I think you’ve been playing a little too much fallout mate.

————

There’s a lot of assumptions here and conclusions which do not follow from their premises:

• Nuclear war does not entail extinction of either humanity or civilisation; there has been heavy investment in counter nuclear arsenals capable of intercepting warheads - while a war itself may be reserved to a few nation states or battlefields. The effects would be devastating, but humanity could recover.

• Nukes do not entail that nukes will be used, only that the option is now available and, thus, the probability of usage has increased.

• Saying physics has put the world into a state of decay is kind of silly; if anything, we have corrupted physics to meet the needs of our own sickened nature. If by ‘evil ruler’ you are referring to Putin and Kim Jong Un, then both only threaten nuclear war defensively in case of invasion.

• “the end result of finding out about the cosmos is about to end civilisation”, it does not follow that nukes are or were - given we have advanced since their invention - the ‘end result’ of physics. Nor does it follow they will end civilisation.

• medicine does not involve itself in the creation of bioweapons. Some specifically amoral experts of the fields of biology, pharmacology, virology and bio-chemistry might, for a lot of cash and their research projects being funded, research and produce bio-weapons. However the majority of medicine focuses on either practice or research into stopping cancer, Alzheimers, Huntingtons, etc.

———

Some of your conclusions may be solid if you re-evaluate them and give well argued premises or evidence for their support.

I saw a video today that sparked my interest and I wanted to open up a discussion about objective morality.
The claim in said video was that atheists cannot have an "objective morality" if they do not believe in a god/religious laws (etc).
The comments had a lot of discussion about whether or not objective morality exists/if it can come from the inner self/etc but I didn't see any comments about how objective morality is bad.
Unless you can prove that there is a law/rule that would be objectively moral in every possible situation, objectivity is bad. Let me explain: Pretend there are no government laws and the only rules that define society are religious texts. Hypothetical text says: "You shall not kill." Many would consider this an objective moral posed to them by their god, right? But are there not some situations, no matter how rare, at least one, in which murder would be the moral thing to do? To murder one person to save the planet, even? This puts religious people with the above claim in a double bind because they must either concede that you must follow religious laws at all costs, even where it would cause harm, in order to be objective (which would be bad in the cases it causes harm) or they have to concede that in some cases you must break these rules in which they would not be objective.
Therefore, in response to the argument that atheists have no objective morality because they do not believe in a god, I say that 1. objective morality doesn't exist and 2. if it did, it would be bad.

There is actually a big collaberation project between 6 or so scholars on youtube right now covering the topic. Check out Dr. Justin Sledge (Esoterica), Dr. Dan Atrell (The Modern Hermeticist), Dr. Angela Puca (Angela's Symposium), or Philop Holm (Let's Talk Religion) in particular

Yes.

Can you name a couple of scientific breakthroughs that were discovered using religious or esoteric methodologies?

I just really like Nussbaum. She is such a great reader and writer .. I need to figure out how to access this interview

This entire post was at 0 for like the first five hours or so. I was pleasantly surprised to see it break through. Didn’t think it would even be visible.

Welcome to Reddit. Where no honest effort goes unpunished ….

>very thorough and appreciated

Someone downvoted it. LOL.

[deleted]

Is there any literature that exhaustively covers the people in the immediate wake of Plato, aka the stoics, cynics, skeptics, epicureans, and peripatetics/aristotelians?

I have no idea where the Stephen came from - some auto-complete. Thanks for this. Very thorough and appreciated.

Thanks for sharing--that's helpful!

Thank you for that

Not two but one, not one but zero Thats as simple as ive found to explain it.

The two are the observer and observed The one is the non separate self (THE self) The zero is non dualism

Not sure, it's an extremely fuzzy term/concept which originates from various ancient Indian philosophies & religion, it may possess different definitions when utilised in different schools of thought. In general though, as hinted by the name it's simply the rejection/denial of duality.

If you would humor me with a definition in your own words?

Real is illusory and the illusion is real, that splits both our points right down the middle. Can we find agreement in that common ground?

I fully understand it, I used to actively partake in it & I've had various 'non dual' experiences. Since looking deeper into philosophy my opinions have changed though.

Im just not sure you understand what non dualism is. I just want to help convey

I don't know what "Stephen" is supposed to mean.

"What's the deal with [him]" is a pretty unspecific question. Are you asking why it is that some people don't like him? If that's what you meant, I can answer that.

He started his writing career attacking religion alongside Richard Dawkins, so the Christian Right really didn't like him. Then more recently he criticized Donald Trump quite a lot, so they got even more incensed. Then he rejected association with some former debate partners like Jordan Peterson, publicly saying that they'd gone off the deep end during the Trump years, and during Covid, and that made the right even angrier.

But the Left doesn't like him, either. While attacking religion post-9/11, he paid special attention to Islam, and how the specific tenets and beliefs of a religion or religious person can lead to increased suffering. This got people like Glenn Greenwald and Sam Seder quite angry, because they thought it supported endless war in the Middle East. More recently, as I mentioned, Sam debated Jordan Peterson about religion, and because his relationship with him during the debates was friendly, people lumped them together. Sam has also rejected most of the talking points of the social justice Left, and was labeled racist when he interviewed Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve, popularly believed to be a text that supports racism. Though he is no further right on race than someone like John McWhorter, who is fairly center-left politically, this label has stuck in some circles, especially after Ezra Klein debated him.

Most of his time, though, is spent talking about consciousness, the self, free will, meditation, charitable giving, and other middle of the road topics.

Ok, I'm not sure this conversation is going anywhere. I've continually argued it isn't an illusion but you don't seem to agree. We'll leave it at that.

The illusion is real. But dig deep enough to the core and you encounter non dualism.

If you had to, how would you describe non dualism?

Or rather its definition negates any interpretation of it

>Again, you cant have an experience without an experiencer, an observer without the observed, a tango without two. The self is real in this.

Right, this is typically what non - dualists try to claim is an illusion, but as argued above this seems false, in reality what is described is pre-reflective self-consciousness, not some self illusion.