When dealing with people and the way they are, I always try to put myself in their shoes, and try to see things in their perspective. seeing things in this way, I always find a way to justify anyone's actions that would otherwise be considered wrong, hateful, dumb, etc. If someone does something insulting towards me, I'll find a way to not dislike that person, again, by thinking deep into what kind of reasoning goes on in the mind of the person who caused me harm. It seems like there's always a reason behind someone being the way they are... Whether it's their culture, their geographical location, their friends, music they listen to, clique, past experiences, political stance, something wrong with the wiring in their head. Being this way can both be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in a sense where I feel like there's always a good person behind their questionable actions, but bad in a way because... well... anything that anyone does can be justified (in my mind), and that just can't work, for...

This question is about suicide/death. Is it even possible to hold a preference between the alternatives of life and death, assuming materialism is true? When a person dies, his or her brain shuts down, hence their consciousness ceases (from everything we know). It seems impossible therefore to properly conceive of what it is like to be dead. Isn't it therefore illogical to state "I would rather be dead"?

This question is partly inspired by Question 2170. There are obviously a great many specific arguments against theistic belief, but in general, most (as far as I can tell) boil down to the claim that there is not enough, or perhaps any at all, rational evidence for the existence of God, and since a rational person should only admit to those things for which he has an adequate amount of rational evidence, a rational person should not believe in God. Specifically, the claim seems to be that we should only "believe" in something if we first have rationally convincing evidence for it to be true. But, even if I acknowledge that there is little to no rational evidence for God's existence, does it necessarily follow that to believe in a deity is irrational? Put another way, is it possible to have a logically consistent theistic belief system against which the only argument is that there is not enough evidence to prove it to be true? Does the simple act of believing in something for which you don't have...

The act of dealing arms is not morally wrong - it is argued. What is wrong is the use these arms are put to once traded. Can the same argument be applied to drug dealing?

What makes me me? That is to say, what makes me different from another person? It's easy to answer in a general term. You are you, with different thoughts, emotions and DNA. But it's at DNA where the answer becomes confusing and tricky for me. As far as I am aware, DNA is the information of you, of which everything about you is first started, and where what you're current situation is stems from. Then, of course, it is probably correct to say that an exact matching strand of DNA will lead towards the exact same results after you are "born" or created (at least, to stuff that are not environmentally depending). Now, as far as i know, your brain, thoughts and consciousness all derived genetically and are not affected environmentally. So, and I'm sure this has been discussed a lot, if you where to clone yourself, you would expect somebody who looks exactly the same as you to be born. But then, what about the psychological side of it? Seeing as we both come form the same source, and all the information that...

What strikes many people as the most terrible aspect of suicide is the pain inflicted on those left behind. But does this mean that we are literally obligated to stay alive for other people? Even as I appreciate that to kill oneself hurts one's friends and family in an unbelievable way, it seems strange to me that anyone should have ultimately have any reason to live besides their own, personal happiness.

Most atheists presumably believe that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in God. What I want to ask is: is there ANY evidence? Or none at all? Is there anything that the panelists might point to and say, "this counts as evidence that God exists"?

In terms of a more universal perspective, what do you believe is the universal cause of all human actions? I believe self-gratification is the answer. I believe that in every action we make involves self-gratification in one way or another. I believe that on a subconscious level we analysis which actions will make us happier and most often choose the one that leads us to it. My only flaw that I know of about my assumption is service to others (via volunteer services). Yet I feel somehow some of the situations that arise during volunteer services can arise from someone else's need for self-gratification. I wanted a more professional opinion on the matter as well as perhaps an evaluation on my assumption.

What's your take on the idea that there are "laws" of the universe? Calling something a law implies that there is an enforcer. Isn't this just another anthropocentric paradigm that uses the concept of God in order to place human beings at the center of meaning? I'm agnostic, but even if there is a God hasn't all the revision and tweaking of these so called laws over the ages been evidence that they should be considered as, at best, merely "suggestions"?

Are philosophers generally less religious than the general population? I'm not talking about the old-school ones, just the ones that are still alive.