dimreepr

That's a fake, no wonder you're struggling to keep up/-to-date... Did g/God teach you that? I have... That's convenient... 🙄

My iron-e-meter just went pop, again... 🙄

Call it what you like, but a soul seems concise enough...

Well, the evidence suggests that if I do something horrible and I know that I have, then I'll suffer a consequence of some sort, PTSD and the like...

Because my computer told me too... I didn't say that I need a soul, I'm just happy to accept that I have one; assuming a soul and god are different... Now, please answer my question.

Indeed, it becomes a cascade of guilt, with very little open for debate about justice.

Why? Did you stop cheating?

That's not what I said. A more pertinent question, I think, is what happens to our soul's while we're alive. @Phi for All This is what I think we're missing, in our modern age, that a stone aged person just saw as a fact. A good person has a good soul and is therefore in heaven, alive or dead; when seen as a fact it becomes a reason to celebrate their life, in their death; morning becomes easier, as does forgiveness. This is what I think Nietzche was searching for, a scientific explanation of the soul, that can replace a need for god; in our age of enlightenment. There is no value in a fake. Why do you need God? Genuine question Maybe Buddha, understood... 😉

That ignores the context of the entire post, bc there are passages in the bible, that suggest we do good thing's to/for others. And Santa really does bring a smile, to a grateful child.

I think we're at cross purposes, I'm not suggesting what religion (edit, just for clarity I'm talking Abrahamic) has become has anything to teach us; just that there are passages in the bible that are still relevant today. My point is, science knowledge is not always relevant to one's life issue's; science isn't designed for empathy. When dogma settles into a profound script, only the politicians benefit; Just look at the gun law's in America. Indeed, they were both intended to bring a smile, when you've been good at some point.

Indeed, but when the bathwater is dirty it's hard to see the baby; religion still addresses the things we are yet ignorant of, the human condition and why the placebo affect is effective etc.

+ 1

The reality in this case is, hamas poked the bear and now it just wants to kill the humans. Like I said many pages ago, a far more aggressive approach to the situation is to smother their army with pacifism, that's heroism; killing babies is much easier, because the cowards among us demand it... As long as they don't have to look...

Why not on this one?

I think not, it's a conflation. "heaven on Earth" is perfectly possible to achieve, for an individual; utopia is impossible because, there's always one... Maybe, but maybe religion started with the exact same message, but politicians got confused. 🤒

Never gamble with more than you can afford to lose; the freedom to eat, for instance.

There's a reasonable argument that Sysyphus was actrually in heaven. +1 for the post. But you don't have to kill anyone to achieve it.

This is the matrix argument, humans inate sense of freedom would reject utopia on principal... Not a very convincing argument, because when we take a poll; '8 out of 10 cat's' would prefer to be eating dinner, than fighting a war... The other 2 cats can fight amongst themselves... 😉

I think you might be suffering from the same delusions/difficulty in understanding his meaning, that Hitler did. He was searching for a believable replacement for our God's, not our fear... 🙄 LOL, snap...🤣

When I read this my iron-e-meter went pop and took out my computer for 3 days; which gave me pause for thought. What's the point of asking a question? bc free will seems to be a synonym for I'm right. Yes it does, but it doesn't understand the question...

I have, let me know when you start... 😇

We have to learn, somehow...

It's exactly this sort of specious diatribe/noise that Stalin, Hitler, Trump et al, rely on to drown out reasonable discourse and promote ever harder conditions for 'them', because they bloody deserve it, obviously. There's a reason it's an ultra consevative way of thinking, they have what they think they want*; their limited 'free will' has been channeled into believing there's only two choices, us or them; it's only then that the answer is obvious. Imagine the benefits of everyone understanding (more or less) that... * Their not free to think they know what they want. I would be happy to clarify my OP or subsequent posts, but what I've been asked to do, in this case, is explain something we don't yet fully understand 'a definition of free will'. Besides, what personal attacks?

What's the point, it's got nothing to do with the question I've asked..

Not at all, I just want a reasonable conversation about the question asked...