Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
Establishment of the daily prayers;
Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
Self-purification through fasting; and
The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able
I have been thinking a lot about sociopaths and the criminally insane lately which branched off into me considering is what their doing wrong? (i.e. murdering, raping, lying) or is it only wrong to those who believe it is? For instance, someone could think it is wrong to cheat on a test, or even another person because, let's say they use the money they receive to take that class to support themselves and their grades are slipping, if they do not pass this class, they're out of those funds, and therefore out on the street with no alternate means to support them self. Does that make them any more or less wrong than someone who kills for pleasure? People do things out of self interest, basically they do what they do because they want to and can some way justify it to themselves, and sometimes even to others. It's like saying eating meat is wrong. It is all a matter of opinion, an individuals' point of view.
What does it mean to be probable, to have a chance? What is Chance? How do you explain probability on a classical scale (e.g. dice, coins, number generators) and on a a quantum scale?
Is chance an illusion?
One way to describe it is as the amount of variability of unknown factors in a system. I do not know if a coin will land heads or tails, but I do know there is a head and a tail to the coin, and so there is a probability of the coin landing either heads or tails. It is observed that upon analyzing past data that aprox. half of coin tosses result in heads and aprox. half result in tails. Probability can be viewed as a prediction of future outcomes based on past results, but this does not satisfy me on a quantum scale. The coin toss can be analyzed through physics and is ultimately drawn down to a deterministic quantum system. If it is ultimately deterministic, I am puzzled why the results are so evenly distributed. Why is the system one such that out of the uncountable factors involved, the possible products occur with the same frequency? Or, isn't it correct to say that, in a deterministic universe, there is, by definition, never more than one possible outcome, and the proposition of possibility indicates ignorance?
What are your thoughts or opinions on any of this?
It seems inevitable to me. Soon, or a few more thousand years (or longer, I don't know). What should we do when we realize there are too many people and too little resources or space? Genocide? Law-enforced suicide, or a morally driven 'opt-in' suicide. Moving underground, colonizing space, fixing children at birth... total war? All of the solutions seem immoral and or unnatural.
What would be the best way to deal with too many people?
in the debate of climate change vs. global warming, and wheather or not we, humans, should do anything about it. many times the affirmative debate is lost simply because their is not enough understanding of the difference between preternatural, and natural.
i myself do not thuroughly understand this argument, however, know that i believe in it, i am looking for some help in shaping my argument, and gaining my views before school starts, my ap teachers realy nail me when i make mistakes.
please i am 15, so i appologise ahead of time for my writing mistakes, in syt=ntax gramr, and spelling, but don't call me out on it in the debate, i just want to hear your thoughts!
(never started a debate, hope this is a good one!)
Please no duplicates. If someone has already brought up a topic and you create your own argument that deals with the same topic, though your opinion may be different, it will be taken down. You can add your argument under the original argument that deals with that topic though, that's fine.
This slogan basically advocates that since we have advanced enough to be able to live on other foods apart from meat,
then it is our moral obligation to stop killing animals for food.
Do you agree with this idea?
Is it our moral obligation to embrace veganism / vegetarianism?
Four Noble Truths
Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness in one way or another.
Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures of all kinds. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.
Suffering ends when craving ends, when one is freed from desire. This is achieved by eliminating all delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment.
Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by *"a teacher"* (the Buddha).
Noble Eightfold Path
Viewing reality as it is, not just as it appears to be.
Intention of renunciation, freedom and harmlessness.
Speaking in a truthful and non hurtful way.
Acting in a non harmful way.
A non harmful livelihood.
Making an effort to improve.
Awareness to see things for what they are with clear consciousness, being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion.
Correct meditation or concentration, explained as the first 4.
As taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people#cite_note-0
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
I've only read a brief 200 page introduction book about this guy, but he started making me think about religion in a different perspective. However, I've also grasped the guy was a bit crazy and out of touch with reality, as well as a major pessimistic loner towards the world, so it makes me wonder how much of his thoughts are really worth pondering.
Basically though, there's a part where he goes on to say that being religious can be better than being scientific for the reasoning that...um... religion brings on more meaning, in the end. As in, you can believe as much science and facts as you want, but what exactly will it offer us? I'm not saying I agree with him, but I want to know the views of those of you that have read about him and pondered the topic, that is, if you actually get what I'm trying to emphasize.