Whenever I type a URL into Google or try to click on a link where the cursor should change to a hand icon, I run into an issue. I can't just click through immediately; instead, the arrow cursor appears, and for the first two clicks when I'm trying to access a site I specifically typed in, unwanted pages pop up first. Only after those redirects does the pointer finally turn into the clickable hand icon. These intrusive pages look like this: http://image.prntscr.com/image/d0d18...306d1dd1bd.png and http://image.prntscr.com/image/d63aa...dce6ec69c5.png. What exactly is going on here, and has anyone else encountered a similar problem?
When I first opened this thread for the same reason, I was advised to report the offending post first and then reach out if there was no response from the moderation team. Unfortunately, there has been no action taken by the moderators. To reiterate, the user Google has been promoting violence; they explicitly stated that it would be "just" to persecute—and therefore kill—people based on their religion, as seen in this comment I am formally requesting that this user be banned, as they are inciting religious hatred and advocating for violence against religious individuals as a righteous course of action.
Jeremy James3 said:The total absence of suffering is far more significant than anything psychotherapy can offer.
Have you ever studied buddhism? It focuses specifically on the mind and its inherent tendencies. Suffering exists solely within our own minds if we choose to identify ourselves with the body, the spirit, or our desires. If you refuse to identify with any of those things, then suffering ceases to exist.
Goodness, man. Suffering doesn't just exist in our heads; it is quite real because it traps us psychologically. No matter what "spiritual practice" one attempts to use to escape it, that heavy suffering remains present, much like how turning on a water heater inevitably produces hot water. buddhism teaches that suffering arises from the desire to be satisfied—which is true sometimes when our ambitions are high and unmet—but often it isn't. For instance, if I were to break my leg and my arm, that pain wouldn't stem from a desire to be satisfied; it would result from an unfortunate accident. In that situation, I wouldn't be seeking pleasure; I would be seeking the removal of pain. To me, those are not the same thing. Seeking pleasure is more akin to hedonism, whereas the desire to remove pain is a fundamental physical and psychological necessity, whether the pain is bodily or mental. In such a case, identifying with the body would be of little help. Consider those born with physical deformities or medical conditions; identifying with their bodies won't help them. They don't want to identify with anything; they simply want to escape the suffering they endure.
David Fowler86 said:If spirituality isn't your thing, I honestly don't see why you're wasting your time dwelling on it. At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own convictions—whether that involves believing in a soul, God, or a Goddess... people should be free to follow their own path without having their sacred beliefs dismissed. It hurts those of us who hold these things dear, and frankly, mocking what others find holy doesn't achieve anything for those who don't believe in anything at all.
Fair enough, though I should clarify that I am certainly not someone who believes in nothing.
slycyclist26 said:So... you play the Christian role in public, but at home you're actually into Wicca? 😁
Actually, no. My reasoning is simpler: I don't believe the soul exists. Therefore, from my perspective, any form of "spiritual practice" is nothing more than nonsense.
rowdytiger13 said:Could you please provide the links to those specific posts?
He even goes as far as using terms like "hypocritical coward" and "scumbag." Where is the decency or the respectful dialogue in any of this? It is nothing more than pure insults. Here are the links for your review:
I have decided to reopen this discussion. I will be providing links via small snippets taken directly from the text written by user "Unknown," which can be found on this thread: I am highlighting the specific controversial sentences here, as they are nothing more than insults intended to incite hatred against a particular faith: http://image.prntscr.com/image/d6b52...bc6554cbcb.png http://image.prntscr.com/image/e32f6...f636273d90.png http://image.prntscr.com/image/95141...10334fdf4b.png Is it considered acceptable behavior on this subforum to label someone a parasite, a potential sadistic hypocrite, or an idiot—especially when referring to the most vital aspect of faith and life for many of the believers who visit this space? Is this not a direct affront to their feelings? If it isn't, then I fail to see what else it could be.
Let’s be honest about the user posting as ''Unknown'': they are constantly spreading animosity toward religion, particularly Christianity. They do this through subtle implications, suggesting that religious individuals are inherently dangerous because they believe faith is built on malicious messages. Since Christianity is naturally the most frequent topic discussed on this subforum, these inappropriate comments serve only to incite hostility against a specific group of people. I could provide an endless stream of links to prove this happens frequently. While I am not a Christian myself, I find this constant posturing of moral superiority and supposed wisdom to be incredibly irritating.
Isn't the topic of Atheism being discussed here essentially inciting religious hatred? If that isn't the case, then what exactly is it? In this thread, the author is being incredibly explicit and unambiguous about the idea that theism and religious practice should be outlawed as a crime. That is nothing less than spreading religious intolerance. Is this kind of discrimination and hostility toward a specific group—one that I don't even belong to—actually permitted?
I have been banovan from the discussion regarding abortion because I expressed a viewpoint that many consider morbid, though I find it to be quite rational. While an anonymous user launched attacks against me using arguments that were completely irrelevant to the topic—and has a history of using offensive language—I am the one facing consequences. It is frustrating to see this "Anonymous" user, who wanders off-topic just to insult others by calling them sick or suggesting they need medical treatment, never face any disciplinary action. Instead, I am being penalized simply because my perspective didn't align with what Meadow prefers.
Anthony Perez9 said:Heard it or not, there's massive research happening right now targeting aging itself as a disease. The funding is getting huge. 👍
Some people are even predicting (like our own Korado Korlević) that those of us in our 20s or 30s might actually see a practically unlimited extension of life through rejuvenated bodies.
Fortunately, cells undergo apoptosis at the end of their cycle, which effectively prevents cancer. If a cell were to bypass that process and somehow achieve immortality through a miracle, we would just be dealing with nothing but tumors. That's simply how biology works. Honestly, death is a necessary part of the cycle. Personally, if we were all immortal, I’d be absolutely livid, and I might even lobby to bring death back into fashion.
Nancy Lee84 said:Nobody told me anything... 🙂I just know it's true. It’s just common sense, man. The average lifespan for someone back in ancient times was under 30, and nowadays it's way longer. Scientific progress drives that. Actually, if you look at it, all science basically leads to that point...
The fact that people used to pass away early from illnesses or injuries that are easily treated today does not imply that we are going to live for 500 years. We have no reason to believe we will reach a 500-year lifespan today; we truly do not. To believe we will live for 500 years? Well, I am not such an optimist as to believe in a 500-year life right now. Ultimately, it is irrelevant, because when we die, everything vanishes for us anyway, as if we had never even lived. Life is, among other things, a bit of a deception; it doesn't matter how long you live.
It really doesn't matter in the end. Once you pass away, there is no consciousness left to experience anything—not even a realization of how long you lived or how you spent your time. Ultimately, since death is the finality, everything becomes inconsequential.
Paul Thompson3 said:Look, we’re in a philosophy forum, for heaven's sake—and I am miles away from being some kind of misanthrope; quite the opposite, actually. If you can't see that the seed of war lives in every single one of us—that war isn't just some tactical agreement between a few power brokers, but rather an external manifestation of the internal warfare inherent to the human condition—then you're either oblivious or just refusing to admit it. If you believe this country is a planet of suffering solely because we are "evil" or, if you want to be pedantic, simply "not good enough," then we have nothing to talk about. It's a domino effect: if the people on the street are idiots, then the street is idiotic, which makes the neighborhood, the city, the state, and eventually the entire world just one giant collection of idiots. Some are worse than others, sure, but they're too flawed to admit it and change, so the cycle just repeats through every generation. We sit in classrooms learning about wars like they're just statistics—another million dead is basically just a typo in a textbook—while kids joke around about things like the horrors of concentration camps. And that's a massive problem. Another thing is that the average person loves to flatter themselves by pretending they're "good."😉 The idea that we are all fundamentally flawed isn't even my own invention; I picked it up from Slavoj Žižek. To reach that conclusion, all you need is a shred of honest experience and a realistic perspective without all the sugarcoating. Claiming everyone is perfectly good is pure stupidity, whereas saying everyone is inherently bad is very close to—if not absolutely—the truth. Some more, some less. Even the philosophy of the Mainlander is almost universally rejected, yet there's truth to be found there, let alone in the claim that we are all inherently bad.
Nature itself is cruel. Suffering is not merely a product of human action; it is also a consequence of natural brutality, such as disasters or genetic predispositions that lead to disease and deformity. In essence, everything is a catastrophe. Life may experience suffering while struggling and striving without purpose, and perhaps it shouldn't even exist at all.
Paul Thompson3 said:Actually, it’s just the truth—and your post really drives that point home. Those playing dumb are even worse. We’re all fundamentally flawed. You’re completely insignificant—just like me, and just like everyone else on this board. Without some famous names or family ties, you wouldn't even exist. Your existence is totally irrelevant, and you're just jerking off on this forum. Calling what I wrote "unfair"? Lol. What's actually unfair is that we as a species still exist at all. If there were democracy on Earth, every other species would have voted us out long ago. You want to know the real injustice? Dragging a new generation into this little hellscape and pretending we're doing them a favor.
I am not advocating for any kind of anti-human efilism or such misanthropy; rather, I am advocating for absolute and true efilism. Even if humanity were to vanish tomorrow, suffering and the senseless, cruel struggle for survival would persist in nature. Animals would still suffer, die of hunger, bleed out, and so on. Life, as a phenomenon, is nothing more than a grotesque and foolish game.
It is quite fascinating how an irresistible urge and obsession to serve his military term took hold of Mainländer. Even though his father was a wealthy industrialist who could have easily paid for him to avoid service, he chose to serve for a long duration. It was during that time that he found the inspiration to write his "philosophy of salvation." It seems highly unusual for someone to seek out such grueling military service for no reason. Furthermore, his sister Mina, who played such a crucial role in finding publishers for his work, also took her own life shortly after Mainländer's suicide.
Laura Castillo6 said:To me, rationality implies being sensible—having the capacity to think clearly and act according to logic.
From where I'm sitting, most cultures throughout history have pretty much accepted the idea that suicide isn't a rational act.
I’ll give you an argument: the survival instinct. Every animal on this planet is hardwired to fear death. Because of that, taking one's own life just doesn't feel rational. I mean, how can you claim an act is rational if the very core of your being is terrified of the outcome?
On the flip side, obviously, suicide does happen. But it usually occurs when a specific set of circumstances in someone's life all align at once, pushing them to that point.
Wait, I don't follow your logic regarding what constitutes a rational argument. Animals don't contemplate the nature of existence; they aren't rational beings, but rather creatures driven by instinct and impulse. Humans possess much more complex brains and highly developed intelligence. To claim that suicide isn't rational seems to rely on viewing the act through an emotional lens. So, I ask you: where is the philosophical reasoning for why it is irrational to end a life that lacks purpose, feels unjust, is filled with suffering, and is based on a meaningless struggle?