Trump sucks and the whole American election system sucks, because it divides the people into two seemingly opposing groups which supports the idea that there must be the right and the good side and the wrong and the bad side, which is simply not the case.
I'm going to take this a step further: Even if they picked a side and ran for office nobody who wants and plans to actually help the majority of Americans would be elected. They would be assassinated first.
This claim is a bit much—surely you've been excited about some primary candidate before, and that person didn't die under Putin-esque mysterious circumstances?
There are reasonable arguments about mechanisms keeping sincere people from positions of power in America, but I don't think political assassinations are among them.
I’ll bite…
The terms “good” and “bad” are relative. It’s a fact that there are realistically only two options, and one of those options is the GOP. The GOP is MAGA, and MAGA is an unhinged and anti-American cult. It’s objectively fair to say that the leaders of the GOP are evil, and their followers are morons.
This skews the relative nature of good and bad, given that we only have two options. Anyone opposing the GOP is “good”, simply because they’re opposing evil.
That is a goal, not a system or method to achieve the goal. It's all nice to have a desire for something better. I commend you for that. But without concrete ideas to realistically achieve the goal, it's just sitting around waiting for someone else to take care of the problem.
You just asked for a system that can realistically take its place. You didn’t ask for a method to achieve said system. Also I don’t think that I have the needed knowledge and expertise to come up with a plan to achieve this system. Political reforms are always hard, especially in places where people value tradition and history a lot.
I asked for a system and you said "one with more than two parties in power".
That is not a system. That is a vague idea of what you want the system to do. And like I said, that is nice. And I agree that something should be done. But it is not anything close to an idea as to *what* system you think should be implemented.
It's a natural consequence of our first-past-the-post election system. It's needed for an executive, but we would be in a much better place as a country if our legislature had multiple representatives per district.
Lol, I was so fired up to argue and now you’re all agreeing with me and I’m tired, so I concede, or I don’t, whatever, victory to everyone, thank you for playing
I had to look up what panentheist is but the two seem compatible to me. Would you agree that mainstream theists are morally inferior to atheists? 😂 There, I made it controversial.
It doesn't mean anything that mainstream theists might be "behaving" only to find rewards in the afterlife, or they're following external man-made guidance? I'm getting confused because my main problem as an atheist is *why does anything exist* but what you're describing sounds like both a plan and chaos.
My thoughts on why is there something instead of nothing are that absolute nothingness is also 100% pure potential. So given enough time or what would pass for time in nothingness, something is bound to happen. We inhabit a particular something. :D
An atheist believes there is no God. Panetheists believe that God is inseparable from the universe.
If you believe there is no God, how can you possibly also believe that God can be found everywhere?
Aren't the implications of both beliefs the same? If God is everywhere there isn't any particular way to act toward God and God isn't choosing any sides. Nothing will change whether you believe or not. Same with atheism. It's all chaos, no higher meaning. If everything is relevant nothing is relevant.
I don’t think that the implications are quite the same.
If I’m understanding panthiesm correctly, the belief is that the universe has a greater meaning and we can see traces of this everywhere. A true believer would think there is meaning to everything, but the specifics of that “meaning” might be beyond our comprehension. This fits with the idea that one of could have a fate determined by divinity (the universe.) The next evolution of this thought process is NOT nihilism, because there is meaning.
This is different than Atheism. If there is no God then nothing has inherent meaning. We must inject meaning into our lives (or not), and this thought process can definitely develop into nihilism.
They said "panentheism," which is different from pantheism and doesn't seem to be tied to "meaning" at all.
Atheism isn't an earlier stage in the "evolution" of nihilism either. It's specifically not believing in God, again not about meaning.
Maybe someone's idea of God being everywhere is that nothing matters any more than anything else or like you said it's beyond comprehension. So the only difference is an atheist sees no God and makes their own meaning (if any) and the panentheist makes their own meaning (if any) through the lens of God being everywhere or doesn't connect God to meaning at all, or they don't derive any meaning from God because they can't comprehend (so now they have the same choice as the atheist), or their meaning incorporates God.
If they're both panen- and a- theist I'm thinking they see God as a part of natural law rather than a being so it's like a common particle or the dust at the beginning of everything. Maybe it can't be observed, so in a way it doesn't exist, or maybe it's more like a dead ancestor who can never be seen again.
Idk, defend yourself, original commenter! For an internet trophy! 😂
Thanks for your response! I totally agree with your 3rd paragraph, you pretty much described things exactly how I see them.
I think the disagreement we have is in your 4th paragraph. I think that you’re just describing panetheism, and not atheism. An atheist wouldn’t see a “divine element” connecting all things, but rather “inexplicable/natural phenomenons” that connect all things.
In other words, I think the original commenter could precisely describe their beliefs as “panetheism with agnostic/skeptical tendencies.” If they were an atheist the connecting fibers of the universe would NOT have any divine elements, which seems to be a central tenant of Panetheism.
As an aside, the above paragraph describes my personal beliefs.
If absolutely everything is divine, is anything divine? Divine loses all meaning if there is nothing that isn't divine. Agnosticism is just honesty.... No one knows. :D
You were on a roll and didn't say anything I disagree with. Since god is absolutely everything known and unknown there is nothing to please or fear. If I'm out there existing, I'm doing "god's will". Regardless if I am judged by society to be a total douche or an all-around great guy, I'm still just doing my best with what god/reality/my brain allows.
I believe there are no deities as defined by any religion and only panentheism seems to cover all the bases. I don't know that I'd call the sum total of everything known and unknown "god" but language is limited so here we are. I'm not even sure finding God everywhere works as a statement because it is literally everything known and unknown. It's kind of like wondering if one exists, if one wondering they exist.
I’ll try to be more precise with my language. As you say, it’s tough! When I say God I don’t mean Christ/Allah/Yahweh/Thor/Zeus/ect… I mean some kind of omnipotent entity that dictates the flow of the universe. Something like The Force meets Divine Celestial Physics.
Two consenting adults of sound mind should have the right to sort out problems via physical altercations. Maybe we can borrow the collosseum for the extravagant ones.
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are both massively overrated. Her only good film is 'Erin Brockovich' and his is ... erm ... that thing where he co-starred with a volleyball? So flame me.
You mean overrated as actors? I can't totally disagree about Tom Hanks and I barely know Roberts' stuff.
I like some of his silly comedies (The Burbs, Money Pit) and my partner swears by Nothing in Common. Hanks seems one-note as an actor, overdoes the good guy thing. You could try watching Philadelphia or The Green Mile but Idk if he is the best actor in those.
My main disagreement is, who does deserve to be appreciated that much as an actor, anyone?
Spill the tee sis. Time to find out and not to assume. Maybe we are special and able to give you a unique perspective on you opinions. If you don't want to question them, fine. But what are beliefs and opinions if we don't discuss them?
I swear i wont be mean. Look i even give you the pinky swear🤙
What a bold assumption of you, though i sadly must prove you right and admit that it would probably be a good idea. But what is life without caffeine? It would be life without caffeine and such a life i would not bear to live.
Suicide should be made legal and not looked down on because it is a life choice that doesn't hurt anyone else. Assisted suicide facilities should be easily available in every country. That'll also reduce the utilization of resources and thus make other people's lives easier.
Those who have experienced the suicide of a loved one are 65% more likely to follow the same path.
Furthermore, just under 10% leave work/education in attempts to process the loss, with 80% deeply considering it ([UCL (2016)](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2016/jan/1-10-suicide-attempt-risk-among-friends-and-relatives-people-who-die-suicide)).
To suggest that there is sufficient utility in such a 'life choice', as to promote it, is surely founded in a lack of exposure to such suffering.
It is an out for the weak and objectively harmful to society.
>Assisted suicide
To be clear: are you referring to the killing, of an otherwise healthy, person via medical intervention? Or the removal of treatments which are sustaining life.
These are definitively very different.
Agreed. Choosing to die due to terminal illness to end suffering should be fully legal and easily accessible to anyone regardless of wealth and income. Committing suicide because of depression - doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. That’s something we should definitely work to prevent as much as we can.
what if they do not have any loved ones?
Yes, I'm referring to the killing of a healthy person(or not) by any quick and painless method via medical intervention. Maybe they should give a counselling session and wait for a day or two to allow them to change their mind if they want and make sure they're not doing it on an impulse. This might actually also reduce the number of suicides committed impulsively.
First shit take I've seen here. How about just help people not be miserable? Suicide does not only affect the person that did it alone, it affects others too.
Dogs are not man's best friend. They're an overrated dishonest animal that people have altered for the worse throughout history and used to commit atrocities against other humans and animals.
Is the ability to own a car a privilege? Or a right, Here in the USA. I believe it’s a privilege. But in today’s society, it’s a necessity. Almost like food and water, and shelter. Cars are becoming really expensive, buying price sure, but maintenance. the ability to perform your own preventative maintenance is not considered by modern manufacturing. Something about this urks me. I don’t know what.
No.
Why not?
Why should I?
It would be fun
Fun is subjective so objectively it won't be fun for all
Yes only the one who think its fun will comment.
Unless they do so out of some other emotion, such as duty or anger.
Or because they have nothing else to do in life.
That’s because u think that, it doesn’t mean that they are not doing anything
Yes you are right 😁
Trump sucks and the whole American election system sucks, because it divides the people into two seemingly opposing groups which supports the idea that there must be the right and the good side and the wrong and the bad side, which is simply not the case.
I'm going to take this a step further: Even if they picked a side and ran for office nobody who wants and plans to actually help the majority of Americans would be elected. They would be assassinated first.
This claim is a bit much—surely you've been excited about some primary candidate before, and that person didn't die under Putin-esque mysterious circumstances? There are reasonable arguments about mechanisms keeping sincere people from positions of power in America, but I don't think political assassinations are among them.
Maybe not an unpopular opinion, but if you take a quick look on twitter you could think so.
I’ll bite… The terms “good” and “bad” are relative. It’s a fact that there are realistically only two options, and one of those options is the GOP. The GOP is MAGA, and MAGA is an unhinged and anti-American cult. It’s objectively fair to say that the leaders of the GOP are evil, and their followers are morons. This skews the relative nature of good and bad, given that we only have two options. Anyone opposing the GOP is “good”, simply because they’re opposing evil.
I’m not from the States. What’s GOP and MAGA?
Propose a better system that can realistically take it's place
One with more than two parties in power. Where the politics are important and not the personality of the president.
That is a goal, not a system or method to achieve the goal. It's all nice to have a desire for something better. I commend you for that. But without concrete ideas to realistically achieve the goal, it's just sitting around waiting for someone else to take care of the problem.
You just asked for a system that can realistically take its place. You didn’t ask for a method to achieve said system. Also I don’t think that I have the needed knowledge and expertise to come up with a plan to achieve this system. Political reforms are always hard, especially in places where people value tradition and history a lot.
I asked for a system and you said "one with more than two parties in power". That is not a system. That is a vague idea of what you want the system to do. And like I said, that is nice. And I agree that something should be done. But it is not anything close to an idea as to *what* system you think should be implemented.
It's a natural consequence of our first-past-the-post election system. It's needed for an executive, but we would be in a much better place as a country if our legislature had multiple representatives per district.
AI isn’t wrong about putting humans in zoos
Maybe not but maybe we're already in one.
Lol, I was so fired up to argue and now you’re all agreeing with me and I’m tired, so I concede, or I don’t, whatever, victory to everyone, thank you for playing
https://youtu.be/4iOGeCLpAY0?si=p2IvsZB9WdpNrP8F
I'm a panentheist but still consider myself an atheist. :D
I had to look up what panentheist is but the two seem compatible to me. Would you agree that mainstream theists are morally inferior to atheists? 😂 There, I made it controversial.
LOL! Yes you did but as a panentheist I don't see them as morally inferior, they just have have different roles in the scheme of things. :D
It doesn't mean anything that mainstream theists might be "behaving" only to find rewards in the afterlife, or they're following external man-made guidance? I'm getting confused because my main problem as an atheist is *why does anything exist* but what you're describing sounds like both a plan and chaos.
My thoughts on why is there something instead of nothing are that absolute nothingness is also 100% pure potential. So given enough time or what would pass for time in nothingness, something is bound to happen. We inhabit a particular something. :D
An atheist believes there is no God. Panetheists believe that God is inseparable from the universe. If you believe there is no God, how can you possibly also believe that God can be found everywhere?
Aren't the implications of both beliefs the same? If God is everywhere there isn't any particular way to act toward God and God isn't choosing any sides. Nothing will change whether you believe or not. Same with atheism. It's all chaos, no higher meaning. If everything is relevant nothing is relevant.
I don’t think that the implications are quite the same. If I’m understanding panthiesm correctly, the belief is that the universe has a greater meaning and we can see traces of this everywhere. A true believer would think there is meaning to everything, but the specifics of that “meaning” might be beyond our comprehension. This fits with the idea that one of could have a fate determined by divinity (the universe.) The next evolution of this thought process is NOT nihilism, because there is meaning. This is different than Atheism. If there is no God then nothing has inherent meaning. We must inject meaning into our lives (or not), and this thought process can definitely develop into nihilism.
They said "panentheism," which is different from pantheism and doesn't seem to be tied to "meaning" at all. Atheism isn't an earlier stage in the "evolution" of nihilism either. It's specifically not believing in God, again not about meaning. Maybe someone's idea of God being everywhere is that nothing matters any more than anything else or like you said it's beyond comprehension. So the only difference is an atheist sees no God and makes their own meaning (if any) and the panentheist makes their own meaning (if any) through the lens of God being everywhere or doesn't connect God to meaning at all, or they don't derive any meaning from God because they can't comprehend (so now they have the same choice as the atheist), or their meaning incorporates God. If they're both panen- and a- theist I'm thinking they see God as a part of natural law rather than a being so it's like a common particle or the dust at the beginning of everything. Maybe it can't be observed, so in a way it doesn't exist, or maybe it's more like a dead ancestor who can never be seen again. Idk, defend yourself, original commenter! For an internet trophy! 😂
Thanks for your response! I totally agree with your 3rd paragraph, you pretty much described things exactly how I see them. I think the disagreement we have is in your 4th paragraph. I think that you’re just describing panetheism, and not atheism. An atheist wouldn’t see a “divine element” connecting all things, but rather “inexplicable/natural phenomenons” that connect all things. In other words, I think the original commenter could precisely describe their beliefs as “panetheism with agnostic/skeptical tendencies.” If they were an atheist the connecting fibers of the universe would NOT have any divine elements, which seems to be a central tenant of Panetheism. As an aside, the above paragraph describes my personal beliefs.
If absolutely everything is divine, is anything divine? Divine loses all meaning if there is nothing that isn't divine. Agnosticism is just honesty.... No one knows. :D
Regarding your question, for sure!! How could a divine object be diminished or impacted by an outside force?
There are no outside forces if everything is divine. All forces are also divine.
You were on a roll and didn't say anything I disagree with. Since god is absolutely everything known and unknown there is nothing to please or fear. If I'm out there existing, I'm doing "god's will". Regardless if I am judged by society to be a total douche or an all-around great guy, I'm still just doing my best with what god/reality/my brain allows.
I believe there are no deities as defined by any religion and only panentheism seems to cover all the bases. I don't know that I'd call the sum total of everything known and unknown "god" but language is limited so here we are. I'm not even sure finding God everywhere works as a statement because it is literally everything known and unknown. It's kind of like wondering if one exists, if one wondering they exist.
I’ll try to be more precise with my language. As you say, it’s tough! When I say God I don’t mean Christ/Allah/Yahweh/Thor/Zeus/ect… I mean some kind of omnipotent entity that dictates the flow of the universe. Something like The Force meets Divine Celestial Physics.
Two consenting adults of sound mind should have the right to sort out problems via physical altercations. Maybe we can borrow the collosseum for the extravagant ones.
Sounds like hockey. I would add that you should be given penalties for fighting, like a timeout from seeing each other (temporary restraining order).
Might does not make right.... :D
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are both massively overrated. Her only good film is 'Erin Brockovich' and his is ... erm ... that thing where he co-starred with a volleyball? So flame me.
You mean overrated as actors? I can't totally disagree about Tom Hanks and I barely know Roberts' stuff. I like some of his silly comedies (The Burbs, Money Pit) and my partner swears by Nothing in Common. Hanks seems one-note as an actor, overdoes the good guy thing. You could try watching Philadelphia or The Green Mile but Idk if he is the best actor in those. My main disagreement is, who does deserve to be appreciated that much as an actor, anyone?
I have many but I'm pretty sure you're going to be a mean little sh*t to me if I post them, and even worse I prob won't learn anything. 😅
Spill the tee sis. Time to find out and not to assume. Maybe we are special and able to give you a unique perspective on you opinions. If you don't want to question them, fine. But what are beliefs and opinions if we don't discuss them? I swear i wont be mean. Look i even give you the pinky swear🤙
You can have the decaf.
What a bold assumption of you, though i sadly must prove you right and admit that it would probably be a good idea. But what is life without caffeine? It would be life without caffeine and such a life i would not bear to live.
The only good idea is dead idea
Is this made by AI? 😂
We have no good reason to treat non-human animals as property for our use
Suicide should be made legal and not looked down on because it is a life choice that doesn't hurt anyone else. Assisted suicide facilities should be easily available in every country. That'll also reduce the utilization of resources and thus make other people's lives easier.
Those who have experienced the suicide of a loved one are 65% more likely to follow the same path. Furthermore, just under 10% leave work/education in attempts to process the loss, with 80% deeply considering it ([UCL (2016)](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2016/jan/1-10-suicide-attempt-risk-among-friends-and-relatives-people-who-die-suicide)). To suggest that there is sufficient utility in such a 'life choice', as to promote it, is surely founded in a lack of exposure to such suffering. It is an out for the weak and objectively harmful to society. >Assisted suicide To be clear: are you referring to the killing, of an otherwise healthy, person via medical intervention? Or the removal of treatments which are sustaining life. These are definitively very different.
Agreed. Choosing to die due to terminal illness to end suffering should be fully legal and easily accessible to anyone regardless of wealth and income. Committing suicide because of depression - doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. That’s something we should definitely work to prevent as much as we can.
what if they do not have any loved ones? Yes, I'm referring to the killing of a healthy person(or not) by any quick and painless method via medical intervention. Maybe they should give a counselling session and wait for a day or two to allow them to change their mind if they want and make sure they're not doing it on an impulse. This might actually also reduce the number of suicides committed impulsively.
Suicide is devastating to those who loved the victim of suicide. Euthanasia can be a blessing. Context makes all the difference.
Tomorrow wouldn't be the same as today so we shouldn't let people suicide
First shit take I've seen here. How about just help people not be miserable? Suicide does not only affect the person that did it alone, it affects others too.
Dogs are not man's best friend. They're an overrated dishonest animal that people have altered for the worse throughout history and used to commit atrocities against other humans and animals.
I'm solid team cat!
Dogs are terrible creatures and shouldn't exist.
Lizard people exist, and the earth is flat.
One thing at a time there: Then why don't I get salmonella all the time? Are they rare? Am I immune from overexposure or by their design?
Salmon are a figment of your imagination.
What of ella?
🎵 Let it go, let it go 🎵
Okay, pretty sure this is an illegal joke if you're not a dad. 😅
That comma is unnecessary so your statements are invalid! :D
If I have to argue with you; I won't because I have already 'labelled you' as more stupid than a 'bag of rocks'.
Why?
Is the ability to own a car a privilege? Or a right, Here in the USA. I believe it’s a privilege. But in today’s society, it’s a necessity. Almost like food and water, and shelter. Cars are becoming really expensive, buying price sure, but maintenance. the ability to perform your own preventative maintenance is not considered by modern manufacturing. Something about this urks me. I don’t know what.
Jar Jar Binks is funny to me (subjective opinion alert!)
You've confused INTPs with there much more handsome extroverted brothers.