe that the only reason behind existential crisis' stem from clinical depression.
Nope.
My existential crisis happened in 9th grade and everything was fine. I had just read a book.

>When a person is depressed, clinically, they lose their interests and negative thoughts always follow.
Clinical depression has a relatively strong genetic component.

>they lose their interests and negative thoughts always follow. The negative thoughts are so prevalent that it makes them very hard to see opportunities and to get enjoyment out of anything. In which case causes a spiral where negative experiences occur and only reinforces their negative thinking.
What does this have to do with existential angst.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Lillian Siddlehood - Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:26:06 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.191224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191204
Can't you do your own homework?

http://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/ggd/ you can contact one of these professors with your questions and concerns.
>>
Thomas Clodgechut - Thu, 06 Feb 2014 01:07:46 EST ID:Y9ZWiX73 No.191241 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>191224

You are the one presenting the claims.
I am the one skeptical of them.
Therefore, you are the one who must cite those sources which back up your claims.


<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.