gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:30 am
do you have a doubt about evolution
Sure. Lots. Let's start with this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE&t=2183s
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Revere? No. I quote him because Atheists often imagine he gives them a free ride.
Do they? i did not know this. i had 2 phil classes in college eons ago. Neich was not in them, but know a little - "god is dead" is all i know. after college hearing about him did not interest me in the least.
tell me more about Neich and his followers - and why they follow if willing.[/quote]
Well, Nietzsche famously said, "God is dead." And he did so with great rhetorical and literary flourish that impresses undergrads. He sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and he says a lot of brave, bad nonsense that young Atheists tend to admire. But they don't really read him, because he also says that the alleged death of God is going to be overwhelmingly bad for humanity -- it will destroy all meaning and morality, and leave us all spinning through a pointless universe on a journey to death.
Still, Nietzsche tries to embrace the opportunity. He says, essentially, since we can't be good or evil anymore, let's be very focused on seizing power. He think that a thing he calls "the will to power" is the life-force of humanity; and getting power means we need to be bad in very vigorous, purposive and unrestrained ways. If you're like that, you're an übermensch, a "superman," in his vocabulary (Nietzsche apparently did not believe in any "superwomen"; this was for men only).
People like Nietzsche primarily because of these features: he boldly insults Theism and God, he stylishly rages against moral restraint and allows us to make up our own choices about "values," and he seems to them to give them what they want -- complete freedom. It's all very adolescent, really. They don't read the dark side of Nietzsche at all. For them, he's a candyman.
But Nietzsche would (against his wishes) end up inspiring Hitler. And when you look at Nietzsche's philosophy, you can't find any moral code that would suggest Hitler was wrong to do what he did -- so Hitler is a permissible option within Nietzsche's system. So the effects of his Atheism have been rather bad in practice. But this does not stop many of his admirers from still admiring him.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
tell more why you like Nietzche
I don't "like" him. I only respect that he had the courage to go farther with his Atheism than the weak, half-baked Atheists of today seem to be willing.
I regard him as a brave, bad (and now dead) man. That he was wrong, he now knows. But he had at least some kind of honesty, along with all his badness.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Most Atheists I meet have nowhere near as much courage of their convictions as Nietzsche and you seem to have.
maybe you have not met enough Atheists?
Far more than most people ever will.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
If someone is willing to live as a genuine Atheist, I have no argument with him. I will, of course, still think he's wrong; but at least I won't have to unpack the implications of his view for him, and he won't whine when he realizes that Atheism leads to some very harsh truths. If he can live with those facts, I'm okay with him as a person...
gee thanks. lol
but i get you and agree - per believers from my perspective.
That's fine.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
But I won't trust him. That would be foolish. For he will be a man with no morals.
gee thanks for nothin, just as i was thinking of calling you a friend.
Well, it's a problem. If Atheism becomes rationally consistent, it destroys all possibility of morality. And I'm very thankful that most Atheists aren't thoroughgoing Atheists, because the world would be a horrendous place if they were.
Marx was the one who said, "The critique of religion is the first of all critiques," and look at what he did...Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim Jongs, Castro, Maduro...the misery just goes on and on.
I'm a Judaic Athiest,
Culturally Jewish, but an Atheist?
As I recall, one of the sons of Isaac took a similar view.
so you forced me into reciprocity, I "won't trust him(you)" for being a Believer.
I don't blame you, if you don't know what it is I believe. The history of that man-made construct "religion" has been a checkered one, for sure. But I think if you knew what I actually believe, you'd know you were safe. You can relax.
do you speak for all Christians Sir? - or only yourself as one Christian person?
I try to discern what it means to be consistent and rational as a Christian, and to speak for that. It's a work in progress, to be sure; but it's the right direction.
I'm just "me" common or unusual - i speak only of myself, not for "all atheists".
Well, you're only speaking solipsistically, right?
I suspect Atheists are as diverse as Christians - not a uniform baddi you make us out to be - with all sorts of forms/beleifs - as it would seem likely in a complex world populated by human beings.
What makes Atheism non-diverse is that it really only (dis-)believes in one thing. It's pretty hard to be diverse with one thing only to believe. So there are only two types of Atheist, really: consistent ones, and those who are fudging their Atheism by, say, living like Christians or Humanists while claiming pure Atheism.
However, I've never met, found or talked to a completely rationally-consistent and practicing Atheist. They all seem to be of the equivocal type. That's because ultimately, Atheism is unliveable. They find they have to add something to it to make it work for them....something they can't ground, usually.
I'm not into a popularity contest, and in fact the "prophet is an enemy in his own land" - and your top prophet was the least popular and was crucified.
Yes, indeed He was.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
and why if value Augustine over Nietzsche.
Help me out with that...what's the source of your appreciation of Augustine?
reading some of his "confessions" in college and his view of babies is infinately selfisih - which is the definition of Evil............not sure it St Aug make that connection (He might have - class was in 1987 so long time ago), but i did.
Help me out with that, too: in a world with no God, why would "selfishness" be "evil"? Ayn Rand called selfishness a "virtue." So it's certainly not the an idea it's impossible to doubt.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Morality is destroyed by Materialism,
??????? no clue what you are saying, elaborate Sir.
If Materialism is true, then the world came about as a result of an accidental collision of material forces, and has continued ever since by the inevitable chain of material cause and effect. In such a world, there is no inherent meaning (we are a cosmic accident), no freedom (we are predetermined to do what we do by the chain of cause and effect), and no morality (because nothing is really "good" or "evil" in a cosmic accident).
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Sorry. It's inevitable. Only an inconsistent Atheist can believe in morality. His Materialism makes it irrational, but he can do it.
??????
you claiming i am in inconsistant Atheist or a materialist or both?
I'm thinking that if you're a Solipsist, you wouldn't really have an opinion about God. After all, you would be in doubt of the real existence of the world, and certainly of anything behind it. So you wouldn't really be an Atheist or a Theist. You'd be a kind of lone monad, wouldn't you?
they raped kids before they found your god and continued to rape kids after finding your god.
You're speaking of the Catholic clergy scandals, I suppose?
Well, I'm not a Catholic, and would not be the right person to defend them. I would never have imposed their system, and would not excuse what they have excused. I think you'd also find that God is not of their opinion on that.
Jesus Christ said, "By their fruits you shall know them." Just as a good apple tree is defined not by looking good, but by making good apples, bad apples come from a bad tree. And we will know them by that, legitimately.
So you are speaking of the deeds of men who do not genuinely believe what they say they believe: not those who do. And I say that not on my authority, but on that of Jesus Christ.
But you make a good point: that many times deeds say more about what we actually believe than our words do. And that's my observation about Atheists: they don't live like they say they believe. If they did, they'd not even think about morality. They'd think like this:
"I want to raise a generation of young people who are
devoid of conscience, imperious, relentless, and cruel." -- A. Hitler
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Atheism's basic ontology is Materialism. And a man's character...well, that's quite a different issue. There's no such thing as "good character" in a Materialist world, because there's no such thing as "good" (or "evil.")
Under Materialist assumptions, what is, is. That's all that can be said. It's not good, and it's not evil. It's just what is.
I have no clue what you are talking about.
I thought it was clear. The terms "good" and "evil" have no meaning in a universe that is merely made up of materials accidentally collected by chance. We don't have "good" rocks and "evil" trees (except in Harry Potter, of course
). We don't have "good" and "evil" fishes, lions, dogs and cows. They are neither "good" not "evil," morally speaking. But if humans are just another accidental animal, then the same must be true of us.
no Solipsist is a materialist.
Not a (in philosophical terms) Realist, then? you don't believe there's a real "reality" out there? Just you, all by yourself?
reason affirms Solipsism, it does not affirm reality of the material world
Well, one can affirm Solipsism, but not on the basis of "reason." To have "reasons" would imply an external world from which those "reasons" could be drawn, and as you say, Solipsisim "does not affirm the reality of the material world."
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
we can talk Solipsism if you wish
That would be a good idea.
ok great, i love talking to myself!
And yet...you're talking to me.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
What do you personally take "Solipsism" to mean? Maybe you'd best explain that before we continue, so I don't end up using a different definition than you do.
same as Descarte's, though made independently (or maybe not? maybe 5 yrs later I learned about his guy descarte who made the same conclusion as an older man than me and 300 yrs before me - but of course maybe the 300 yrs before and Descarte is just another part of me and so............)
Well, Descartes method was entirely skeptical...meaning it was capable of producing doubt, but not of producing belief in anything. So Descartes could not give you reasons for believing in Solipsism. What he did was cast doubt on everything that could be doubted, even
in extremis. But he did not prove -- nor even try to prove -- that these things
don't exist, or that we have reasons to disbelieve in them. All he said was, "There's a way I can find to doubt it."
But Descartes was doing this in order to see if there was a way to believe something on completely solid certainty. And it's in this connection he came up with his "cogito ergo sum" statement: "I think, therefore I am." But he did so in the hope of building back to certain knowledge of the external world and even of God.
In this, most philosophers agree, he failed. He showed that doubting everything leaves you nowhere.
But an alternate conclusion is possible: namely, that it is in the nature of knowing itself that we find we must believe in order to know. The Latin for that is "credo ut intellegam": "I believe in order to know." And I think that's much closer to the truth.
i do not "Disbeleive in the existance of the material world" - any more than i "beleive in the existance of the material world"
I do not think that's true. if it were, you would not be writing to me.
my nature is too limit to know more.
Maybe because you will not put any faith in anything, and thus cannot know more, if the
credo above is correct.
I accept that sole meager Truth and live my life as best i can without inventing other Truths later (as IMO Descarte did).
He didn't, actually. Descartes was a believer in God. The full title of his "Meditations," from which the
cogito comes, is "Meditations on First Philosophy in which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated."
How's that for a long title?
i cannot ever know -
If so, then by definition, whatever you are, it's not God.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Once again, you surprise me by being more aware than many Atheist with whom I have talked.
ok, thanks i guess.
maybe you should take to more Atheists?
As I say, I've talked to more than most people will ever know in a lifetime. Trust me.
it you say so - are you wearing a loud tie to prove you exist? - lol.
I will do so in future.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Why are you talking to me, an entity for which, as you say, you have no faith that it exists?
out of sanities sake, to survive mentally i assume you exist to live a reasonable outside of a sanitarium.
How can "god" go insane? Again, you must not be He.
Thanks for your thoughts...even if I'm not really here to hear them.