• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RevBogovac

  1. Isn't the journey more important than the goal...? But yes, my liberty ends where yours starts...
  2. Well, I would like the definition of "the pursuit / seeking of pleasure" more. There's a distinction. And to be honest your addition is not so much an addition in the philosophy itself as much as it is a distinction in how well someone is able to pursue a: "train of thought". If someone is shortsighted then he'd probably just keep on eating - for instance - while if someone actually thinks one step further than he'd probably come to the conclusion that might not be very pleasurable at all. And if we look at the ancient Greek philosopher there's also Aristotle who proposed the "golden mean" (using more or less the same examples)... but even the ancient Hedonist were well versed in athletics (which they obviously found enjoyable) as well as debating... (although I must admit that the term diabetic is also a Greek one and the affliction was also described in those times...). I believe (pun intended) that if most people were educated/raised well enough that Hedonism would bring a better world: we'd be pursuing our own happiness but also understand that to be happy we need a healthy body and a healthy environment...
  3. In another topic we stumbled upon a interesting dicussion (at least in my opinion) and I would like to make a start discussing it further. If we would consider that religion: can bring people together to improve themselves and their communities. Those are three worthwhile goals. But are there secular ways to achieve these goals? Are there non-religious philosophies that could make the world a better place? Let's start with hedonism. I am a firm believer in that (pun intended)...
  4. In this topic? Wouldn't that be a bit off topic...? I wouldn't mind a separate topic about non-religious philosophies that could make the world a better place. Let's start with hedonism. I am a firm believer in that (pun intended)...
  5. That being said, I hope we see more of you around.
  6. Oh, I have no problem with not being as often as we used to in the office... but I'm a people's person. I need to see people in person. So much information gets lost on these digital mediums. I like working from home for the digital part (doing my analyses, writing reports et cetera... the production part). But for the analog part I really miss people (let's say for at least 2 days/week).
  7. How very recognizable. It reminds me of something I read the other day: Sounds like someone we might know...?
  8. Oh man... that's tough. Don't get too worked up. We're here for you. We hear you (OK, not all of us... 😆).
  9. I tend to agree with the mod on this because religions thrive under persecution. It's better to let them vent their beliefs and opinions out in the open for everyone to see and decide for themselves whether they are believable and honourable. Although mod also has to understand that venting a belief or opinion that is proven ridiculous also opens up the one stating those opinions to ridicule (like claiming Noah's flood happend literally and the god of the bible is a loving god) I tend to agree with Jonathan's stance on this; it is insane to (repeatedly) argue with someone who is so rigid not to be able to understand basic things like: So best to let them out in the open and just question the basics openly... I know, I - for one - have learned a lot by your discussions (and have reassessed my orthodox christianity accordingly). Thank you all for that!
  10. I tried putting that notion up... But Dan's stayed in character:
  11. Thank you for confirming that since your god can not be demonstrated to exist the question of your god's existence is both meaningless and futile. It is simply irrelevant.
  12. Please let me help you, Dan; there is a big (huge) difference between past, present and future tense here. Demonstrable means: able to be proved. So Dan; what can be done, repeatedly (or as scientists tend to say: verifiably), to demonstrate your god exists?
  13. As I mentioned many moons ago: if you were (living as a) Quaker I would actually - at least - respect your position. But on the other hand... One must - at least - admire the irony in you being able to use the wonderful things science has brought us to spread you "opinion" on what's knowable...
  14. I like the tips! I also tend to get into these kind of arguments and as I have seen you comment very often; they lead to nothing good. Getting too old for that... life is too short. Thanks!
  15. What about an apatheistic agnostic theist? Someone who "believes" there is possibly some supernatural being (or beings) but know he can never know (prove) it for sure and therefore doesn't care...?
  16. Yes, I actually have a couple of those in a display case in my study. Now comes the science; those sea shells are there because those mountains have been sea bottoms millions of years ago. I know your bronze age book says the earth isn't that old but carbon dating actually proves otherwise. Those sea bottoms have been pushed up bu tectonic plate movements (another part of science, how nice)... The nice part is that those sea shells actually are impossible to have been grow or deposited by that supposed flood because they are all millions of years old and not all from the same (40 days was it?) period... Seems like a much more plausible (and provable) answer. But as I have said already, the "flood" has been discussed elsewhere and can be considered fiction (barring the tsunamis that have obviously occured and will continue to occur but hardly cover that story from the bible).
  17. The biblical "flood" has been discussed already: fiction...
  18. Exactly Dan! If some cataclysmic event wiped out most of humanity and all written knowledge that would be exactly what would happen; science would come back exactly as it is (1+1=2 and 1^1=1 et cetera), but although religions would come back non would be exactly the same as before... the truth thrives.
  19. Sorry, but barely a minute into the video I just had to stop.
  20. Considering all this I'm actually getting more and more surprised that apatheism didn't get more credit. There seem to have been a lot of important/significant historical people who were apatheist like (a lot of the founding fathers of the USA come to mind) Copernicus, Galilei, Newton, Erasmus and Spinoza... to name "a few"...