Why atheism makes sense even if theism doesn't

Even though it's true that usually people aren't described by their unwillingness to believe in imaginary things -- there aren't afairyists who proclaim their skepticism about the existence of fairies -- the situation is different in regard to God.

Below I've shared an excellent comment from Appreciative Reader that was left today on a recent post of mine. The comment explains why even if the notion of God is incoherent, which of course it is, there's still good reason for atheists to object to the belief in God held by billions of people. 

After all, believers in fairies don't try to impose their belief on other people, whereas highly religious countries like the United States have their politics greatly influenced by fundamentalists who consider that whatever they imagine their God wants, like an end to legal abortion, should apply to everybody.

Plus, atheism is a stand for truth, reality, reason, evidence. Even if religious believers didn't try to impose their beliefs on others, many atheists (certainly me included) would feel the need to point out that God is a hypothesis lacking any demonstrable factual foundation. 

Here's the comment from Appreciative Reader, which is a reply to another commenter, 271 Days. His mention of Adam Dalgliesh led me to Google the name, which I'd never heard before. Wikipedia told me this is a fictional character in a series of  fourteen mystery novels by P.D. James, a British thing from what I could tell. 

@271Days:

Heh, okay, I get what you’re saying. You’re saying the term “God” itself is incoherent, so that the term “theist” would be incoherent and meaningless too; and, as such, its obverse, that is to say, “atheist” or “atheism” would also not be quite coherent. Fair enough, that makes sense, so far as it goes.

Here’s three separate observations, as far as this, that I’m enumerating separately in the interests of clarity:

(1) Your argument is based squarely on how wide, in fact wide to the point of incoherence, is the term “God”. Therefore, it fails the moment we move from the general to the particular.

So that when it comes to the Christian God, or the Judaic, or the Islamic, atheism continues to be a valid position. Likewise, when it comes to the Hindu gods, or the Shinto gods, or for that matter the Roman and Greek pantheons of yore, then too atheism continues to be a sound position to take. Ditto the RSSB God.

Even, for that matter, some kind of Deistic impersonal Oneness-God, or some completely watered down abstract Aquinian “prime mover” God, or whatever --- the moment you move from wide-open generalization to any kind of exactitude, immediately atheism once again makes complete sense.

(2) This is kind of topsy-turvy, in the sense that you’re suggesting that atheism does not make sense because theism, generally speaking, itself does not make sense. In order to suggest that atheism is an invalid position, you’re first and foremost suggesting that theism itself is an incoherent and invalid position.

And you know what? I can live with that. It is entirely possible that if, a century or two down the line, theistic superstitions become relegated to arcane history books, and the word “God” and “theism” will draw blank stares from everyone other than history nerds; should that come to pass, then the term “atheism” itself will become meaningless, absolutely.

Unfortunately we’re not there yet, though. As long as there remain theists, so long atheism remains a valid position. If the moment a theist comes out and declares himself such, you’re willing to jump out and tell him that what he’s saying is incoherent and nonsensical, the atheist will be content to stay silent in the sidelines. Of course, if and when the theist, in response to your ridicule, now moves from the general to the particular, well then, that’s when you GO TO #1.

(3) This third point is merely a variation on #1 and #2 above, but still might be meaningful for the sake of emphasis. Do you believe in the existence of ampembalanxes, 271Days? Yes, or Not-Yes? If the censor arrives at your door with his clipboard and asks you, “Do you tick a “Yes” to the question, ‘Do you believe in ampmbalnxes?’ ”, I guess you won’t agree to tick it, right?

You may either just say “No” (choosing to define “No” in this context as simply “Not-Yes”); or you may just tell him his question is not meaningful without further clarification. The point is, you don’t tick in a “Yes”, you don’t say you believe in said undefined ampembalanxes. I don’t see why the atheist wouldn’t be content to do the same for the God question.

I don’t think the reasonable atheist has any kind of fixation over God. If people around him stopped going on and on and on about unsupported claims about God, the reasonable atheist would be content to not say anything at all. Let theism disappear completely from the face of the earth; and so will atheism.

If what I’ve tried to convey, in some detail, by those three (overlapping) points above, is what you’re saying here, then I guess we’re in agreement. But if you’re somehow trying to claim that while atheism is an incoherent position, but at the same time theism makes sense to you, then I’m afraid your argument is totally mistaken, and I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms, for reasons already discussed very clearly above.

-------

“Forgetting about that book for a second my view is simple. No matter what you posit ie. cosmos, universe, laws, you have already posited awareness first. You can’t get behind awareness. Whatever you say requires awareness first. Awareness is the First Principle. So I think we can logically say Awareness/Being/Spirit/ is God. You don’t have to question if awareness exists. It exists before anything else possibly can.”

-------

I don’t see that, at all.

I think you’re conflating two things here: on one hand, what we know about something; and on the other, how we’ve come to know of it.

Sure, as far as the latter, awareness is indeed the first principle. You cannot become aware of some facet of existence without first having become aware in the first place. That’s tautological, absolutely. First principle, as you say.

However, that most certainly does not apply to the thing we’re becoming aware of. Sure, you need to first to become aware in order to become aware of the universe/cosmos. But that is most certainly not to say that awareness itself must first have existed in order for the universe/cosmos to exist or to have come into being.

You’re basically stating the former position, and ending up implying the latter; and this latter position, when you unwrap your implicit argument and look clearly and closely at it, makes absolutely no sense at all, and in fact is plain wrong.

An analogy may make this obvious point doubly clear. Is it necessary for James’s Adam Dalgliesh to be alive in order for him to finally understand who is (or are) the one (or ones) that did away with the publishing magnate, whose murder he’s been investigating? Absolutely, yes.

But that speaks only to Dalgliesh’s personal understanding, and not the subject of his investigation. Dalgliesh’s life, his consciousness if you will, is necessary to his personal understanding of the perpetrator’s identity, yes, absolutely; but his life and/or his consciousness have nothing at all to do with who the perpetrator(s) actually might be.

Of course, as earlier (that is, as with your argument about the semantics around theism and atheism), if you’re merely making the former argument without in fact meaning to slip in, by implication, the latter argument, then once again I don’t disagree with you.

If all you’re saying is that in order for there to be awareness of the universe/cosmos, there must first be awareness --- and if you just stop there, not making any further implicit claims --- then fine, we’re agreed. But that’s just a blindingly obvious truism, an out-and-out tautology, and I don’t see the point of making that argument at all.

Still, and like I said, if you choose to make that focused argument, entirely pointless though that argument seems to me (“pointless” in that it leads nowhere at all, and is most certainly not a refutation of atheism in any shape or form), then okay, I don’t disagree with you.

Comments

[777]

Theism
Need Two to dance the Tango

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adLGHcj_fmA

Can U believe it?

777

[777]

There is nothing to agree

IT's being THAT

777

Each One on His own time ( not terms )

[Appreciative Reader]

"@ A.R. : [But that is most certainly not to say that awareness itself must first have existed in order for the universe/cosmos to exist or to have come into being.]

Actually, er, I think that's precisely what the mystic asserts. Consciousness/awareness
is the creative force and transcends notions of what came "first". Creation was laid out
all at "once" in a time-less moment by consciousness itself. Time is only a device, a
plaything for the linear experience of creation. Or call it a framework. A "jungle gym"
for pre-schoolers to grow muscles and have the requisite quantum of fun.

Awareness is just the aspect of consciousness that observes and processes the
creation as it's experienced. Sometimes its insights are superficial; other times,
profound. Like Inspector Dagleish stumbling a bit over the static puzzle already
there waiting before he, in a flash of brilliance, cleverly id's the perps.

Similiarly, objects, events, other people are all placed in "time". It's a thrilling,
immersive play period which we author. To cry about, to laugh over, to absorb
various school yard lessons. Finally, to go back at the sound of the bell."

Posted by: Dungeness | October 10, 2021 at 09:42 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've quoted out your comment in full here, for context, since I've pulled it from that other thread, where you'd posted it.

I agree, Dungeness, that's a beautiful thought. That thing about all existence, past and present and future, laid out right there in front of you, all of it accessible and co-existing, that's something that's described in the Bhagavad Gita, and it's a heart-stoppingly beautiful idea.

But it's one thing discussing beautiful ideas, and quite another discussing reality.

The fact is there is no evidence to assume that this sort of thing comports with reality. It's a lovely thought, sure. But I'm afraid that all it is. At least until such time as we get some compelling evidence to revise our stance on this.

[Appreciative Reader]

"@AR
You said, “Sure, you need to first to become aware in order to become aware of the universe/cosmos. But that is most certainly not to say that awareness itself must first have existed in order for the universe/cosmos to exist or to have come into being.”

Sure it does. For something to exist there must be awareness of it. To say things exist without any awareness of them is to be lost in imagination. How would you possibly know something exists without awareness of it?
You can say, “I can deduce that ants exist by awareness of ant mounds without ever seeing an ant.” On the surface that may seem correct but without awareness of ants those deductions are mere theories however well-informed.

Nothing exists without awareness first. Nothing. We can say existence and awareness are synonymous. That’s logic."

Posted by: 271 Days | October 10, 2021 at 11:38 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, @271Days, that isn't logic. What that is is a logical fallacy. What you've presented there is a textbook Motte and Bailey gambit.

I've already addressed, and addressed fully and clearly, the flaw in your argument, in my comment yesterday, part of which you've quoted in your own comment here. Specifically, in the second part of my comment. I'll suggest you go back and check out that latter portion of my comment one more time. Although I don't mind touching on the flaw in your reasoning one more time here. Unless you're intentionally trying to obfuscate this discussion, that --- as well as looking back on my earlier comment --- should suffice to put to rest this argument of yours.

-------

"For something to exist there must be awareness of it. To say things exist without any awareness of them is to be lost in imagination. How would you possibly know something exists without awareness of it?"

.......You're talking of two separate things here, and, whether inadvertently and unawares, or else deliberately, you're conflating the two. On one hand you're talking of the existence of things. On the other hand you're talking of our knowledge of the existence of things. They're two separate things, and two very different things, even though you're trying to pass them off as identical.

Yes, for us to know something exists we must necessarily have awareness of it. But no, simply for something to exist (with no reference now to whether or not we know of it at all) there is no need for any kind of awareness. (That is, you're free to claim the latter. But that latter claim is entirely different than the former claim. If you wish to claim the latter, then you'll need to defend that latter claim, which you haven't done at all, rather than pretending that agreement with the former claim tantamounts of acceptance of the latter.)

-------

"You can say, “I can deduce that ants exist by awareness of ant mounds without ever seeing an ant.” On the surface that may seem correct but without awareness of ants those deductions are mere theories however well-informed."

.......Once again, you've brought in two separate discussions, and tried to conflate them into one. The first is the existence of the ants. And the second is our awareness of such. Yes, we would need to be aware of those ants (whether directly or indirectly) in order that we know about them. Like I'd said yesterday, that's tautological. But no, the existence of those ants does not have any bearing on whether or not we know of them, and therefore on whether or not we are aware of them.

-------

"Nothing exists without awareness first. Nothing. We can say existence and awareness are synonymous. That’s logic."

Neat attempted bait-and-switch there. Agreed, we cannot know of anything existing without ourselves being aware. But no, existence itself is not dependent on our knowledge of it, or indeed of awareness. (Or at least, the former argument does not lead to the latter conclusion. Like I said, you're free to make the latter claim, but in that case you'll need to defend that latter claim on its own terms, rather than pretending that agreement with the former claim amounts to endorsement of the latter claim.)

Knowledge of existence, that is, awareness of existence, while it is not quite synonymous with awareness in general, but it is (logically and causally) dependent on it, agreed, absolutely. But no, existence per se is unrelated to knowledge of such, and awareness of such, and therefore of awareness in general. (Unless, that is, you are able to directly address and directly support the latter claim on its own terms.)

Again, no, that isn't logic. What that is is a transparently clear instance of the Motte and Bailey logical fallacy.

[Brian Hines]

271 Days, let's examine the flaws in your argument that awareness precedes existence. I'll use Earth as the example, though the same reasoning applies to the universe as a whole.

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Animal life appeared about 800 million years ago. I'm assuming that awareness or consciousness came first with animals, since more primitive life forms like plants don't have the sort of awareness you seem to be speaking of. But the earliest form of simple microbial life appeared around 3.7 billion years ago.

So there was a gap of at least 800 million years between the Earth forming and very simple life appearing, and a gap of 3.7 billion years between Earth's formation and animal life appearing.

You appear to be claiming that the Earth didn't exist until awareness was around to observe it. Yet we know that the Earth is much older than life. How do you explain that? Life arose and then evolved on Earth. A previously lifeless Earth. How did life arise on Earth if there was no Earth in existence until awareness was able to observe Earth?

For your theory to make any sense, some supernatural form of awareness would have had to precede both the existence of the universe and of Earth. Is this what you believe, a religious belief in which a supernatural consciousness brought physical existence into being? If so, how do you explain the existence of that supernatural consciousness, since if we call that entity "God," your theory says that God could not exist until awareness brought God into being.

What we're left with in your "awareness precedes existence" theory is an endless regress in which each form of existence requires a preceding awareness to bring it into being, while that awareness requires some preceding form of awareness to bring IT into being.

Sorry to break this to you, but what you're saying makes no sense. It's akin to religious fundamentalists claiming that even though ancient fossils exist on Earth, actually God put them there during the few days of creation to make it appear like life is hundreds of millions of years old for some inscrutable reason.

Likewise, you seem to be claiming that even though the Earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old, actually it only has existed as long as a conscious being was around to observe it. Again, begging the question of how that conscious being was able to manifest on an Earth that didn't exist before awareness was around to make it exist.

[Tendzin]

Along with countless other woke radicalisms taking over our culture, we're not even allowed to use the term "women" anymore to refer to mothers. We have to state our pronouns as a social signal that we believe bodily mutilation isn't a mental illness and gender is a state of mind and not biology. And yet, we're supposed to believe that the atheist crowd is all for tolerance.

What precisely is the grave harm from organized religion and the crazed politicians who support it? According to this essay, it's the unbridled temerity of those citizens who dare to opine that killing fetuses should kinda be illegal. And yet we're supposed to believe that the atheist crowd is all for tolerance.

No one is being forced to believe in any religion in this country. Prayer in schools was banned long ago.
Crosses on public property as well. This rally against religion is very much much ado about nothing.

Lest anyone misunderstand and confuse me with a "fundamentalist," I've probably been a bigger online critic of religion than anyone on this forum, beginning with thousands of posts on Usenet in the early days of the internet. But this argument from Dawkins what everyone who is an atheist is smart while all religious believers are dumb is so tired and shallow.

[Brian Hines]

Tendzin, it isn't shallow to criticize fundamentalist religion. Religion doesn't get a pass from critical thinking and rationality just because the believers bow down before an imaginary God.

What religion is able to get away with is outrageous. Here in the United States you can apply for a religious exemption from being vaccinated. You don't need to have a medical reason, just an assurance that the crazy religion you believe in thinks it is wrong to be vaccinated -- which is a public health measure everybody needs to do in accord to protect everybody from disease and death.

Likewise, anti-abortion fundamentalists get away with saying "life begins at conception." If they gave good reasons for why that life has more rights than the life of a fully grown women, that would be OK. But religious belief doesn't have to provide good reasons in political discourse. You can just say, "This is what I believe" and other people are supposed to accept that as a decent argument, which of course it isn't.

[um]

Well brian... if you state that you do not want to consume some food because it smells horrible to you, that too is accepted as a valid reason to refuse something to eat.

[um]

People feel that they have the right to fight for the rights of animals, plants, earth the universe why not for the the developing human seed?

And why is the right to survive of one stronger than the other?

And where is the right to kill or end life based upon .. on what right?

[777]

Consciousness and awareness are in each star and in each BBang
The energy of Love a 7 chakras entity develops is endless times greater, . . repeat
No End

777

Neither begin

There is just You and your Love

[Dungeness]

@ Brian San : [What we're left with in your "awareness precedes existence" theory is an endless regress in which each form of existence requires a preceding awareness to bring it into being, while that awareness requires some preceding form of awareness to bring IT into being.]

Agreed. It fast becomes an inarguable cul de sac. There's some hidden sleight
of hand though as it posits a God that exists in a discrete limited form within time.
God devolves into a semantic device to bandy about our favorite image of God.
It leads to unanswerable "who is this God and when did he ride into creation?"
questions or just as imponderable head-scratchers such as "who made him then?".

That's why mystics consistently utter "neti, neti" (not this, not that) when others
try to parse the meaning of "god". All bets are off on that foolish errand. Who
came "before and after" conundrums only delay an argument's journey to the
same inevitable cul de sac.

The mystic approach, unlike blind religious belief, doesn't abandon rationality
and logic. It relies on validation within under the guidance of a friend and a
teacher using the same methodology science does to circumvent the infinite
regress of roads that lead nowhere.

[Tendzin]

@ Brian

Yes, it's not shallow to criticize religion. But the criticism has to be on point with reality, and imo your essay was not.

"After all, believers in fairies don't try to impose their belief on other people, whereas highly religious countries like the United States have their politics greatly influenced by fundamentalists who consider that whatever they imagine their God wants, like an end to legal abortion, should apply to everybody."

This is the all too common line we hear these days that anyone who disagrees with the left is somehow "imposing" their beliefs on others. Voicing opinions is not an imposition, it's called having one's own opinion and taking advantage of the somehow still extant civil liberties that allow us to hold our own views and participate in our democratic system.

Abortion will always be a controversial moral issue. And given that it's a legal issue as well, it's obvious that laws respecting abortion would indeed "apply to everyone" else they'd not really be laws. I find it strange that in an essay ostensibly about tolerance, you're arguing that those who differ with you are the intolerant ones.

And again, where is any evidence that American religion is militantly at work trying to control the lives of the nation's atheists? You're making up a problem that simply doesn't exist. Yes, people can apply for a religious exemption for the vaccine that somehow protects the vaccinated from the virus that the vaccine is supposed to protect them from but somehow doesn't protect them from unless the unvaccinated get the vaccine that protects the already vaccinated.

Yes, these people have the clear moral right to make that decision. No, the current POTUS does not have the moral right to run everyone's life. He doesn't own us like slaves, though he certainly talks to us like we're his servants in a demeaning manner no president has ever done in our history. I respect the people who respect personal freedom. Then there are the people who define progress to the degree they can take away the personal freedom of those who disagree with them.

[271 Days]

@Brian Hines
You said, “ I'm assuming that awareness or consciousness came first with animals, since more primitive life forms like plants don't have the sort of awareness you seem to be speaking of.”

It looks like you assumed wrong! Every life form is aware! Plants, microbes, amoebas, all aware. How could they function without awareness? How could anything function without awareness?

There can be no moment or condition from which awareness is absent. Its absence is their absence.

[271 Days]

@Brian Hines
This goes back to the question, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound?”
Not only did it not make a sound, but there was no forest to begin with without an observer.

[Appreciative Reader]

@Brian Hines
This goes back to the question, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound?”
Not only did it not make a sound, but there was no forest to begin with without an observer.

Posted by: 271 Days | October 11, 2021 at 10:16 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

.......Amazing. Why do you go on repeating unsupported bilge like this again and again and again, oblivious of reason and rationality, as if the sheer weight of your repetition will somehow imbue this kind of pseudo-wise claptrap with some kind of sense and meaning?

True, there is no sound in the scenario you describe, but that is only because sound is defined, in many contexts, as the perception by the nerves/brain of the vibrations that cause sound. So that even if there is no sound in the absence of you and I (and everyone else), nevertheless, in that very same scenario, there certainly will be an explosion, for instance, should some gunpowder or a bomb or something lying around happen to get caught in a forest fire. And, as for the forest itself, why on earth would it not exist in the absence of an observer?

The only way this might make some kind of sense is in the context of QM. But we understand too little as yet of QM to make sweeping generalizations of this kind about what goes on in that realm, and besides, such generalizations are entirely invalid outside of what is the realm of QM, to wit, our macro everyday world. And in any case, "observer" in the context of QM has nothing to do with awareness or sentience.

-------

Sorry, my tone in the foregoing may've come across as unnecessarily brusque. But what on earth is the point of making weird and wholly unsupported declarations of this kind? Are we merely exchanging philosophical speculations here, brainstorming over epistemology as it were, without worrying at this point about reality per se? If so, sure, I can get into the spirit of the game, and with or without bong in hand throw in my own gems of pseudo-wisdom into the mix as well. Let's make very clear what we're on about here. Because if this is supposed to be a discussion about reality, then neither the content nor the manner of comments like these pass muster.

[umami]

You can cure yourself of fundamentalism and political conservativism by working in the theatre. Your perspective will broaden, and as a bonus, you could actually get laid.

[Appreciative Reader]

Well brian... if you state that you do not want to consume some food because it smells horrible to you, that too is accepted as a valid reason to refuse something to eat.

Posted by: um | October 11, 2021 at 02:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's perfectly fine and understandable, um. I agree, that's the part that comes under the head "freedom", as well as under the head of "social consensus". What is troublesome is when such ...I don't know, such preference, such predilection... is sought to be somehow magnified into something way more somber and portentous and important than that, by the simple expedient of tagging on the equivalent of "because my cross-eyed (for instance) Jesus-cultist superstitions say so". Which is what fundamentalists do.

No reasonable person will object if some woman were averse to getting abortions herself, no matter what, merely as a matter of personal preference. Nor would any reasonable person have reason to object if she based this preference of hers on her own faith, no matter how outrageously superstitious that faith, as long as she did not seek added consideration from us because her preference is predicated not on whim or random predilection but on religion.

However, if she claims some kind of especial significance (and, following on that, some especial accommodation from us) for her predilections because of the religious basis of those predilections, then that is where this starts getting troublesome. And when the choices following from these religious superstitions are sought to be imposed on others who themselves do not share those superstitions and/or those particular preferences, then that is when it gets entirely unacceptable.

The (for instance) cross-eyed Jesus-worshiping loons are not content to simply forego abortion as a personal choice. If that is all they did --- the women themselves I mean to say, and not their menfolk minders --- then that would be no one's business but their own. But no, they are not content to let it rest at that. No, they insist that other women must not be given that choice either. That is the part where this gets Taliban-esque, and therefore entirely and wholly unacceptable.

[Tendzin]

@AR

Are laws that criminalize murder a means by which fanatical superstitious religious fundamentalists unreasonably "impose" their beliefs on society? Obviously not, as society respects the rights of all the living to keep on living. This is perhaps the most fundamental (no pun intended) right of civilized society.

In respect to the question of the morality of abortion, opinions will differ as to when the ontology of the developing embryo is on a par with that of its mother (sorry, birthing person). What you're doing is positing that the question of when human ontology begins has been settled for all time, and anyone who disagrees with your conclusions is brutally seeking to "impose" their views on the rest of us. Taliban style, in fact.

In other words, like many on the left today, you're arguing that your views are the only reasonable ones, and anyone who disagrees with you isn't taking part in their civic rights to free speech and government participation, but rather is a fanatic who has no right to their opinion.

I'd offer that disagreement is a natural part of a healthy human society. In fact, our forefathers fashioned our political system with the sage understanding that there would always be disagreement on many topics related to law. I think many people today have lost sight of this fact, and now believe that the left holds all truth, and anyone who disagrees with the left's constantly changing moral dicta is an enemy of the state.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Are laws that criminalize murder a means by which fanatical superstitious religious fundamentalists unreasonably "impose" their beliefs on society? Obviously not, as society respects the rights of all the living to keep on living. This is perhaps the most fundamental (no pun intended) right of civilized society."

.....Another Motte and Bailey, eh? That, sir, was the Motte. Well played.

-------

"In respect to the question of the morality of abortion, opinions will differ as to when the ontology of the developing embryo is on a par with that of its mother (sorry, birthing person). What you're doing is positing that the question of when human ontology begins has been settled for all time, and anyone who disagrees with your conclusions is brutally seeking to "impose" their views on the rest of us. Taliban style, in fact."

.......Sure, there is scope for discussion. What fanatics seek, however, is not investigation, not discussion, but foreclosure of the rights of the pregnant woman over her own body.

You're trying to project the two positions as equivalent, in the sense that both sides are saying "I am right and you are wrong", in terms when the fetus actually becomes a human, but I'd say that's a false equivalency, on two counts.

One very important factor would be the rights of the pregnant woman, over her own body. That is what is what is at stake here, that and everything else that that implies.

And two, there's the question of the burden of proof. If you wish to say that human life, and everything that that implies, is already embedded within the fetus, then shouldn't you have to prove it first? To not demand the same standard from those who don't hold that is not double standards, but merely the consequence of where the burden of proof lies. After all I can go even further and claim that the essentials for life are already fully created, and indeed the selection of the womb itself already effected, right at the time of copulation between man and woman, as has been very clearly explained in the Bardo Thodol. So that contraception also tantamounts to murder, for all practical purposes. So should contraceptives be outlawed too? (And note that it is not just Vajrayanists that hold contraception to be immoral. I believe --- although to be honest, while that used to be the case at one time, I'm not fully sure they've not updated their position since then, and I've not taken the trouble to go back and cross-check this now before commenting --- I was saying, I believe RCC doctrine also holds contraception to be a sin, although they're of necessity kind of lax about the observance of this dictum.) Where does this madness stop?

By all means keep the discussion open, and alive. By all means go all-out on research to show that the fetus is fully human, not just a proto-human. The day that has been proven, is the day all reasonable men and women will rise with one voice to demand that abortion be outlawed, just like we've outlawed infanticide and murder. Until that day, though, you have the actual rights of actual women over their bodies on the one hand; and on the other only a hypothetical, that may never ever be proven at all, and indeed may well, one day, actually be proven false. (Or not, of course. If not, then that, like I said, is when your demand would be fully entirely legitimate. But not until then)

[umami]

The thing is, most women want children, so if they opt for abortion, their reasons must be solid. I knew a girl who was kidnapped, raped and made pregnant at the age of 14 in a three day ordeal. Was she supposed to carry and birth it just to satisfy church goers who'd never look into her eyes? How is it wrong for government to mandate masks and vaccines but right to mandate unwanted pregnancy?

[um]

@ Umami

>> The thing is, most women want children, so if they opt for abortion, their reasons must be solid.<<

That ... that is simpel incorrect and illinformed.
My wife worked for two years in an abortion-clinic,

[Tendzin]

@ AR:

AR, you can argue at length that abortion should be legal and isn't anything like murder, but in doing so you're missing the point.

The point is that you claimed that anyone who disagrees with your definition of when life begins is "imposing" their morality on others. By doing so, you're setting up yourself as an infallible moral authority, which is OK I guess. But you're also disregarding the entire democratic system of how our laws our made.

Laws are made through our democratic civil system -- note the word "democratic" implies that laws are a product of the voice of the people, i.e. all the people. In our system the people vote for their law makers, and the people always have the rights to have a voice in the law making processes.

Ask our current leader if you don't believe me. He even says you have the right to follow people into the bathroom to harass them as this is "part of the process" of the U.S. law making system.

As to abortion, again, opinions differ as to when fetal ontology truly begins. But since human society has always frowned on murder and awarded restrictions and punishments for the taking of lives, and since human society has always had differing views on distinguishing forced miscarriages from infanticide, the question of the legality of abortion will always be in play. Therefore to equate pro lifers with the Taliban is a bit much.

[um]

@Umami

Nature does not know of abortion.
Culture does.

It is an human invention to artificial bypass simple laws of nature for their own social cultural interests.

That is allright.
All are free to act as they deem fit
But do not make it seen other that it is.

We have many words etc for the killing of other living creatures, in the name of a God, democracy, human good you name .. but for those that suffer the act of killing, it is always simple ... they lose their life, without their consent

If there had not been so many so called thinkers that had found ways to make things seen other that they are, sophisticated justifications, there would never have been so much bloodshed on earth.

[Appreciative Reader]

@Tendzin,

We've both said our pieces, in full enough detail. I really don't think we need to rehash our respective positions any more than we already have.

As far as this:

"to equate pro lifers with the Taliban is a bit much"

.......The difference is merely one of degree, not kind. As far as the *nature* of the imposition --- even if not quite the extent --- I'd say the two cases are exactly equivalent.

On the other hand, what sets the Taliban apart is precisely the degree and the extent of their fanaticism. To that extent, it is the very lengths they go to, that makes them the monsters that they are. So that, and to that extent, you are right, the one is indeed different than the other.

I'm sure it must not be a very pleasant thing to have people liken you to the Taliban monsters over a philosophical or religious or political disagreement. Perhaps my hyperbolic reference was in less than perfect taste after all. Apologies if it gave offense. It was not my intent to insult you there.

[um]

@ AR

The taliban uses religion ... religion doesn't use the taliban.

Humans ... humans alone use tools...culture is a tool as is rational thinking

Tools are used for the interest of the human using them.

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. : [ And, as for the forest itself, why on earth would it not exist in the absence of an observer?
The only way this might make some kind of sense is in the context of QM. ... And in any case, "observer" in the context of QM has nothing to do with awareness or sentience.]

With a full quantum of dodginess, I'll wade into the "bilge water" stream. IIRC, the
late Ishwar Puri described an actual scientific probe to locate the orbiting circuit
of a hydrogen atom's sole electron. The probe revealed the electron would then
appear at whatever potential location was tested. Again I hope this isn't my bad
memory conjuring up claptrap.

I mention it though because it makes the nature of reality at least at the micro
level seem incredibly, mind-blowingly malleable and elusive. Could the universe
at the macro level accommodatingly cause a forest to appear because awareness
was probing that precise spot... Of course, as conspiracy theories go, this "magic
forest" one would put Trump's Big Lie in the, ahem, bush leagues.

[Appreciative Reader]

Dungeness, are you saying he was actually able to predict beforehand the results of some quantum experiment there, that would be expected to give off random observations? If that's what you're saying, and if further you don't, as you say, misremember, then that would be truly remarkable. Somehow I doubt it, because this would've been big news surely, with truly remarkable implications?

If you can bring up the details, then that should make for interesting reading.

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. : [ Dungeness, are you saying he was actually able to predict beforehand the results of some quantum experiment there, that would be expected to give off random observations?]

That's essentially accurate as I recall his description. Presumably, the sole electron
would maintain a stable orbital circuit for some brief window of time and not manifest
elsewhere. But it does! At whatever random orbit is tested in fact unless my memory
fails. So pick any hat and the magician pulls our lone electron out of it.

I don't think Puri cited the actual study but I'll poke around. Surely, some here can
confirm or deny its accuracy.

[Dungeness]

See: https://www.msia.org/newdayherald/archives/60867-interview-ishwar-puri

Excerpt:

Ishwar Puri: .... They knew earlier that in a hydrogen atom, a single electron moves around in an orbit around the neutron. That single electron, where is it?

Leigh: Right there.

Ishwar Puri: It can be anywhere in the whole cycle of orbit all around it. We know the distance from the nucleus but we don’t know where it is. When you put a laser pointer at the point of the distance, it’s there. After that it’s always there, and before that it’s everywhere. These are questions like whether it’s a wave or it’s a particle. This thing has been going on for quite a time.

[271 Days]

@Brian Hines
You said, “ let's examine the flaws in your argument that awareness precedes existence.”

Except I have never said that. Awareness and existence are two words for the same thing.

Max Planck said:
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear
headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a
result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no
matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by
virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to
vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the
atom together.... We must assume behind this force the
existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is
the matrix of all matter.”
— Max Planck [ The Nature of Matter], a 1944 speech
in Florence, Italy. [Max Planck used the German word
“Geist,” which translates as “Spirit” or “Mind.”]

[Swami Umami]

I think Ishwar Puri was talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but just between us, it sounds like he oversimplified a little.
https://www.britannica.com/science/uncertainty-principle

That being said, physicists have succeeded in stopping electrons with a laser "by colliding a very high-power laser with a high-energy electron beam. The laser was one quadrillion times brighter than the light emitted from the surface of our Sun."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/meriameberboucha/2018/02/11/scientists-prove-that-light-can-stop-electrons/

I conclude, therefore, that my awareness is as bright as one quadrillion suns.

[Appreciative Reader]

Dungeness, I just went through that interview of Ishwar Puri's, that you linked to.

As far as the quantum thing, that turned out to be different than what you'd said it was --- or at least, the misunderstanding may have been entirely at my end, and it wasn't what I'd understood you to have said (which was, that he'd somehow ended up indicating beforehand, Yoda-like, the result of a random quantum observation made afterwards). What he was talking about is quite straightforward: While earlier on we had this electron-going-around-the-nucleus model of the atom, what he was speaking of is the stochastic model, which is kind of QM 101 since quite a while.

I read the transcript of the interview, all of it, and it was interesting. Without at this time going into the truth value of any of that --- doing which would veer the discussion off into unnecessarily contentious territory --- you know what struck me about what he was saying? His exposition about the aim of meditation, RSSB-style (or whatever RS faction he embodies), is apparently to manifest the master within, just that. The rest is ... well, you've seen the interview, and know what that was about. That, and the part where he speaks of accessing the master within, 24*7 as it were, for instance working out a quick consultation over something that he was unsure of over a short drive. Without, like I said, going into either the truth value of his experiences, or into whether those experiences (assuming they're true) mean what he seems to think they mean --- what I found remarkable about both those discussions was the close similarity of what he was saying with the kind of things that Spence says here.

Spence, in case you're reading this ---- you should absolutely check out that interview, that Dungeness's linked to a few comments preceding, it's uncanny how closely your own experiences, as you recount them here, track with what he's saying there.

[Dungeness]

@ A.R. : [What he was talking about is quite straightforward: While earlier on we had this electron-going-around-the-nucleus model of the atom, what he was speaking of is the stochastic model, which is kind of QM 101 since quite a while.]

Yes, I missed your earlier use of "predictive" and later "Yoda-like" which
would indeed imply an earth-shaking QM discovery. To me, the revelation
that the venerable Newtonian model breaks down in trying to account for
QM behavior is seismic in itself though... no matter how many times I
hear it. It's more akin to magic and bland expressions like "a random
model" IMO always seem too tepid to honour QM's awe-inspiring quality.

As I opined earlier, it makes the nature of reality, at least at the micro
level, seem incredibly, mind-blowingly malleable and elusive. On the
macro level, is the pattern similarly bizarre? Does what we experience
depend on where we initially probe? Or, at the macro level, does the
pattern follow a more predictable Newtonian model? Judging by the
world's state, I'd suspect the former but prefer the latter. If a tree falls
in a forest, you'd prefer not to be anywhere in the area whether heard
or not. But, all that's really certain, is we want answers and we have
to ultimately look inside at consciousness itself to find them.

[s*]

Brian,

You are a ´BELIEVER´ in vacinations that they are good and against sickiness and dead.

I am not a ´believer´ in this kind of vaccinations against sickness and dead..The( C)

[s*]

What is the difference in´ fact´ in believing and knowing?!
Using our intellect gut feeling etc..?!

Immune system gets out of control because of more and more vaccinations!!
We become totally depended on the vaccins..
Better live healthy take cold showers and vitamins in the form of fruits and vegetables long walks yoga..

So ...believe versus comensense...??!!

[um]

@ S*
Dutch Society for Immunology (NVVI).
in colaboration with
the AMC amsterdam university Hpospital

https://www.mijnafweer.nl/index.php/aangeboren-en-aangeleerde-afweercellen/aangeleerde-afweercellen

Maybe you call them too BELIEVERS and should they consult YOU to find out the truth about infections.

[Spence Tepper]

This notion that "what I can't see or touch, or even understand, doesn't exist" is not a new way of believing. It is not scientific, though this system of belief today couches its justifications in coopted science.

It is not scientific because most of reality is beyond our awareness and understanding, as science teaches us. Reality is filled with much that is unknown.

So it is understandable that an extension of this system of belief would encompass Atheism, cynicism, fatalism, and nihilism: there is no purpose to life, no function for us, because no one handed us ​a manual.

And the nihilist may be very comfortable with this claustrophobic view because it asks nothing of them. Without a purpose, there are no expectations.

It is no different from the view of the believer, whether they believe in salvation or self - improvement. They see more, they understand more of the landscape. They see that there is indeed a world beyond our backyard. A world with a path running right through their own backyard. A path that starts well outside their backyard, and which ends at some distance will beyond it.

In both cases the individual is living based on what they perceive.

[s*]

Um,
That is a strange answer!
Nobody has to consult me!!
Everybody has to make their own decisions after they have thought it over.
To hear and listen to virologists etc..more..etc
Then make their very own decision.

[s*]

In fact ,also this, is a way of believing or not believing..
Who or what to ´to BELIEVE¨.....
Because not all people are docters or virologists..
People has to make their very own desicions..
That was my point.

[s*]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVUtA9RmX7c

Thank you 7 !!
This Dr Bakdi is also very good in explaining ..

_/\_

[um]

@ 7

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/08/27/national/moderna-contamination-metal/

Things are what they are
seldom what they look like
let alone how they are presented.

You present these things your way and others in another way.

Every court in France, when somebody has lost his live due to the actions of another person, before passing a verdict, will investigate the "motives" behind that action.

The action is the same with the same outcome but the intention makes the difference.

I learned something in the dera, that has become part of my life ever since and that is that those that cause harm to others, can have even their well being at heart. That was a painfull lesson to learn

Yes in the modern way of production, there are many things that are harmful for humanity in the long run but for that reason it is not correct to state that it was intended to be so. That doesn't mean that there are no people that do these harmful things willingly and knowingly ... it does happen.

Well 777 all who have become rich did so by transgressing this or that moral standard.

[um]

@ S*
https://www.thejournal.ie/claims-about-vaccines-working-with-respiratory-illness-5468645-Jun2021/

As I wrote:
Things are what they are,
seldom what they look like,
let alone how they are presented ..... [ by complot thinkers]

[s*]

um,
´Complot´ thinker in your eyes..
As you wrote:
Things are what they are,
seldom what they look like,
let alone how they are presented .....

Now I rest this case..really and ofcourse.

Everyone is Free to do and look at things as they wish..

[Appreciate Reader]

Hey, um. I learnt a new word from you today: Complot. I'd never come across it before, and had to google it out. Cool! :---)

[um]

@ S*

The government is there to look after health care for the population, not for the individual.

In staphorst, individual people were free to refuse to have their children vaccinated on religious grounds. Nobody in the Netherlands wants to take that persona; freedom away.

During the polio epidemic years ago, the government, were face with an dilemma. On the one hand they had to respect, the freedom of the people and on the otherhand they were responsible for the control of the spreading of Polio into the rest of the population

So they, the government, chose to lift the authority of the parents for one day, had the children vaccinated and gave the authority back to the parents.

Yes, people are free to live their lives as they deem fit but for so lang and so far as these people want to live in a community, they have to live to the rules set for that community as a WHOLE.

Being responsible for the WHOLE, no government, will and can allow individuals undermine the function of government in doing their duties for witch they are democratic chosen.

And ... for those that can not live with it there is no other outcome than ..REVOLUTION

But let me offer you an "perspective" ... look at what happened in Afghanistan. The taliban are like religious complot thinkers. THEY, do not see them selves as religious complot thikers, they consider themselves a fighting for their religious truth. Well ... the managed to overthrow the government and other religious institotions ... but ... have look ... they are unable to govern., unable to look after the welfare of the people.

And this S. is what we see all over the world and especially in the USA, those who hate the government, scream to be free, ... unwilling to accept the duties of an community only screaming for their rights, their personal rights.

You can fool yourself but not me. ... but ... you are free

[um]

@ AR

Sorry, i thought that complot was used in English also
You call it a plot or conspiracy

For people like you what I write both qua form and content must be an horros ... hahahaha

Maybe, out of respect for that high standard of yours and your companions, I better leave this place and mingle with my own sort.

[Appreciative Reader]

Oh, it's very much an English word, apparently (as I found, when I looked it up). But a rare one, or at least, one that I myself hadn't come across before.

My appreciation of having learnt this new word was cent per cent heartfelt, um, and without any kind of subtext to the contrary.

Cheers! :--))

[s*]

um,

What you told here is true,about earlier times etc..

BUT this is a total different cooki!!

I am not going to discus this here in English etc..
You made up your mind.
I made up mine.
Not only for myself also for the people around me.
Soo..
Let go about me..
I let go about you.

[um]

@ S*

You are free to do whatever you want but in the "public domain" of life you are not alone and have to deal with others.

At home people can believe what they want but in the public domain they are not free to deliver messages, ideas etc that are not in the interest of the WHOLE ... even if they think that their opinions are the very truth. ... like the taliban, Qanon, anti-vaccers, etc etc etc.

So if you put here information that is seen as disinformation in relation to covid, vaccinations you can wait for people to react, be it me or others.

Again ... you are free .

[um]

@ S*

What you decisions are for having your self vaccinated or not that is solely up to you.
The same holds how you made up your mind to come to that decision.

It becomes an public affair when YOU address other people with YOUR ideas.
mind you ...UN-ASKED FOR and without their consent.

THEN S* YOU take on the role from an INFLUENCE a person that tries to make other persons to think YOUR way.

YOU are not resposible for the welfare of others UNLESS .. U N L E S S your opinion, advice is asked for.

Again ... you are free.
But in a community, in the public domain, you are not.

[s*]

um,
I reacted on what Brain said about BELIEVE and Vaccins read it youself please.
It was a reaction as we all do here all the time.
The way you talk to me here is bad.
I quitte again because of this tone..of speaking point period.

[s*]

Your reaction to me is totaly strange,
because this is a sort of discussion group.

We know eachother and that makes your reaction different and strange.

In a group like this people can learn/think/listen to eachother..
The way you do is outrages.

[um]

@ S*

You can not emotional blackmail me ... it didn't work in the past it doesn't work now, it will never work ... and you know it.

Whether you go or not is up to you
This is a public domain blog and not your living where you can set the rules.

[s*]

um,
I do not set any rules at all..
You set rules for me!!

[um]

@S*

I am not interested in you $*, .....not at all not in what you think, nor what you feel, let alone what opinion you have about me ... what matters is what you write here.

[s*]

I am very concerned for people who took/take the vaccins ...
It is not tested long enough..
And also how people react to eachother about this whole thing.
That actually there is nearly not a free choice..
There is but...it gives consequenses..

It divides people and that is very pittyfull

[um]

@ 7 & S*

Everybody has to make up his own mind. What I consider good for myself, is not necessary something that is good for others. So as a consequence, i never forced, suggested, asked or advised anybody, friends, family or others to act as I do.

If I am asked why I eat in this or that restaurant, I tell them what it means for me, to eat there. What I have to say is all and alone about myself, it contains no justification or evaluation of the staff serving the people, the chefs in the kitchen, the other guests, the columnists, the writers of culinairy books and last but not least the owner of the restaurant.

During my life I had the good fortune to be in the company of many a good soul and came to understand and learn a lot of what it is to be human, the human games they play, and what is in their minds.

One of the things I learned from them was :

"In Rome, we do what the Romans do"

You can replace Rome for many things even this whole sojourn on earth, but that would drive us to far away from what is at stake here.

The decision to act AS a Roman, is not the same as BECOMING a Roman. In fact the decision has nothing at all to do with Rome and Romans at all. It is a decision of a person to act in a certain way ... it is all about looking after his own welfare ... the only thing a human is capable of by force of natural laws. It is all about things like personal FREEDOM, not being entangled in circumstances etc etc.

You and S* are free to act in Rome as you deem fit. If you want to save them from a disaster because you believe the rumors that are spread about a disease... go ahead.

And if you are interested in what goes on in a radicalized mind, just read some psychological literature about de-bunking, de-programming and brainwashing.

And....how strange it might sound .... if I watch a documentary on the Third Reich, I am and never was attracted to the main players of that human drama, but intrigued by the exalted faces that lined the streets.

It is all about humans and what they do with what they encounter. What they involve themselves in is of no importance, is only about them.

So I am not interested in vaccines at all but more in how different people deal with the issue.

Finally .... those that are pro and anti something and scream their hearts out, in warning an convincing others, fighting for the rights they owned therm selves without being asked for, who go out in the streets to save humanity, the earth and god knows what all, they are all the same they have that interest at heart, it is THEIR choice.

In my eyes they are all thinking that it matters what they think and that it is so important what they think that the whole world should know it.

So after the class is over they flock around the teachers, to give their opinion.

[um]

@ 777
and just to please and tease you:

Scientist, scholars, Nobel price winners and people with extreme high IQ's and even Guru's ... they are all humans, prone to everything that can be attributed to the lowest of the low. Read some history books or the evolution of science and learn how they fight among themselves to amass more status, so much so that even the post perverse capitalist blushes.

Hahahaha ....

Have some coffee or tea and go through this and the englis speakers should use the translate function if they are intereste from Dutch +> English or whateve.

https://factchecknederland.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9KG6QX-1

[um]

@777

In our fathers house nobody, no visitor, nobody was allowed to have his wealth, accomplishments in life etc, stand between the interactions with our dad. If one did, he or she had made himself or herself a " persona non grata" and would never been welcomed in our house.

Come as you are advised Rumi ... [not to show what you have etc]

Due to what is going on here, that became clear to see, for which I have to thank you.

Give them a good example and let them grow is said as an avise on how to raise children

Our father has been an good example it turned out. Without words, solely with example he taught us so many lessons of humanity and there are still some more to be unearthed.

[um]

@S*

>>It divides people and that is very pittyfull<<

Those who are PRO ... and ... those who are ANTI ..

have in common:
- "something"
- they want to be seen ... so they parade the streets
- they want to be heard .. so the shout and scream

and ....

in doing so :

THEY are the very source of division,
THEY create the division

THEY do it for their own purposes
THEY ...USE ... the misery of others to have themselves seen and heart

[7]

@UM sais 2a 84 One : "Read Some"
thanks 4socks

7

[7]

Montagnier werd verstoten
omdat hij aantoonde
dat water geheugen heeft

Montagnier was attacked
while he proved that water has memory
He is rejected like Dr Raoult (+500 collegues) here
who's results with HCQ / IVM / AA are much better than Paris
The link you gave is a troll
7

[um]

@ 777

https://www.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/actus-medicales/recherche-science/vaccination-des-membres-des-academies-des-sciences-et-de-medecine-demandent-un-rappel-lordre-du-pr

, ...all ready in 2017 ... 106 members, colleagues of the Académie Francaise signed a document to distance themselves on his ideas on vaccination.

these are no housewifes ....nor people from an elderly home.

[um]

We all know how difficult it is to get rid of an physical addiction.
In general it cannot be done without prolonged professional help

There are physical but also mental and emotional addictions

Radical thinking as was found with people who joined this or that sect in the seventies is as difficult to get rid of as an addiction to alcohol, or drugs.

Only with the "help" of a trained psychologist, therapist or psychiatrist it was possible to undo the mental effects of brainwashing in a long an tiresome process of deprogramming

Without help it is almost impossible to make a person abandon radical ideas as to be found in cults, religious sects like the Taliban and IS etc and as they are to be found in these modern pseudo religious groups Q-anon etc.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972970805/experts-in-cult-deprogramming-step-in-to-help-believers-in-conspiracy-theories?t=1634396571037

[s*]

um,

Politic sforces things upon us ...people.
That is terrible.

[s*]

Politics forces ´things´on the people,even children.

That is very bad..

This is from a ´housewife´ retired from balletdancer and teacher ;0)

[um]

@ S*

Ach S* .... ever since humans flocked together in groups to protect themselves, they where exploited.

Everybody that works for another is exploited ... that is how some become rich, that is how nations become wealthy, that is how your own people became famous by exploitation of the inhabiytants of Africa.

I wonder if you have ever listened at school, where they mighjt have taught you about the history of humanity.

The only difference with the past is the globalization of information by with we come to know things that were not public.

In your country there is the saying: "he who handles tar, gets stained"
Well, there are hardly professions, institutions where it is possible to operate and keep ones hands clean ... even if you eat and buy clothes, your hands are stained

It would take me to far here how that is related to undermining tendencies of authorities ... but if one on TV ... pisses on the heads of those that are responsible for the running of the country etc ... and complotthinkers get a stage to preache ... wel that you can await an disaster ... far greater than having oneself vaccinated.

These People are destroying the very system that holds the society together

But as said you are free

[um]

@ S*

It is the duties of the government to look after ... education, healthcare etc. .
They are no making rules for individuals but for abstract things like "health" ... not your or mine health.

It is the duties of the people to make up their minds as to how they deal with what the government has set out.

So they have told for the whole of the population to drive at the right hand side of the roads. You are free .. free to drive at the left side or against the stream of the traffic.

The government is responsible for it healthcare, the hospitals and everything related to it, so that you can use these facilities.

Vaccination are there to see that the hospitals do not get overcrowded so that they cannot function as the should. So they take and have to take measures to prevent an conteious disease from spreading.

If a person does not want himself be vaccinated he is free to make that decision but only as long and as far as that decision is not counterproductive for the operation of the healthcare.

Yes, we all know that all medications come with a possible,side effect. If a person doesn't want to run that risk, well than he is free not to take that medicine. These are all matters of parents and individuals. they are in no way related to and should not be brought into relation with the actions of the government.

In my own circle of people there are some that are vaccinated and some not ... but... fortunately none has come with an justification that there is something wrong with the government. They made their decision for their own reasons.

To refuse taking vaccines there is no need to blame the government or whatever

[um]

Experts say deradicalization can be a long and winding process, full of reversals, and emphasize that formal programs are just one tool in a sprawling fight against an overwhelming problem. Some say that hardened extremists are often beyond reach until a tectonic shift in their own lives forces self-reflection.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/02/05/desperate-families-are-seeking-groups-that-deprogram-extremists/

!!!!
Some say that hardened extremists are often beyond reach until a tectonic shift in their own lives forces self-reflection.
!!!

[s*]

Um,
Do you ever look and or listen to other people like in Weltschmerz?
Maybe interesting..
Willen Engel and others who are intelligent well educated people also

[s*]

Pierre Capel?
Virologist!
On YouTube he educates common people about virus’s especially.

[um]

@ S*

>,> Do you ever look and or listen to other people like in Weltschmerz?
Maybe interesting..
Willen Engel and others who are intelligent well educated people also <<

The simple answer is ..NO

From the answers I gave yesterday, you could have easily understood, that I am in the habit to make decisions in life on my own and if I feel I do need advice,, I will ask for it.

I never had problems with being vaccinated as vaccination does serve my own interests as well as those of the community, being aware that all medication has side effects.

[um]

@S*

And ... you should know ... I am not like you!

I am neither kind or unkind.

I have no intention to be kind or unkind to anybody for any reason.
Some things I do, say etc are considered by others as kind and other things as unkind.

I have no intention to change myself or other people for the better, because I simple do not know how they could be better than they are.

I have no intention to change the world for that same reason.

In short ..
I have nothing to give without which others could not live their lives to the full.

I am not a giver, knower, lover .. i am an ignorant human being

[s*]

Ok um!!
Fair enough...
I know and somewhat understand.
Thank you for your explination,really..!s

:0)

[s*]

Explaination...

Really appiciated..

[s*]

Apriciated...

Sorry next time before I post I´ll see to spelling faults..