A4E

Same in Norway.

Welcome. What made you step out of the dark?

Threads like these on many different topics are very common on the internet, but usually with 50x more flaming and ridiculing and ad hominems from both sides. The power of stories are initially much stronger than the power of reason and evidence. It is unlikely that NASA or anyone else will go to the moon in order to prove that we can do it. It is pretty much certain that new stories are going to be created, ie a mission to mars. I would love to believe that the population will be able to see through it, but I have to face reality, which is that the majority are initially easily convinced with stories. With a real free market and competition we can probably go to the moon and mars in the future.

3 direct appeals to government authority in op. And numerous rephrasings of "this is the only way it can work". I sense agenda.

Many years ago, a friend printed out large quantities of copies with information regarding the Gardasil vaccine, at a time when teenage girls were pressured into accepting it. Drove to a nearby city and put copies into as many mailboxes as he could find. About a month later, someone had arranged a protest against the Gardasil vaccine in that city.

Welcome.

That is true sure. But a person saying or acting on that has double standards. He wants to steal from someone else, whilst wanting to keep what he had stolen, as in not wanting anyone else to steal it from him. He wants to kill someone else while wanting everyone else to not kill him, and also if someone else killed him before he killed someone, he would typically not be able to complete his desire. In my experience, people generally do not accept individuals who are known to have double standards. But I guess that would be a circular argument. (And I'm getting very sleepy.) Do you want a peaceful society around you? I assume your answer is yes. Do I want a peaceful society around me? Yes. So do we not implicitly agree on the same thing?... Thanks for feedback. I thought my original argumentation was watertight, but I recognize that I could be wrong of course, and you made me think. This is just what I see as the best argumentation for morality as of right now. I've seen other good ones, but I feel that this one covers it more, and also it is important for my perspective that it does not rely on superpowers.

You don't want anyone to harm you or steal from you, which means you want a peaceful society around you. And the person you are targeting also wants a peaceful society. Therefore you are violating an implicit agreement if you kill the person. If you kill the person, everyone else in the society will see that you have violated the implicit agreement, and must ensure that you see the consequences of your actions in order to honor the implicit agreement. If a person says that it is ok to kill him, then he is either lying, or he is mentally disturbed, or brainwashed. I believe this kind of implicit agreement is evolutionary necessary for many species, and so is innate in humans and most if not all animals and insects where even the minimal amount of cooperation is beneficial to the species. That means that it is not something we build up in our culture, but more deeply rooted, ie in our instincts.

I disagree with several of your statements, but I would just like to share my reached conclusion regarding morality, which Stefan undoubtedly helped me reach. A person does not want anyone to harm him or steal from him. Which means that he wants a peaceful society around him. When every person does not want anyone to harm or steal from them, we all implicitly agree that we need a peaceful society. Morality is thus not an idea in our head. It is a logical conclusion of our desire to stay alive and keep what we have. I do not see that the same can be said about the other things you mentioned.

How many 10s of thousands of years has dogs and cats lived alongside humans? I would be surprised if there had not been plenty of people swearing to their unrivaled companionship. Humans were highly involved in designing and evolving them throughout the ages. I can bet you those people came from a similar background as me, having an animal as a best friend when many people around are a combination of a wide range of unpleasant traits. When you live in unpleasant surroundings, of course designer bred animals are going to give you a lot of comfort. Its not because they have weighed all information up against each other and come to an informed opinion. Its just biased opinion of their immediate environment. And I am very sure that I had the same thoughts. Dogs and cats living with us today are there because other humans valued their company in the past, and most likely plenty valued them more than humans then as well. In addition I believe that these human to animal relationships help the same humans with their relationship to other humans. I would rather evaluate a human having a good relationship with an animal, or many animals, as someone I can trust having empathy. I would not worry about the statements they make from their experiences of life, because when they do find a person who perhaps have as much empathy as themselves, they will find it hard to hold on to or defend such an opinion, and likely just forget they ever wrote it. I would not be hasty with the red flag. But I see how it could, and most likely is a symptom of something else yes.

Excellent deduction. Thanks.

In the Galapagos, animals do not fear humans.

If all electronics were 'burned out', including all storage devices, I wonder what would happen to all the electronic currency wished up, (created out of nothing), by the banks. And maybe cash would suddenly become 1000 times more valuable or something.

Abhorrent

I am very happy that I can no longer be braInwashed by appeals to confident authority and little to no evidence.

Throughout primary school we had a christian teacher as the main teacher for our class, who was a very nice person that everyone respected, because she always gave everyone a chance to speak about everything. She focused on all the good pacifist sides of religion. She even let us watch a whole series of animated films about christian stories. Atheism was and still is prominent, so she would sometimes get hard questions from some students because she let everyone talk, and her go to answer was "Yes good question. And I can not give you all the answers, its up to each to decide for themselves." Great advice that most certainly helped me later. My encounters with religion is nothing compared to a lot of other people, of which I am thankful, but I've had my fair share of other nasty influences.

I edited my post right after or while Dsayers posted and adding the question at the top. My 'stated goal' was something like "For me, its not that I won't find meaning if I don't have a belief, its that I won't find meaning if I let the beliefs from other people control me." It was a messy sentence, so I did not like it after a while. I understand what you mean, thanks. But you are entering into an area of belief that I have abandoned.

"Without god what makes you strive even when your existence will just eventually just die out?" Lets say that you were able to ask the same question to a tree, or an ant, or a fungous, or an elephant, by whatever means in their language. What do you think they would say? Throughout my life I abandoned quite a number of beliefs that were severely hampering my ability to live my life as I wanted. A range of beliefs of which had a strong to weak influence on me. Religion is just one page in that book. These beliefs had been imprinted on me from other people who had them. Meaning I was being directed by other people. Letting other people decide what I will think about anything, is self erasure, and truly a form of mind control. It can and usually also is debilitating. I am pretty sure I still have lots of beliefs, but at least I am getting better and better at not letting them control me.

I am hoping its not true, but I saw many articles about it on google, so wondering why so many outlets are taking it seriously. And truth is stranger than fiction as the saying goes. One selfish reason for posting it here, was so someone else could do the deep investigation for me. Provable toxins in vaccines is a no brainer for me though. I would probably be put in jail if I injected the same stuff into children as those in white coats do.

I don't know much more than the headline, but several articles have popped up now about this. Here is the article I was linked to: doctors-who-discovered-cancer-enzymes-in-vaccines-all-found-murdered

Edit: Never mind about this post. I know it can be explained away, and that it is probably another goal of this, to make people argue. I am sorry. --- Spot the difference... (Both images from NASA) Pointed out by this video:

The comments are entertaining.

Starts off with him conveying that he was wrong, about some vague inability to stop racist thoughts. But the viewer will undoubtedly get the impression that he is going to admit more wrongdoings. Then follows 1 hour of slow paced high production value with a few points interspersed with useless boring stuff, to add credulity and lull people into the narrative. Then ends with him saying from 56:50, after a misrepresentation of Nigel Farage, that he thinks he and Tony Blair succeeded, England is the most welcoming country in Europe, but in spite of that wonders if they have unleashed forces that could undo everything they have achieved. 1:02:05 He wants to defend his life work, and adds another misrepresentation of Nigel Farage. Nigel is now someone who hates everything good, and wants to return to the stone age. Then even though he already told us that what he and Tony Blair had done was successful, he says that now we need to offer a new vision of a multi ethnic society. Then we visit a multicultural school to see how awesome it is. Even interview a teacher working there, because she is not going to be biased at all, and we can accept every word she says. I suspected that the main message was going to come at the end because that is usually what they do in propamentaries like these. Trying to appear sceptical and unbiased at the beginning so that people invite the person into their mind, and continue this facade throughout 1 hour, and then etch the main message into peoples minds when they have opened up, and are too tired in their brain to repel or fight it. So basically the message is that multiculturalism works. We just have to fill a few holes, and you are a hateful man trapped in the stone age if you think otherwise.

I am pretty sure that my mother is never going to stop smoking or drinking unless she stops treating my father as if he is not sociopathic. Her mental health has been a train wreck for around 35 years because she accepts him. And some pretty horrid stuff has happened as a consequence of that. Definitely coping mechanism.