Which is nice.

PS: i'm glad my parents don't actually believe i have some weird disorders like autism (this was a diagnosis i recieved at the age of 3, as said before). Despite a lot of problems i deal with, like difficulty making eye contact, inability to handle change, weird speech paterns and severe anxiety attacks, they believe that I don't have any mental condition, because they think that autistic people are stupid and narcisistic. They think so because people with autism are often treated like aliens and eventually become wicked. I am not a psychologist so I don't really know if those disorders are caused by a mental condition, but the test i took 11 years ago made me think a lot about myself. PPS: i also struggle with social Interactions sometimes: a month ago, i for no reason suddenly felt a huge amount of anxiety with my friends and asked to go home. PPPS: now, what's the relationship between autism, narcissism and stupidity?

> You can Google all these topics yourself for the proof.

What sort of a Google search might one do to determine in an epistemically sound way that there are no conservative positions that are supported by the relevant scientific research?

> Cutting taxes to grow the economy...

"Conservative positions are often/usually dumb/self-serving/deceitful/etc" and "no conservative positions that are supported by the relevant scientific research" are different claims.

> Any other issues of importance that I left out?

Yes: evidence of your initial claim. An admission that you were speaking speculatively/hyperbolically would suffice.

[removed]

Well, so difficult to solve this problem...

It isn't easy when you want an answer based in promises...

The question is : where start and where ends the right to an human... We must to answer these questions...

Well, what is right ? Well, the rights that you are defending is based in the justice? Well, what is justice?

Well, many people around the world are lifting flags to defend some kind of idea, they have this right to think... And I can argue they can to do it because to think is part of the nature of the beings human, it is so inside that none government can forbidden it ! Even a prison are thinking in the jail!

So, of course these premises will help us make good argument, but the hole is much more deep than simple questions

True. True.. But we also have the waffle stomp and that isn’t myth. So we got that going for us.

This whole thing really just seems like a big argument from incredulity. I can very easily imagine a moral system that doesn't care about suffering at all.

> We just have an abstract crusade against suffering qua suffering, but we don’t assign innate value to the people we want to bring out of suffering into bliss?

I don't really see any problem with that?

Yep.

The mythology we share is the framework of our metaphorical understanding.

There’s a reason the surreal is a recurring theme.

Defending Myth as Truth is also the subtitle of all of reddit

> Okay, the key claim is that God’s omnipotence does not mean the ability to violate genuine principles of logic, so God is in some sense limited.

"In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion... once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

You can Google all these topics yourself for the proof.

Cutting taxes to grow the economy and increase tax revenue has never worked. It only increased the debt every time it's been tried. Likewise, trickle-down economics has no historical success. Whereas government economic stimulus given to the poor has proven effective, because they put it all into the economy by spending it.

More guns create more gun related crime and death, while gun restrictions have reduced them, historically.

Societies with legal safe abortion have better health outcomes for women and longer life expectancies.

Climate change has been proven to be caused by humans and needs to be addressed for the existential crisis that it is.

The big governments of socialist democracies in Scandinavia and Northern Europe report happier people because they are free from worry living in an interdependent society that provides the necessary Healthcare and Education that are bankrupting people here and enable entrepreneurs there.

Teaching our children the truth about our mistakes has created a generation of young people more engaged with their government ( recent voting turnout) who are motivated to stop making the mistakes of the past. It is a limited number of partisan parents and pundits who are worried about what the facts mean.

Isolationist immigration or economic policies have only worsened social and economic outcomes as measured by happiness and growth.

American policing has given us a record incarceration rate for people of color who are racially profiled. The system needs science based reform, not more of the same failed policies.

Any other issues of importance that I left out?

hard determinism has the same problem as the "teleological argument"

A) the deterministic argument is based on the empirical experience/observation of causality in the world

B) but that empirical experience/observation, per se, never provides evidence of necessary and inevitable causality (hard determinism).

C) thus hard determinism is something separate from the strictly empirical experience/observation

D) thus the step from the "degree of causality indicated by experience/observation" to the "highest possibile degree of causality" (which is inevitable causality --- hard determinism) is something demanded by pure reason

E) and this is an unjustifiable "ontological leap".

The modus operandi is the same as the (fallacious) teleological proof of God.

I experience a certain order, an intelligent (or intelligible) design in the world (the "fine tuned universe").

Therefore, from the solid ground of (empirical/ontological) experience, I attempt a desperate leap to fly into the thin air of pure (logical) possibility of the actual existence of a Being embodying that order and that intelligent design at the highest possible degree (God), without even admittind I left the ground.

[removed]

Epicurean lives, properly understood, are full of good experiences, yet Epicurus, the founder of the school, did not mandate the pursuit of pleasure. Instead, he advised that one do the opposite. Consider some of his lines:

He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing.

Self-sufficiency is the greatest of all wealth.

To live well, one should live a moderate life without demanding desires. Nothing in excess. A life that leads to ataraxia (tranquility) is a good one according to the Epicureans. What we may call a wantonly hedonistic life is not the Epicurean one, properly understood.

The only ethical way to vote is to "cancel" the 2 party system.

Washington said "no parties" all we have is the partisan elite with mindless followers vs the antipartisan free thinkers who understands there isn't a one size fits all approach. We need to be adaptable to each policy and vote based on policy, not a fake person

Good and evil are subjective depending on the perspectives of people both directly and indirectly involved. This whole topic is grounded on duality. Which we would not even be able to comprehend without. I.e. without bad things happening, we wouldn't know what "good" would even be... and therefore wouldn't appreciate life in general.

If there is a God, all he did was create a universe with beings that follow a strict and scalable law of physics. Survival of the fittest is a mental/conscious law just as real as gravity. Being kind to others, in the context of a human, is still selfish behavior at it's root.. we do it to be part of a group and be accepted. Selfishness isn't inherently bad, we're just creatures that have needs that must be filled first. Simultaneously trying to please our subconcious, unconcious, and egos

Bad things happen because people are greedy, selfish, pieces of shit that need to learn how to appreciate the lives of people with opposing lifestyle or opinions and learn that their biggest enemy is their own shadow

I think that a lot of people do honestly care about all the issues you listed.

Yet famine is still with , homelessness etc ,etc and I think it always will be

As for what it actually looks like, well, that depends. In the best case, care toward something entails action. In the case of those issues, various actions which materially affect those issues on varying scales, from signing petitions or giving to charity to taking in refugees or other direct action.

Yes , but it does seems that only certain levels of care really make impact of any kind

Yes people lie about caring for various reasons. But I think a feeling of genuine care toward something compells people into action to some degree. Most people may fall short of self-directed effort to seek and find effective action.

I think most people have enough on their plates with taking care of family and those closet to them. I have to admit when I give to anyone it’s mostly a homeless guy on the street , most charities I’ve seen in operation over here are smoothly run businesses where only a fraction of the money goes to the actual charity .

​

However possesing a passive feeling of care may make someone more likely to take up the oppertunity when it arises, they may throw change in the charity box when they see one, they may sign up to a protest when asked, etc

I guess to me when I say I care it results in actual caring from my perspective that would mean a committed hands on effort , but there are degrees of care it seems and we each have our own ideas of what that means and it’s dependent on who or what we are caring for

First Law

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law

A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[removed]

This is so dumb, if there was never any brains capable of sensing anything, there would be no evil. So God's need for worship would be the reason for evil, thus, God is evil.

That is of course if God actually existed, but no one who can "hear the voice of God" have thus far done anything useful with it, like answer the P vs NP millennium prize problem.

Oh boy.

But it's not objectively bad it's subjectively bad

After reading the Stanford article linked, I understand this to be a completely different issue than the one I’m addressing, and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.

This has nothing to do with the failure of the problem of evil to disprove the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. You are aware that’s what the problem of evil is, right? It’s an effort to disprove God. It fails.