Ben No.3

So 50 dead and 200 injured in Las Vegas... This was the result of 64 year-old Stephen Paddock using his gun. Apparently shot a few hundred bullies into a crowd.Thus far, we know of no connections to any kind of extremist background. No nazi. No commie. No Muslim. My condolences to the victims

So on a scale from Trump to Darwin, how true is this?

Must be annoying when sleeping. Whenever I have a bad cold, I wake up with a paper dry tongue. Condolences from Germany, Genosse.

I didn't think it was since they didn't believe in a higher power or the afterlife but after doing deeper research and conversing among aethiests themsleves, it seems to me that the absense of a god or afterlife is the very thing that ironically classifies it as a religeon, for if there is no judgment awaiting to condemn you then there is no need for a conscience, morality and surely sin does not exist, the concepts of good and evil are thrown out the window. Aetheism is so interesting and it's definitely unique but even in the absense of all things, it still defines itself by general religeous traits. It wasn't until I started learning about it out of sheer curiousity and the more that I saw how aetheists claimed that it wasn't, the more that evidence proved otherwise. I have quite a few friends who are aethiests so the topic of aetheism always fascinated me - though never shook my faith as a Christian. Thus, you may find this a good read: https://strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-religion/ ^At which explains much better than I ever could on a thread or forum. I'll do my best to answer elaborately. You deserve it. Please also note that I can, of course, only speak for myself. My proposal is that God does not exist. This is part of a scientific world view, but I can't really prove anything but the absence of proof. Philosophically however, the core is a rejection of god, not a belief in his non existence. You see, even if God should exist, I would not alter my stance on wether to follow him. Essentially, I see a few important aspects of God that make me not want to follow him. 1. Following god does not allow for morality. 2. Following god makes you inherently unfree. Let's handle this one after the other. Firstly, we can not have morality if we follow god. Mortality is a societal product. It is essentially little more than the way we organise society. And of course, this changes over time, but the important part is that firstly, the final justification for morality is us ourselves and secondly, we might adapt it if we see fit to. We do not need a god to justify morality, because it doesn't change anything. Essentially, we need to belief in the notion of morality, and this is all morality needs to exist. If we, as a society, have constructed a certain fabric, we can pretend like it has some divine justification for existing; but really the reason it is a sustainable system is because we at least tolerate it. As a logical consequence: of morality depends on our toleration, we can always change whatever we perceive as morally right. Now, we can examine the way our morality functions further. At the core, we seem to be a big believer in what you might call "slave morality". That is, the notion that the exploitation of one human by another is inherently wrong; we tend to sympathise with the slaves, not the owners; but at least the slaves themselves side with themselves. Because the slaves firstly have the numbers and secondly the society they live in depends on them, their notions of what is right will, eventually, win over. Translate "slave" into whatever the lower class of a society is, and this pattern emerges further. "For Freedom's battle once begun, // Bequeathed by bleeding Sire to Son, // Though baffled oft is ever won" is a true statement. You might argue that the problem is that our owns understanding of morality is deeply shaped by the society we grow up in and that therefore, we aren't really free. This is true for an individual. On a societal level however, we are much less confined. What limits a society's ability to develop morality, i.e. a certain way of organising itself, is the conditions in which it exists and the technological progress it has archived. Within this room, a society is, more or less, free to develop in any given way. And so we are free as a whole to develop and live by a certain morality; even though only little of that freedom is carried down to the individual level. But we do, individually, have the ability to decide to follow a society's morality or to advocate for a different one. And because, to a lesser or greater degree, everyone does this, we have the ability to collectively produce morality, ideally as the harmonical sum of few people's understandings and ideals. If we assume that we would follow an existing God, this would no longer apply. Should this be true, we would not be developing our morality over time and in accordance with the circumstances, but we would submit entirely to a higher being and it's essentially random commands. Claiming that god gives morality is like saying giving a robber your money if he holds a gun at you is a free decision. You never had a real choice, and it is ridiculous to say that it was one. Saying that morality can only exist with god is simply the highest degree of submission; a dedicated refusal to make an effort to think freely. This of course does not apply to most cases. Indeed, rarely anyone actually follows their gods commands; they fend to follow primarily what they see fit to follow and then try to base it on god on what is ultimately just a rhetorical level. Aside from ordering you what to do, god tends to reward you with an afterlife, if you chose to follow him. The notion of an afterlife seems attractive to many, because it caters to the idea that life has a meaning. And more generally, the notion of a meaning of life is widely accepted. This notion has, to a lesser degree, the exact same problem as the belief in a god. If life has a meaning, all your actions suddenly become actually meaningful. And trust me, that is not something you would want. It would place an incredible burden on us, not directly forcing us but definitely causing us to act with extreme caution, and it would cause us to refuse any sort of experimentation within our lives, simply because it would be too risky. A meaning of life would confine us to a very large degree, we would be left with very little room, i.e. intellectual and practical room, to move in without the crushing fear of missing the meaning. Through this, it would also kill any notable form of individuality for the same reason. The idea of the meaning of life is a remainder of more religious times, but it is just as much a cage as religion is. Just my two cents.

Do you have a problem with what I said? It feels like your trying to make an argument of the valid points I made... or trying to make it seem like I somehow comtradicted myself which I didn't, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I'll explain further and hopefully you'll understand where I am coming from. I guess first off I'll say, a small percent of Christians do not represent Christians as a whole. Just as someone from your religeon who does something stupid does not represent your religeon whether it would be aethiesm, Christianity or anything else. I don't know the guy so I don't really know his walk with God, he could be a real Christian or for all I know he could be a troll who is trying to make Christians and churches look bad - because that's never happened before *wink wink* The fact remains the same, Christians have always used Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays inside and outside church without issue. The situation of the Starbucks cups isn't that Christians had a problem with the phrase "Happy Holidays", it's that the phrase "Merry Christmas" was replaced and that means it was essentially banned. So it's a totally different argument altogether. I'm a Christian and I think the video that the guy made was stupid and ignorant. Making such claims that Starbucks hates Jesus when that was not the point, the point was that they changed it so that it wouldn't offend anyone and lose their customers. Starbucks most likely did not want to change it but that's that. As a Christian I don't let it stop me from drinking their coffee and I doubt any mature Christian would as we understand that there are more possibilities than what most people might think to be going on. Because atheism is a religion *wink wink*

You lost me here. It is one thing to no have religious indoctrination in a public school. It's another to restrict religious expression by the people in the school. If a teacher or student is wearing a cross, or star of david, or whatever it is hardly the same thing as pushing religion on a student of fellow faculty member. Certainly it is not the State's job to teach religious doctrine, but when you suggest suppressing the free practice and expression you've gone too far. Now you ARE telling them what to think. Besides, you know the old saying; As long as there are tests there will always be prayer in school As Indira pointed out, giving religion a place in the educational system makes religion institutional. And this in turn of course grants religion vast societal influence. However, any secular state should not enable religion this type of institutionalised base; at least not through state institutions, which schools definitely are. Wether that ban should be extended to private schools is debatable. But the point is that the teacher is a representative of the state. If he came into school with a hammer and sickle around his neck, that would get him into trouble because he advocates for, but at least is showing his sympathies with, a specific ideology. If he comes into school with a cross around his neck, he does the exact same thing. I do not care what ideology the teacher has as a private person. But as an official, he ought to have none.

I'm uncertain how the pledge is scary and don't have a problem with "under God" in it. Granted I can see the issue to remove it, but it doesn't effect me if they remove or keep it.I fully agree with you though about religious items being banned (unless for a project or something) and even go as far as to say trying to influence children into a political party is also a huge no-no in my book. that goes without saying

"Why does no one take me seriously?" *posts info wars videos* Anyway, I do understand why someone would want to ban the pledge. It does seem very scary, at least from my perspective. To a much lesser degree, the same principle applies for the flag. It just has a taste of indoctrination to it. But maybe that's just me. Where I am not willing to make any compromises is in the banning of religious items from schools. There is no place for religion inside formal education (outside of human sciences); these are two things that are strictly separated and must be conveyed to the children as strictly separated. So no crosses or religious symbols of any kind anywhere; and no teachers who wear religious clothing or somehow carry religious items. Teachers must not show their religious beliefs (similarly to how they must not shown their political beliefs). And, consequentially, no "God" in the pledge (if any pledge at all). I think that should be easliky agreeable on. There is no religious freedom if a child is pushed into a certain religion.

Inside a cave? Do i hear Plato?

Am I not understanding or you? My point was that nations are not a "real thing" (whatever that is), but a fairly new construct we came up with. I.e., no one is American, we ourselves proclaim him to be American. A nation is whatever we decide a nation is, there is no inherent category of "nation".

Is it really fair to put the Panthers on one level with Nazis and the KKK?

well I'd argue we reached a Toke where conquest isn't the economically ideal mode of immigration depends on where you emigrating from Haven't noticed any armies marching into Europe lately, Crimea aside (and I don't think that qualifies as different cultures).

I find it very interesting, that "the nation", and accordingly "the flag", get treated as if they were genuinely existing things. I am not sure about America, but at least one Europe (and I guess the difference isn't that great), the idea of a "Nation", and the ideology of nationalism are very new concepts. In fact, nationalists were often the victims of political persecution in their monarchical homelands. One might especially point out those from German countries or the Polish. But the whole idea only really developed at earliest 250 years ago. It spread to Europe with the French Revolution. You see, nationalism used to be a liberal (in the literal sense) ideology: its proponents came mostly from bourgeois upper class people, with a wish to gain political power and to take it from the monarchs. Especially in Germany (which wasn't unified) and Poland (which was occupied by three different states), this longing for a more democratic way of things mixed with the wish for one nation for one people. And this was Nationalism. After the failed Revolutions of the 1840s, the monarchs themselves started to use the nationalist ideology for their purposes. Most prominently, this led to the creation of a unified German Reich in the 1870s. From this point forward, nationalism became a tool of he monarchs, and it came to mean a strong support for your own country, its system and it's leaders. Essentially, it became the conservative kind of nationalism that we know today. And it prevailed... Poland, regardless of (at the time) still not having a nation, today does certainly represent the conservative type of nationalism. So yeah. No such inherent thing as nations. Very new idea.

well I'd argue we reached a Toke where conquest isn't the economically ideal mode of immigration

well, that cultural exange usually ended or started with conquest which left it's traces. Roman conquest, I would argue, was very important, for example, in building up especially technological advancement all around Europe. Of course, conquest has very long been a primary source of political power ad momentum, but with a focus on the larger picture, we can not help but to notice the importance of the exchange that happened sometimes even through conquest.

Just wanna remind everyone that the most advanced cultures became advanced through cultural exchange, not isolation. This is, of course, especially true for Europe: Much of our cultural advancements are thanks to Phoenecians, who came from the Middle East, and whose alphabet we use (possibly one of the greatest inventions of all time); the cultural back and forth between Perisa and Ancient Greece; the influence of Arab science especially in the fields of medicine and mathematics during the Middle Ages... Culturally, we owe the Middle East a not insignificant amount. It's helpful to remember from time to time that isolation did not create Europe; exchange did.

the problem seems to be that he isn't a commie. The main issue of the SPD is that they are so centre that they have become a worse CDU (Merkels Party). If they want to gather more votes, they'll have to shift to the left

http://www.juniorwahl.de/bundestagswahl-2017.html So this is pretty interesting. German youth made also a vote (though meaningless), above the results. SPD gained even less percent than in the actual vote. It appears that of the SPD doesn't get its own Corbyn, it will be doomed to disappear

by what terms?

It's decided. SPD doesn't want to rule, so the only remaining option is CDU-Green-FDP (due to party colours this is called "Jamaika"-CDU black, FDP yellow, Green Green).

Have fun forming a government Germany. gonna be either SPD and CDU or CDU, FDP and Green

Green, Brucie

AfD at 13%. FDP at 10,5%. Left at 9%. Socialists getting overpowered by nationalists and libertarians. CDU at 32.5%, SPD at 20%, Green at 9,5%

"Philosophie und Studium der wirklichen Welt verhalten sich zueinander wie Onanie und Geschlechtsliebe." - M.E.W. 3 Something like: "Philosophy and the study of the real world relate to each other in the same way onanism and [sex] do."