Ok, confirmed, this debate was doomed from the get-go. We are clearly talking about completely different things.
Yes that sounded odd. I meant: it is not a religious doctrine.
A religious doctrine comes from heaven to mankind via a Prophet.
A philosophical view is not a scripture, it is something within us all, the product of our minds.
As such, we potentially have all philosophies within us.
@ghatzige You are too insecure my friend. You get too angry when l don’t ask the right questions. I wanted to leave off when you asked me:
That was enough for me .And as for:
I cannot talk about everything all at once, only what is put before me.
Recall the debate rubric:
That’s all that was required. You’re being too malevolent now. I even invited you to further debates to stop you being so upset. But you said no, l don’t care, l don’t care, l don’t wanna now that l know you, etc. etc. Ok then. Peace.
It is not question of malevolent or not, it is eventually an issue of misunderstanding what this debate was about.
There was also the title about “Materialism interrogated”.
I was wondering why you were going so off-topic with consciousness being non-physical and other staff, and you kept bringing irrelevant things in my view.
I take responsibility that I have not asked you to clarify before-hand (prior to the debate) what you meant by materialism. This is my mistake.
This debate had no winners or losers, because we were talking about different things.
A debate takes a lot of energy and thinking. It needs to be set properly and to agree at least on definitions.
I have no problem discussing with you. But before entering into another debate, we have at least to explain before what we are talking about.
You were the lens of materialism in that debate.
Whatever this or that school believed, was irrelevant, because you reject some views and approve some, for a reason. So, whatever you say, is what is considered.
You say l didn’t account for stoics etc. but if you consider them inferior then that’s enough for the debate to ignore them. If you approve of them then present them, that’s enough.
Just don’t be so volatile. Religion is tied to a messenger whom the believers will consider the best of mankind and will love. Philosophy …? That’s just something we all intersect with at different times of day, different periods of life etc. Philosophy is nothing to get volatile about.
Religion and politics start to get personal, they involve key figures. It becomes like dissing someone’s mother if insults are made. Attacks are fine. Philosophy is impersonal, and no insults were made. Yet you still get volatile.
Feel free to propose another topic but beware, as your opponent, l will try to bulldoze it, it’s not an asspunch in fact you should be thankful that someone is helping you perfect your stance.
I do not consider Stoics inferior. Not agreeing with something does not mean I see it as inferior. I said it would have made more sense to bring Stoics instead of Plato. Putting one materialistic view against the other is more reasonable and I can have something to explain.
Bringing someone outside of this school of thought has nothing for me to argue about. He is not materialist, he is irrelevant and that is all.
You can bulldoze as much as you want, but at least we have to talk about things that we both have a common understanding on how they are defined. If one talks about A and the other understands B, it is a deafs discussion.
Your definition of materialism is not something I am willing to defend.
During the debate I kept asking you to not bring non-physical interpretations and you kept doing it. I told you repeatedly about axioms and you asked proofs of them. You kept bringing objectivity while even before the debate I said I am subjectivist.
This type of discussion, for me, goes nowhere.
In the first round I said that independent on pleasure or virtue, life is meaningfull because it is unpredictable what happens next. That was the “statement from heart”. You kept talking about pleasure, so you forced a course of discussion related to pleasure.
If you want another debate, instead of the last format that creates misunderstandings, I prefer to choose a specific topic (morality? reality? whatever you like), present each one our position on this topic and then start debating and put forward whatever argument we like.
One will make one question, the other will respond and ask in turn a question to the first. After some rounds of questions, closing arguments and that’s it.
This is typical debate format and I will defend my position against yours. If the site does not have this format of debates, we can open a thread without the moderator and do it like this. If others interfere we do not respond to them.
Almost everyone dreads death, that’s why historically 95%+ of humans believed in some sort of afterlife.
I don’t know what your point is. The Believer trades a finitely long hardship in this life for an infinitely long good afterlife, and the belief in the afterlife also increases the net satisfaction during this life.
(Ps. I.. I always wanted a talking cat, could I.. adopt you?)
Pretty sure we don’t have the meaning of materialism within us. We learn that from outside sources.
It’s somewhat alien to the human mind to think in cause and effect, to think in tiny fundamental constituents, to curb some naturally occuring mental phenomena like the divine sensation.
The Believer looks forward to meeting their lord but dreads it at the same time. We are taught 999 in 1000 of us will burn in hell forever and that God doesn’t care if we go to heaven or hell (despite loving us more than our own mothers - he has infinite levels).
It will be the worst trial of our existence to meet God with infinite hellfire in the balance.
There’s some comfort in the afterlife but as this life is a test, the afterlife is very much obscured.
Sorry but I’m absolutely not buying your 999 in 1000 claim.
We are rooted in materialism
I adopt the Hindu / Buddhist / Indian chakra system.
Base Chakra = earth, lowest bodily functions, killing, excreting
Sacral Chakra = sexual
Solar Plexus = eating, amassing wealth, greed (as an infant passes puberty and moves onto this chakra as a young adult you’ll see shoplifting behaviour for example, and territorial behaviour).
So: these are the lower body and they correspond to materalism
Next is the Heart Chakra, which in psychopaths is blocked at least at the lower end, so life force (Qi, Prana) cannot rise up from Solar Plexus to this. So, instead of love, all they can do is covet, amass things. Amass likes, upvotes, followers, even amass dead victims.
Heart Chakra is the gateway to spirituality, but it may also be considered the greatest part. It’s complex so l don’t really talk much about it
Throat Chakra: When a person becomes an authority.
Third Eye: the person is now a virtuouso, has instinct
Crown Chakra: Seat ot Justice, the highest art, the greatst Good, this is where Inspiration enters from heaven.
So anyway, our lower 3 chakras are rooted in materialism, it is instinct.
Not my claim. Though most of us are Gog and Magog, like trolls or something
They are from the northern regions and were locked behind an iron wall by a king with two horns (Zul Qarnain). I believe they entered the lower earth (this is Middle Earth, beneath us are vast spaces, vast lakes, probably stuff to eat like termites, crabs, even some elephants live underground if l recall).
What about actual mainstream Islam which doesn’t teach this 999 out of 1000 Gog and Magog thing or actual materialism which has nothing to do with chakras?
No, that is mainstream Islam. 99 in 100 or 999 in 1000 will burn forever, the saved are like white hairs on a black ox.
Gog and Magog are briefly mentioned twice in the Qur’an, as is Zul Qarnain. It is a major tripping point in bad Islamic scholars, because they are forced to explain this away in mundane materialist terms because they ultimately are materialist.
Nobody gladly admits they believe in trolls etc. But that is indeed the type of creature Islam refers to. They are human, descended from Yafeth, the Father of the Turks. They are related to Europeans, Turks and Chinese. I have heard they are covered in red hair and they correspond to bigoot legends and if you hear the Sierra Sounds recording (bigfoot), you’ll hear they sound very much like Mongols in their speech.
This is what l believe they looked like:
Zul Qarnain is falsely said to be Alexander the Great, Cyrus, Darius, Cambyses. None of these are correct, he was an even more ancient king who ruled the entirety of human earth, as humans hadn’t branched out everywhere at that time.
Well my country fought Islam for centuries and they all thought they were going to Heaven. Whatever.
So anyway, there is a huge amount of dread in meeting God on the day of judgement. Though the Qur’an promises security to the good people, l guess we won’t know who is who until the last moment.
That’s one reason we don’t declare a person is going to hell, we dont know precisely who is.
Note how native American indian shamans, Siberian shamans and some type of ancient Scandinavian priesthood, all wore horned head gear. This was in honour of Zul Qarnain aka “The Two Horned One” (Zul = The One with, Qarnain = horns, two horns implied, similar to Cornu in Latin)
Underground elephants, trolls, Mongol sounding bigfoot, throat chakra, a prehistoric king of all humans, shamans united. I really want a talking cat now.
Talking cats may happen, either by neuroscience (e.g. people talking to gorillas, gorillas telling humans that they believe when they die they will go into a hole) or actual human speech - it is one of the signs of the End Times:
Chapter: What has been Related About Predators Speaking
(19)
Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri narrated that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said:
“By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! The Hour will not be established until predators speak to people and until the tip of a man’s whip and the straps on his sandal speak to him, and his thigh informs him of what occurred with his family after him.”
By the way, in modern fashion, women don’t have a thigh pocket - only men, as per the hadith. The mobile phone is usually elongated in form, and is juxtaposed to his thighbone in his pocket. CCTV can be monitored via the phone. I’m usually against analogising as metaphors but this “thigh bone” could be a phone.
Undeground elephants:
Underground elephants, or “cave elephants,” are a unique population of African savannah elephants on Mount Elgon in Kenya that venture into caves, such as Kitum Cave, to mine salt.
Crabs:
Several crab species live underground, creating burrows in sand, soil, or mud to escape heat, maintain moisture, and hide from predators. Key examples include land crabs (like blue land crabs) that dig up to 4 feet deep, coconut crabs that live in terrestrial burrows, and freshwater crabs found in subterranean areas.
Plus lots of insects live underground anyway. And bats.
There were 4 ancient kings of all mankind, 2 were good (Zul Qarnain, and Solomon, peace be upon him) and 2 were evil (Nimrod / Namrud and Nebuchadnezzar / Bakt an Nasr). I can say who Zul Qarnain was and l gave a clue earlier but l’m leaving it at that.
Bigfoot speaking a Turkic language (assuming the video is genuine - it starts with a nearby loud sound, that’s the humans calling Bigfoot to get closer) –>
Two-Horned shamans of Siberia:
Also right at the end there is a ceremonial figure with two horns. Similar to Native American Shamans (and that QAnon guy). Pagan priests in Scandinavia probably had horned helmets too, hence the association with Vikings.
Norway’s anti-Troll laws (unsure what to think about this)
Abstract from AI:
Medieval laws against trolls in Norway were serious legal measures incorporated into secular law codes, particularly during the 13th century, reflecting a strong cultural belief in the dangerous, supernatural, and often pagan nature of these beings.
They were a monstrous race of humans covered in thick red hair (my own take) that could only making a living by brutality e.g. taking money as a toll for crossing a bridge, or just eating humans
Even today, internet trolls have small eyes and monstrous giant bodies covered in red hair and live by cruelty (not racism, l used to have a small amount of orange and red hair up to my early 20s)
They both covered extensive areas and approaches of philosophy but i kinda missed a more grounded and pragmatic approach in their debate.
Ultimately the question of the topic (why choose life) is completely subjective. Some will choose life, some will not.
Those who do, will do so based on their own subjective reasoning too.
As an agnostic, i am continuing my life because its already established.
I had no agency in being born, but now that i am here, it would be an ordeal to just end it all on my own terms. It would be an ordeal for me, for those who might eventually witness it, for those who will have to deal with, and finally but not lastly, it would be an outright mauling of my family and closest people.
The topic presents the question as if it was just a neutral 50/50 thing. Like you can effortlessly just stop existing. Its really not that simple and that implication introduces an inherent bias into the debate as well.
If stopping one’s existence would be as simple as a snap of a finger, one moment being there, the other simply not, im pretty sure that brutally, massively large amount of humanity would vanish overnight.
There are all kinds of differences ranging from ethnicity to age, but an estimate 10-25% of people had contemplated suicide statistically, and that is with all the effort that needs to go into the deed currently.
If it was no effort, just a light switch like the topic suggests, im pretty sure that 40-60% of humanity would off itself overnight, so the logistics of doing such a thing should be very much considered when asking the question.