Who is the modern-day Voltaire?
>>906890
Wasnt he into BDSM?
Sam Harris.
>
Question: Is there Such a thing as universal/absolute truth?
Answer: In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.
One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever feels good” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.
The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be.
>>906390
Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.
To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.
Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”
Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person’s sense of right will soon clash with another’s.
>>906403
For example: What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you, and you might think it is not right. Clearly, our standards of right and wrong are in conflict. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc., and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
![Dukakis-Tank-Ad-e1384898913712[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4bizy7k.jpg "Dukakis-Tank-Ad-e1384898913712[1]")
Daily reminder Byzantium was "Roman Armenia," full of Islamic-like iconoclasts and an Armenizing Anatolian core that later became Turkey. Nothing was lost.
Armenian-looking Greeks stick out to this day thanks to the population exchange.
Justinian's code: proto-Koran.
Justinian: proto-Caliph.
Hagia Sophia: proto-Mosque.
Paulicianism: proto-Islam.
"Romans:" proto-Turks.
>>906328
Nobody cares about slavshits and sandnigger history
>>906328
I can see your point on iconoclasm. That is eerily similar the the dirty muzzies, but everything else falls pretty flat. Justinians code was not religiously backed, it was the assembling of secular law of from as far back as pagan times. And how was Justinian a proto-caliph? Because he was the divinely mandated ruler? Then every ruler ever who claimed diviNE right to rule was as well. And shut the fuck up about the Hagia Sophia. The Arabs saw its greatness, knew they could never create a equally magnificent style and copied it. It still posses me off seeing that stupid caligraphy in there.
Also genetic similarities don't make people the same. Jordanians are bro tier and Iran was great pretty revolution. Islamic fundamentalism has ruined the turk, not their genetics.
What is the history between Americans becoming such disgusting hams?
I understand why Polynesians are so fat. They seem to have legitimately evolved better fat retention over thousands of years due to bottlenecks from long sea voyages and droughts on their islands. But Americans emigrated from Europe fairly recently, from an evolutionary perspective, so it must be their environment. But what exactly?
>>906028
the advent of fast food, corn subsidies, and the ever faster pace of modern life.
polynesians being fat is a post-colonial health problem caused by high glucose western food
Their food. Man, they eat egg and bacon for breakfast, that's gross.
Who was in the wrong here?
>>905872
Nobody. Americans just wanted sovereignty. I think a people that yell liberty and freedom while holding onto slavery seems a little hypocritical in my opinion.
>>905872
The fucking MEXICANS.
Goddamn spicks.
The British model had always been to run colonies as a for-profit enterprise.
The colonists didn't want to contribute that profit.
Like everything in history, economic concerns drove social and political events.
Under modern international law, the colonists would be justified, because right to self determination.
Also, it doesn't make sense to have a place that's capable of self governing run from a capital that's across an ocean. Even in the modern era, that shit just wouldn't work, let alone in the age of sail.
Why don't any ancient sources, from Rome to Greece to Egypt to Israel to Babylon to Persia, mention sunburn?
They do.
>>905840
Why am i laughing so hard at this?
>>905847
Proofs?
What did you guys learn from reading metaphysics?
Share your most impressive insights.
>>905084
u can't kno nuffin
>>905087
That's epistemology though.
I learned that morality is subjective
Conspiracy shit aside, what has historically been the most influential organization?
>>904982
bankers
>>904982
You'd think it would be the farmers, but it almost never is. It's usually the violent men.
>>905002
/thread
Try and persuade me into becoming a Romeboo. I've always been something of an iconoclast when it comes to Romans. The brutality of their regimes, their thievery and plagiarism of other cultures, the way their great empire never conquered anyone technologically superior to them.
However, I'm open to listen to other people's viewpoints, so answer me these:
What made Rome better than Greece (which was best ancient civ IMO)?
Who were their greatest leaders and why?
What made their empire so great, and more so the British, Persian, Ottoman, Mongolian, Macedonian and Napoleonic empires?
What were their greatest military victories?
What did they have that the other ancient civs like Greece, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Carthage and Babylon not have?
Why do you think I should become a Romeboo, /his/?
>>904842
>What made Rome better than Greece (which was best ancient civ IMO)?
It was better because they took and expanded the ideas and culture that the Greeks made all across Europe. There's a reason why Greece is called the bedrock of Western Civilization because that's where it all started, but not spread which it did thanks to the Romans.
The Romans also contributed a lot on their own with language (romance) architecture (roads, concrete) and military. The last point is especially importany as this was where Rome suceeded where Greece failed; keeping military domination. Rome had an actual long lasting empire with consistently great generals. I make this comparison since both Rome and Greece were military societies.
>Who were their greatest leaders and why?
There are many contenders but I would wager Augustus. He started the Pax Romana, an period of peace that the Romans would never see again while, of course, basically creating the empire. Others include Trajan who extended the empire's borders to their max.
>What made their empire so great, and more so the British, Persian, Ottoman, Mongolian, Macedonian and Napoleonic empires?
Impact, always. The legacy of the Romans are still sigjificantly felt today and while some of the empires you listed (like the British and Napoleon) had substantial impact in the world, the Romans were simply greater. Meanwhile some of the ones you listed had little impact or none at all barring the Persians. entities in Europe and outside of it dreamed to be Roman like and claimed to be Roman themselves. Caesar is literally a by word for leader.
>What were their greatest military victories?
Samnite Wars, Punic Wars, Gallic Wars.
>What did they have that the other ancient civs like Greece, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Carthage and Babylon not have?
Roman spirit. Sounds cheesy but it's true. It's how they won the punic wars and perserved so long (6th to 13th century ERE)
You don't become a Romaboo. We are all Roman.
quality olive oil
>>904842
>What made their empire so great, and more so the British, Persian, Ottoman, Mongolian, Macedonian and Napoleonic empires?
They were the first empire ever to have a full standing army
This feat wasn't acchieved again until the 15th century by Ottomans
If Hong Xiaquan had established the Heavenly Kingdom and overthrown Buddhism and Confucianism in China, would China be an overall better place of living over history?
If not, what are your speculations?
>>904401
Christianity is a destabilizing peasant religion with slave morality. It would be disastrous for China because it would eventually collapse just like it has in Europe, leaving a cultural desert ripe for the picking. China can actually recover from the Cultural Revolution, and continue to reestablishing Confucian thought, because Chinese spiritual practices are not tied to the government and are also truely pluralistic and organic. They don't need priests and religious bodies to organize their spiritual traditions for them, and so those traditions don't just disappear when the institutions decay.
>>904555
>Confucianism
>not slave mentality
Hello Chang hows Canada?
We would have had the Warlord Era hit half a decade earlier than it did. A good portion of the Taiping Rebellion were just dissatisfied with the Qing instead of actually believing in the Heavenly Kingdom.
When Stalin took power literacy rate in Soviet Union was 20 percent and population was 148,656,000 million people , when Stalin died Literacy Rate was 99.99 percent and population was 182,321,000 despite biggest war of all time literacy rate and population both grew. So did industrial capabilities and scientific knowledge.
>>904349
>however, some or all three are included in gross population figures for the [USSR] following WW2
Gee I wonder how the population went up,
>>904349
>people stopped being born because people were dying
>things are perfectly fine so long as people are breeding
What are the best books i need to read if i want to understand theology?
>inb4 the bible
aside from that
>>903131
I don't think you really read the bible for theology.
What kind of theology do you want to get into?
>>903131
You don't need the bible for theology.
You need the Quran to see the unadulterated truth.
>>903137
the concept of god and the nature of man
Let's rate countries from a historical point of view.
Criterias:
-Fame
-Legacy
-Importance
Im ready for some shit tier biased maps
>>902994
That's the spirit.
>>902990
This doesn't really work with modern borders.
How does one convert to and become a priest in the Roman Catholic Church?
>>902979
Look up the number for the Church nearest you. Pick up the phone, give them a call. It's supposed to be pretty easy from what I've heard. Not even much of a background check.
>>902979
Nigga, forreal...?
>>902983
lol no
You have to get into seminary school, after being baptized, the confirmation, get known by the local priest, knowing your biblical shit.
It's not get in and feel like it, the local ordinary (a rank, an invested priest) has to support you, like a recomendation. After that you should get tuition fees sorted out, scholarships and what not.
After being ordained, you may apply for a theology degree, even a PhD in Spain or wherever you think is worth it.
>Be me
> 10th grade
>Big History Project called "National History Day"
> Really hype
> Project of Nathanael Greene's Southern Campaign
> Fall in love with topic
> Like masturbate to thought of Battle of Guildford Courthouse
> Finish Project
> One the best I have ever done
> Hand in
> Teacher, real hardass bitch/ entertaining in class though
> She says it is too many words
> tfw hopes and dreams are crushed in 3 words
> Gives whole class time to "fix" their shit
>Spend whole vacation week working on it
> Come back and hand in 2nd time
> Wait for grade
> "85"
> "Not enough analyzation of topic"
> *Bayonet wrist cutting intensifies*
> tfw idiot who didn't do any work on project makes State
> MfwI spent days in hot sweats fucking myself in the ass with Naty Greene's cock
Anyone else got any stories?
>>901592
>be in 9th grade
>do a project where you pick a country, make a poster of its flag, and then do some research on it and give a little presentation to class (whats its capital, whos its leader, where is it, important part of its history ect)
>mfw get Libya
>mfw just buy a blank green poster and get an A
>us history class
>covering civil war
>teacher starts talking about slavery
>redneck in back of class raises his hand
>it had nothing to do with slavery and slavery wasn't even that bad anyways
>class explodes with black kids and the one SJW white girl yelling at the top of their lungs
>redneck deflects every argument with "liberal media bias" retort
>teacher loses control of class and we never end up learning anything
Every fucking time
>>901719
Sounds like a shit school. In my US history class we spent the entire unit on the civil war essentially debating whether it was about slavery or not. It was super fun and engaging. Even though our cumulative answer was "maybe, we learned a ton.
