It’d be hard to add to any of that: A society that abandons the minds of their children to adults of evil intent in a concentration camp called schools is doomed.

Donald Trump is of course a leading edge vector of this syndrome. How much truth about anything will you find on his Truth Social website or almost everything he rants about.

So too, and even more so is Elon Musk with his now worse-than-horrible X platform. Facebook has now joined this toxifying club too.

I think you express some good insights here Mamtimin. Yes, we (western society at least) seem to be in a state of “spiritual vertigo, leaving us confused and disoriented”. I agree too that we are overwhelmed with information.

However, I think that the primary cause of our problems lies elsewhere. Most westerners are now, at least functionally, atheists/materialists. I think it is just dawning on people that if atheism is true, that if this universe has just happened into being for no reason, then our lives are ultimately completely meaningless.

In such a universe, gaining more and more information is pointless, all moral claims have no foundation, and any hope that AI can help is just an illusion.

As the number of people who believe that there is no Creator who has made us for some purpose grows, so too will the sense of existential vertigo grow.

DD

Your team has lost, and thank God for that, now the downhill rush towards extinction of the West from the Democrats Idiocy, be gone forever, never to return. All praise to the mighty Orange Man, and may the three Gods of Christianity prevail against the forces of evil draped in rainbow flags and other emblematic symbols of the Devil, including also such Jolly Rogers of destruction as the Palestinian and the quasi First Nation symbolic rags associated with Devil worship and injustice against the majority.

JP
Tens of millions of dreadfully sane Christian true believers who believe in the presumed creator-god voted for Donald Trump who was sometimes called Orange Jesus.
The creator-god idea is the extension/expression of a childish, even infantile mis-understanding of the nature of Reality.

You miss the point Daffy.

Whatever you may think of Trump or believers in a creator god, it remains the case that if the universe just happened unintentionally into being, then our lives are ultimately meaningless.

Equally, all moral claims would lack foundation.

As more people recognise this, it is not surprising that they experience existential vertigo.

«Defining our era is a monumental challenge.»
«the intricacy, controversy, and even the potential futility of defining anything»

Not just "monumental", but it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE to define anything real.

And there are infinite number of things happening in an era - does anyone seriously attempt to define it in a finite number of words?

«Consider the question, “What is a woman?”... potentially losing the essence of the term.»

A woman is not a term!

Terms are just mental abstractions...
And the essence of mental abstractions is, well, thoughts... or is there something deeper?
The essence of a woman (and of a man too) is, well first try atoms, then protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. which manifest as a woman, or is there something yet deeper?
Yes, we already know (E=mc²) that the essence of all sub-atomic particles, including those that make up a woman, is energy. And is there anything deeper?
How can you define energy?
And how can you define a thought?

Scripture tells those of us who believe it, that the essence of energy is thought,
then the essence of thought, well the essence of the essence of the essence of thoughts and of everything else, ultimately is God - there is nothing else.

Can any of that be defined?
Well of course not.

«What is the zeitgeist of our time?»

That humans living in it are so arrogant that they attempt the impossible and believe they can do it.

Yuyutsu

Man in two parts and his dilemma :

The human mind (spirit), can best be defined as an overpowering unknowing metaphysical influence translated into a physical interpretation of abstract thought through bodily motion.
The proof of this is easily sourced from our dreaming state which highlights the divorce of the mind from the body, taking us on unbelievable journeys of abstract physical impossibility lacking physical attachment to the laws of natural physics, and thus proving the duel nature of man; man in two parts.

The Bible interprets this in simple form, righteousness and wickedness: God the spirit is righteous, the fallen angels (Devil), are the wicked.

That is the lot of man; tortured by instincts and presided over by metaphysical spirit, where both combine, forming individual personalities leading to philosophical differences with impossible conclusions.

Dear Dan,

The Bible does not mention fallen angels.
The source of that idea comes from the book of Enoch, which was not included in the Bible and misinterprets the "Sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6.

The down-to-earth interpretation I studied was that "Sons of God" refers to a high social caste of humans, which called themselves thus as a way of condescension, distinguishing themselves from ordinary people (and their daughters), that's all, nothing too fancy.

In the dreaming state, one is conscious of the contents of their mind (whatever that is, Hindu scripture describes what the mind is made of, but it doesn't really matter for the purpose of this discussion) rather than of the world as presented by one's senses.

The author states:
"The inversion of these values is achieved through widespread gaslighting, propaganda and intimidation that goes unchallenged, much like the tale of the emperor who paraded in his invisible clothes, with only a child daring to speak the truth."

The issue we have today is that those who are doing the gaslighting and spreading the propaganda see themselves as the "child" and the naked "emperor" as the scientists and researchers.

They believe they have some secret and magical knowledge that separates and elevates them above above the "sheeple".

That's the inversion I see.

JP
The trouble with the naive childish creator-God idea is that it does not take into account the death rules to here. Which is to say that all life forms both human, non-human and plants and trees all eventually begin do decay, disintegrate and die.
It is also based on the childish idea that the creator-God is going to look after them. But does the God as proposed by the creator-God really look after anyone?
Where was such a God during the 2004 Tsunami when more that 100,000 human beings perished. Is the influence of such a God to be found in the daily horror-show called the six-thirty news (Skyhooks).

Most creator-God believers pretend that they have been "saved" from really coming to terms with their inevitable (at any minute) death by believing in the usual nonsense about Jesus. They even naively presume that they are "going to heaven" when they die (if they are good!). And they will be bodily "resurrected' when Jesus comes again.
One wonders which body will be "resurrected". The infirm body as it was when it dies (hopefully in bed) or as it was in the prime of their life at 30 years of age.
They also pretend that when Jesus comes again all the billions of non-believers will burn in hell and that Jesus will herald a new kingdom on planet Earth.

JP
Im an athiest and my life is not meaningless.
Lifes what you make it. Its the only one you get.

This is interesting-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-ckSz6FrQ

Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU

Mikk – I agree that you can make up a meaning for your life. And so can Hitler and Trump and King Charles III. Anyone can make up any “meaning” for life that they want, but ultimately each person’s made-up meaning means nothing.

In a universe that has unintentionally come into existence, there is no particular way things are supposed to be. There is no objectively right or wrong behaviour. Atheists can make up moral beliefs but one person’s moral belief is no more right or wrong than another person’s opposite moral belief.

May I suggest that you read a couple of short comics I have written. You can see them at : https://atheismforkidsandteens.com/making-up-meaning/01/ and https://atheismforkidsandteens.com/the-sociopath-and-the-fool/01/ .

I would be interested to hear your response

Daffy - as I suggested to mikk, perhaps you would like to read a couple of short comics that I have written on this subject. You can see them at: https://atheismforkidsandteens.com/making-up-meaning/01/ and https://atheismforkidsandteens.com/the-sociopath-and-the-fool/01/ .

I would be interested to hear your response.

JP- I think the animation and construction of the strips are great. Some of the concepts might be too advanced for children. It may help to have more structure. But good effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-act_structure

I haven't read this article but it looks fairly expansive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative

I liked the philosophy at the end of the comic strip.

We do need to teach children good virtues- as you have done- we can't trust the Woke Marxist's to do it.

Canem Malum - I’m glad you found the comics interesting. I appreciate your suggestions for improving them. I’ll look into it. The comics are really aimed at thoughtful people from about 15 years of age and upwards.

I don’t think we can teach children good virtues without a foundation that makes sense. As I argue in the comics, atheism lacks any foundation for any moral claims.

JP Comment1- "I’m glad you found the comics interesting. I appreciate your suggestions for improving them. I’ll look into it. The comics are really aimed at thoughtful people from about 15 years of age and upwards."

A- My pleasure. I was referring mainly to the discussion about divorce , which a child will see through a quite different perspective than an adult. IMO the actual impact of divorce on a child, even one over 15, will be more of a second order abstract concept, mainly to do with living arrangements, rather than more practical and stability concerns. That's not to say that children aren't deeply affected by divorce. We live in two worlds- our personal/ social life and our work life. How can we put this in the first order context of the child. I suppose this doesn't have to be a romantic situation but could be a friendly one. It's about the nature of our relationships. Some talk about attachment systems.

We should also be guiding children to the idea that marriage relationships will happen faster than they think, and they need to prepare themselves for the life changing issues that typically occur. Traditionally classical literature was a way of doing this, and still is, but there are elements in contemporary society of greater complexity, that require a different approach.

There are nuanced types of deep relationships, and we need to compare and contrast them to abstract and conceptualize the rules of the "relationship process".

JP Comment2- "I don’t think we can teach children good virtues without a foundation that makes sense. As I argue in the comics, atheism lacks any foundation for any moral claims."

A- Yes good foundations. Atheism doesn't have a soul. Without God, man is God, terrifying without wisdom and knowledge, some God's are better than others. Jordan Peterson says God is an idealized leader. You may have seen this- Don Cupitt- science descriptive ammoral, morality the role of the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Faith
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVUIaMDAYwqjMlxhXDehb4k8Oqa5n5KAP

As others have said "problem solving, requires problem background".

Keep up the good work

Yuyutsu

#Not just "monumental", but it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE to define anything real#

Well I just defined man with pretty much ease; Enoch is a very succinct view of good and evil and makes a good reference to the hierarchy of Heavenly control.
It does a brilliant job in describing the depths of evil man will fall to and the consequences.
I like it.
Another banned Christian text is the Gospel of Thomas. It’s more subdued on mysticism, describing Christ in a more human form. A good book: I care little for the Catholics censorship.

Dear Dan,

«Well I just defined man with pretty much ease; Enoch is a very succinct view of good and evil and makes a good reference to the hierarchy of Heavenly control.»

You do realise, I hope, that there is no actual Heavenly hierarchy out there, that this description of angels and daemons is only of the complex opposing forces within our own psyche.

I suppose some texts were banned because the masses misunderstood and took them too literally.

The article author Mamtimin Ala seemingly correctly says that global universalism is the cause of loss of local value and identity.

Yuyutsu

I read the good book with a slant towards its use of euphemisms.

I read many things. The Tora for example is what I describe as pure edification on scripture as you can get.
But so too are the Christian Catechisms, of both sides, Catholic and Reformationist.

There are clever people who can take Enoch as example, and weave a story from it which reads like a novel of unique proportions; inclusive of Giants a malformations of birth attributed to total lack of morality, melding the animal kingdom into the human tribe.
But, through it all is the thread of Gods retribution for immorality.

True or false, governed by individual belief, the world is portrayed as the Devils playground where evil must rule for a time, opposed by those who choose Righteousness and moral living as the difficult choice.

The message is unchanged for thousands of years, and appears from many diverse directions as confirmation.

Dear Dan,

If some people require fairy tales in order to stay on the straight-and-narrow, then so be it, and while it has some limited use, that method is also problematic:

1) It can easily be manipulated and abused by clergy who themselves do not keep to the straight-and-narrow.
2) When educated people (and nowadays most are) are presented with fairy tales, not only do they not accept them, but also it hits back the teller like a boomerang.
3) It can induce guilt feelings, and guilt feelings are never conducive for spiritual growth, then remaining on the straight-and-narrow will only be an external expression and one's real feelings would be suppressed and never come out in the open to be purified.