jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (116 posts)

So, who wants to chat? All philosophical views welcome.

  1. paradigmsearch profile image89
    paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

    This thread is just as the title says. Please keep it casual. smile

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 14 months ago in reply to this

      Every once in awhile I stop to think about infinity because the thought that the universe is endless astounds me.  I look at my fingers and realize that although it does not seem as though I am touching anything, I am always touching something...molecules, atoms, etc.

      Infinity is an overwhelming concept that makes me feel terribly insignificant.  Kind of puts me in my place, so to speak!

    2. arksys profile image90
      arksysposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      wow, this place is dead... 11 months and no one says a thing.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image84
        jonnycomelatelyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        You are right, Irfan.  What would get you talking?  General interest or something from your profile? 
        My interests are varied, I know a lot about little, prefer logical scientific and technical subjects,  but also into men's groups and discussing positive outlooks for men.

        1. arksys profile image90
          arksysposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Anything is good for me... Logical scientific subjects sounds good to me. I've been looking into a bit of natural medicine and try things on myself... quite interesting for me. So far I've managed to find 3 things that cure cancer (from personal aquaintances).

          1. Cannabis oil - I recommended this to a friend after some research online for his mother. Doctors gave her 2 months, but she's still around after a year and the cancer growth has stopped.
          2. Black Cumin oil - talking to a recruitment agent, her husband was cured in 3 months. No sign of cancer.
          3. Dr.Burzynski in Texas working with something called anti-neo-plastons.

          Interesting things are happening in the field of natural medicine ... have you ever used natural techniques?

          1. jonnycomelately profile image84
            jonnycomelatelyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Interesting question.  Having led a career in medical radiography, I have tended to shy away from anything "alternative," because I saw a practice of avoiding precise diagnosis and instead employ here say, make-believe, false scientific presumptions.
            However, the values of natural medicine, where properly and honestly researched I believe has a lot to offer.  When I think of all the surgical procedures that have been performed when deeper knowledge and understanding of health conditions was missing, we have advanced enormously in the past 40 years.
            The first requirement for greater health is returning to natural, minimally processed food and drink.
            How do you feel about this?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Question - the cannabis oil listed as a cure for cancer.  If indeed it was the cause of the remission (untested, but assume we have tested and it really does cure some cancers), and we learn to produce it in a test tube is it then considered "unnatural" and of lesser value than what comes from the plant?

              The large majority of our drugs have their roots in living organisms, regardless of how they are currently produced.  Are they "unnatural" because they are not produced from a living animal or plant?

              1. jonnycomelately profile image84
                jonnycomelatelyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Strictly speaking you are correct - such drugs would be "unnatural."  They might even turn out to be better in some ways than the natural counterpart.  E.g., more precise control over dosage, exclusion of perhaps harmful ingredients secondary to the main alcoloid, less expensive to obtain, etc.
                Yet I would suggest that if we could eat better, generally, there might be less need for drugs any way....some at least.

              2. arksys profile image90
                arksysposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                I spoke to my brother about this a while ago (he's a chemist)... herbal medicine is good and if the cannabis oil does come in the herbal industry then we can say they are natural, but if it comes from the pharma side of things too many extra chemicals are added, which would classify it as unnatural.

            2. arksys profile image90
              arksysposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              I agree... that's what i'm trying to do (not sure if i'm succeeding though) to have lesser amounts of processed foods. for medication i usually search for natural cures and make them at home, if it fails and i cannot find an suitable alternative, i go to a doctor.

              doctors tell us not to bend our knees if we have arthritis issues. I was told the same at the age of 18. due to excessive sporting activities the fluid between the knees leaked out or something and the bones grind against each other. I bent my knee with my body weight (like the muslims sit in prayer) and i was back to normal again in a few days. this has happened about 3 times in the past 20 years.

              I had another injury recently on my thigh which was similar to another guy on the soccer field. He went to the doctor and got a 6-8 week rest slip. I managed to find the nerve causing the pain and played every week. there are many other similar instances...

              At the age of 32-33 i was forced to decide if i wanted spend the rest of my life on pills or stay away from pills and exercise. The exercise has helped with my stomach issues, my migraines, and so many other things. it was a lifestyle change but it was worth it.

    3. 68
      paarsurreyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Chat about what? Please
      Regards

  2. lovetherain profile image73
    lovetherainposted 14 months ago

    What do you think of my philosophy?

    The Universe is a living organism with a personality of it's own. It is a trickster.

    1. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

      Agreed. And we are so, so minor.

    2. Jewels profile image81
      Jewelsposted 14 months ago in reply to this

      Is it only a trickster because we cannot fathom the enormity of it, nor do we know the rules of the game?

      1. paradigmsearch profile image89
        paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Deleted

    3. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      If conversation does not pick up here, I shall lose interest.

      1. lovetherain profile image73
        lovetherainposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Hubpages is slow. I spend a lot of time at debate.org where the conversation is much livelier.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image90
          Disappearingheadposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          I'll have to look that up as the hub pages forums have lost so many contributors over the last couple years.

        2. Trichakra profile image61
          Trichakraposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Both websites are fast.

      2. Solaras profile image90
        Solarasposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Why did you decide to change back to this forum identity?

        1. paradigmsearch profile image89
          paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Resignation.

    4. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      A long, long time ago...

    5. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      Odd.

    6. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      And here real time. Hi.

    7. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      And wandering here.

    8. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      I'm baaaaaack...

    9. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      I feel a meme fest coming on...

    10. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      https://i.imgflip.com/txdhw.jpg

    11. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      Bunch of slackers. I'm getting more conversation on the main page I am.

    12. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      Really?

    13. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago

      Give me a pulse.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        What happened to your story?

        1. paradigmsearch profile image89
          paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          What story?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            I remember the story and the sad ending.

            1. paradigmsearch profile image89
              paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              I don't understand.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                I think you described "home" as a small shiny object.
                as I dimly recall.
                Maybe I  im a g i  n   e    d      i      t   .  .  .  hmm

                1. paradigmsearch profile image89
                  paradigmsearchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  That was a long time ago, you have a truly excellent memory. What with the subdomains now gone, I've got 15 flash fiction stories I could publish or republish here, but...

                  A. QAP would flunk them (again).
                  B. Google would hate them (again).

                  I'd post a link as to where they are now, but HP gets highly perturbed about that. big_smile

    14. Oztinato profile image83
      Oztinatoposted 3 months ago

      Are we all excited about Atheism 2.0? I am.
      The "cranky old man Dawkins" atheism is at last passe. A dead parrot.
      Atheism 2.0 is about religious tolerance, learning from religion and the putting aside of all denigration. This is real ethical atheism.
      I have no trouble at all with this approach and have been actively supporting it while also blasting the cranky intolerant bigoted dawkins style phony atheism. The damage dawkins has done to further his career is appalling. He is rapidly going down in history as a bad influence.
      Isn't it time the atheist young whipper snappers on HP put aside the woeful dawkins approach and embraced Atheism 2.0?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Perhaps it is time.  Is it also time to end the proselytizing of religion?  Time to stop claiming knowledge when there is none?  Time to stop requiring everyone believe the same myth?  Time to stop trying to brainwash our children into a false belief?  Time to stop spreading religious icons about the landscape, including public lands where the public must then pay for support?  Time to get references to religion off our money, out of our pledge to our country and out of our government?

        Is it time for that, too, or just to quieten the voices of atheism?  Personally I'd love to see all references to either religion OR atheism kept behind closed doors, but that very much flies in the face of accepted religious dogma which requires that everyone hold the same myth as truth.

        1. Oztinato profile image83
          Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          I don't proselytize any religion. I've done the same thing Atheism 2.0 is now recommending : trying to learn the best parts. I'm on record on HP condemning crazy fundamentalism.
          From here on you are on your own if you choose to continue to denigrate. It's certainly not me. Time has proved my approach to be correct: the dawkins approach was seriously wrong and urgentry needed total condemnation. You and others here have been deluded and following in the cranky old man's footsteps.
          Perhaps you need to direct your comments to crazy fundamentalists not me. While you're at it STOP denigrating religion with gross intolerance.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image84
            jonnycomelatelyposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            If Mr Dawkins, anyone with theist, a-theist, hetero, bi, gay, male, female, young or old person who wishes to join in this discussion freely, without resorting to denigration or intollerance of any kind, I suggest they would be very welcome here.  They could also expect and receive the same.
            Right, OZ?  Even Hillary aught to be able to discuss here freely, without being insulted or shouted down, especially by someone who might claim to have Christian ethic.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            "I don't proselytize any religion."

            Really?  Not even theism in any or all it's thousands of varying sects? 

            But even as you deny the obvious, I'll still tolerate religion...as long as it doesn't try to force it's myth onto me or mine.  When that happens I WILL strike back with all the truth and reason that religion has forgotten in it's desperate need to control the unthinking beliefs of the people.

            1. Oztinato profile image83
              Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              You are avoiding the issue. The old crusty cranky dawkins atheism is finished.
              I promote the ethical in both atheism and religion.
              Get with the times.

              1. arksys profile image90
                arksysposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Its good to see you are trying to promote atheism 2.0. that is the way forward, and i do believe it is possible, but i think we still need people like wilderness to do what they do and speak the way they speak to those on the side of religion in order to understand certain things.

                In order to make atheism 2.0 successful and sustainable you need people standing on atheism 1.0, otherwise you will fall like a house of cards. Everyone has their own journey... let them travel how they want. At the moment it seems like you are shoving atheism 2.0 down his throat.

                1. Oztinato profile image83
                  Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  The old atheism of dawkins has failed miserably and offers nothing; certainly not a foundation!. It has been totally destructive. There has never been a way to justify religious intolerance or for that matter racial/cultural intolerance. Its the very dictionary definition of bigotry.   Such behaviour had to be opposed at every step. To write books about it, to lead others astray and to make money out of it will be a lasting disgrace to people like dawkins and others who have indulged in this ethical destruction.
                  Certain unnamed hubbers need to start eating a lot of crow. Yes I'm insisting he start eating crow with humble pie for dessert! To continue on his same course is a sign of the inability to learn.

                  1. arksys profile image90
                    arksysposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    I sense the atheism 1.0 tone in your words too... the only difference I see is this time it's directed at someone else.

                    Overall it's a good approach. If practiced on both sides (specifically the religious side) then it will be beneficial for all.

                    1. Oztinato profile image83
                      Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                      If we don't have a gut reaction to religious bigotry we are lacking. We are talking about seperate things.
                      I've always stood up for ethical atheism and ethical religion.

                2. Oztinato profile image83
                  Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  philosophy/answer/271925/is-atheism-20-finally-acknowledging-religions-value

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                So is the old crusty evangelism that demands everyone believe.  Something you seem to have a hard time with.

                The goal is tolerance - tolerance of religion (all of them) and tolerance of "not religion".  It is not to promote religion or religious beliefs.

                1. Oztinato profile image83
                  Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Have you even read my posts?? I put them in the same basket as you and the old dawkins camp.
                  Atheism 2.0 is saying positive things about the positive aspects of religion not practicing religious intolerance for a living.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    Guess maybe I don't know what "atheism 2.0" is.  Non-belief is non-belief as far as I can see, and the requirement to be left out of religious requirements is only reasonable as well.  Perhaps your atheism 2.0 is actually agnosticism - the denial of any belief at all?  It is only in the past couple of years that I've changed that terminology to atheism rather than agnosticism as that seemed to be the common usage today.

                    But religion DOES have some positives.  Organized religion provides a social outlet for many that would have virtually none without the church.  It does provide some charity work (I've been involved in that in the past, helping out under church guidance and rules).  It can provide some moral guidance, as long as much of it is removed first.  If it would only stay within it's doors instead of demanding that everyone else follow suit it could have a net positive effect, but those demands are extremely obnoxious and actively harmful.

                    1. arksys profile image90
                      arksysposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                      That is actually what it is supposed to be like with religion. It's a personal thing with some encouragement in social interactions and welfare of others regardless of race, religion, gender or anything else.

                      If practiced properly I think more people (including some current atheists) would be interested in joining, but at the moment most religious people have inflated egos which causes more harm than good.

                    2. Oztinato profile image83
                      Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this
    15. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago

      bigot = dogmatist
      ~ the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.

      ~ what do you call someone with the tendency to lay down principals as incontrovertibly true, with consideration of evidence / truth and the sound opinions of others?
      ~ a non-dogmatist?
      ~ an ethical-ist?
      can an atheist actually be an ethicalist?

      well, Yes!

    16. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago

      The question is, what are moral principals based on?
      The universal principal of The Golden Rule.

      "The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a moral maxim or principle of altruism found in nearly every human culture and religion, suggesting it is related to a fundamental human nature."

      altruism
      the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

      I do not believe in altruism.
      The self feels empathy for others. Without empathy and compassion, which the self feels, there will be no (motivating) concern.

      1. Oztinato profile image83
        Oztinatoposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I can only reiterate again that I have defended ethical atheism. Religious intolerance is bigotry not atheism. Dawkins' "atheism" is just bigotry in sheep's clothing. It doesn't qualify as real atheism.
        Atheism  2.0 is wiping the slate clean. You can't build on foundations of religious intolerance.

    17. Rashid Minhas profile image61
      Rashid Minhasposted 3 months ago

      this is a casual bro :-)

    18. Gulam Wali profile image60
      Gulam Waliposted 3 months ago

      nice

    19. Oztinato profile image83
      Oztinatoposted 2 months ago

      JCL
      your memory is short. I'm not saying all atheists were pushing for such horrors but certainly leaders and large swathes of dawkins/singer infected atheists.
      Read my hub again on the failures of so called "New Atheism" (now old rapidly disappearing).

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I could not find anywhere that Dawkins want to legalized beastiallity and want to have genocide on infants.

        I know Dawkins greatly dislike Religion, why would he want to kill their children? Is it in the same way US Christians want to kill Muslim children?

        I know Dawkins loves animals , just not that late at night. Can't find anything on Dawkins wanting to legalized beastiality.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image84
          jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          In all probability someone has distorted what Dawkins said in order to make a juicy story that could suit their purposes.  It's easily done when people only hear what they want to hear.
          And you have guessed right - I don't want to hear unfair criticism spoken of Mr, Dawkins....yet I don't know him.  He just needs to be heard fairly.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            You won't like this jonny

            According to versions in the Bible says between homosexually, beastiality and pedophilia .
            1. Homosexually is worst crimes sin to God
            2. Beastiality
            3.Pedophilla

            Pedophilia is not mention in the Bible as crime or sin.

            My list would be opposite , homosexually would not be a crime or sin and pedophilia would be the worst crime.

    20. Pacesetter Abbey profile image66
      Pacesetter Abbeyposted 2 months ago

      "The musical harmony that comes from a harp is 'the invisible,' while the wooden structure of the harp itself is 'the visible' (body). If the strings from the harp are incinerated, then the harmony is destroyed as well. Just as the soul dies when the body dies." 

      Above is a paraphrased philosophical hypothesis from one of Plato's dialogues, namely "Phaedo." This hypothesis simply objects that the body is superior to the soul (if the body dies, the soul dies). The human body is being compared to the wooden structure of a lyre (harp), and the soul compared to the music

     
    working