EVIL!!!!!!!!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nietzsche did not abandon 'Morality' but merely condemned Christian Morality.

You should read his book "Beyond Good and Evil." You'd change your mind.

But you're right about one thing: not even Nietzsche could find a way to make Atheism work. Having destroyed the legitimative foundations of all morality, he had to smuggle something back in. And this is where you get this talk of "higher morality": Nietzsche thought his values could be substituted for the old "Judeo-Christian" ones he had despised. He brought them back in though a hierarchy, by affirming "the Will to Power" as the highest of the values.

The problem, of course, is that not only does this contradict conventional morality, but also Nietzsche had no more basis for his hierarchy than he had for Judeo-Christian morality, once he had thrown away all the Judeo-Christian suppositions.

So yes, Nietzsche was a failure. His morality was a fraud, based on no more than the eloquence of his rhetoric, but lacking any foundation in truth. But he made a better try of making it work than most Atheists ever do. And we can give him some credit for that.

Your argument was, Neitzsche abandoned morality and I countered that.

I have read "Beyond Good and Evil" show precisely what is so evil or negative about it?

The Judeo-Christian morality does work but it is more for human-animals who are enforced by threats of perdition and violence, i.e. comply or else be burnt in eternal hellfire.

Where humans strive to be being more human, the proposed morality can only be one-up and higher than the basic Judeo-Christian morality. This is so obvious.

Neitzsche's morality is definitely a type of 'higher morality that the Judeo-Christian morality. Neitzsche's morality was influenced by Schoppenhauer and a bit of Kant [which he critiqued]. However Nietzsche's model and system of morality was higher than the Judeo-Christian morality, albeit it was not as organized and efficient as Kant's.

An effective Moral and Ethics System will ensure each human will act spontaneously and voluntary on his/her own freewill with the optimal ethical value with an incremental trend against the established secular absolute moral rules as guides.

You are again ignorant of humans as 'animals'.
Yes, we are 'animals' but we are the highest form of evolved 'animals with an evolving and progressive faculty of moral and ethics within the human brain and mind. This is so evident from the behaviors of humans since 200,000 years ago to the present.

If this were true, and we granted you all you say, you would still only have an "is" there, not an "ought." And that's a very serious fault. But since you don't understand it, it seems, I don't know if you can grasp that problem yet. It's terminal, though.

I have already mentioned the "no ought from is" [esp of Hume] is basic philosophy, not higher philosophy.
I have argued for morality and ethics for the purpose of ensuring humanity's progress we need to establish absolute moral oughts as guides for an effective moral & ethics system.

The point is you can make all the noise you can, but the framework of morality and ethics [Kantian] is very sound on paper. It is a matter of implementing and practicing it for it to mature within the next 100 or 200 years.

Even were we, in some sense, evolved to behave in ways we call "moral" (which we're clearly not, as we have killed more of each other in the previous century in secular wars and conflicts than in all previous human history combined, and now threaten total extinction of the planet), it would not suggest anybody had a duty to stay with that. A better strategy for each of us individually would be to convince others to be moral, while we allowed ourselves to be selectively immoral, whenever it suited our personal interests.

The trend from 500 years ago to the present indicate there is a decrease in secular wars especially now that we have various channels opened for nations involved to seek peaceful solutions. Even with Nukes the secularists are faced with an inherent deterrent, i.e. Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD.

It is argued theistic wars killed more than secular wars, especially those wars started and driven by the ideology of Islam.
Worst still for the present with the availability of Nukes where SOME Muslims as driven by Islam, Muslims will not give a damn for MAD or if the human species is exterminated since regardless they are assured of eternal life in paradise [with 72 virgins for some].

Nah! the morality and ethics system of humanity cannot be allowed to be subjective according the whims of the individual or groups.
What we need are absolute secular moral rules to act as ceiling and max limit no humans should exceed and as guides only so as to drive improvements in ethics.

Any ordinary human being will definitely accept the following absolute moral rules as a guide or moral lighthouse,
"There shall be no war and no killing of another human"

Then on the ethics sides, we establish practical steps to strive to as close as possible to the impossible-to-achieve ideals, thus driving continuous improvements.

And from an Atheist-Materialist perspective, why shouldn't we? What necessitates that if I can be evil and want to be evil, still I cannot choose, for whatever occasions I choose, to do or be evil? That doesn't even make sense from that worldview. So there's no consolation in the mere "is" of Evolutionism.

Humans are evolving towards the moral ideal which is inherent in humans [and primates] as I had justified with the present of mirror neurons and an inherent algorithm for a faculty of morality.
As this faculty evolves within each human being, is it natural it will inhibit and modulate the inherent impulses that are likely to result in evil and violent acts.

Note Aristotle on anger,

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  -with the right person and
  -to the right degree and
  -at the right time and
  -for the right purpose, and
  -in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  Aristotle

Anger is an inherent emotion and necessary to facilitate survival but anger is also the most common basis for evil and violent acts.
The above is advocated and practiced within Buddhism and Buddhists respectively but it need to be more organized and formal.

An effective Framework of Morality and Ethic System will be more organized thus enable one with the skills

• -to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way -

guided by the secular absolute moral rules/principles.

It will also develop the balanced skills for each individual to deal with all the 'necessary' impulses that are vulnerable to turn evil and violent.

[Immanuel Can]

I have read "Beyond Good and Evil" show precisely what is so evil or negative about it?

Clearly you didn't even read the title.

Neitzsche's morality is definitely a type of 'higher morality that the Judeo-Christian morality.

Adolph Hitler thought so.

An effective Moral and Ethics System will ensure each human will act spontaneously and voluntary on his/her own freewill with the optimal ethical value with an incremental trend against the established secular absolute moral rules as guides.

This doesn't even make sense as a sentence. "Effective," "ensure," "spontaneously and voluntarily," "freewill," "optimal," "ethical value," "incremental trend," "established," "secular absolute rules"...every on of these, in this context is simply empty jargon. You don't seem to mean a darn thing by any of them, except to obfuscate the entire question.

I'm bored. Your thinking is not logical, and your use of language is vague and evasive. There are interesting conversations to be had here, but this isn't one.

I'm out.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have read "Beyond Good and Evil" show precisely what is so evil or negative about it?

Clearly you didn't even read the title.

How can you be that naive philosophically by interpreting what is in the book by its cover or title?

Neitzsche's morality is definitely a type of 'higher morality that the Judeo-Christian morality.

Adolph Hitler thought so.

What Adolph Hitler did has nothing to do with Morality, i.e. as in Philosophy of Morality.
As I had argued, Morality per se is the establishment of secular absolute moral rules that are absolute good.

What Hitler established in his manifesto was basically evil, i.e. to get rid or kill humans that are inferior.

Where there is a claim of Hitler with Nietzsche, it is merely due to cherry-picking;

• Broadly speaking, despite Nietzsche's hostility towards anti-semitism and nationalism, the Nazis made very selective use of Nietzsche's philosophy, and eventually, this association caused Nietzsche's reputation to suffer following World War II.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence ... _Nietzsche

While Nietszsche proposed the idea of 'Great Men' he never referred to tyrants of the past, Caligula and the likes for his readers to emulate.

It is also claimed Hitler was inspired by the Bhagavad Gita. Again this is cherry picking and out of context to the whole ethos of the Bhagavad Gita.

An effective Moral and Ethics System will ensure each human will act spontaneously and voluntary on his/her own freewill with the optimal ethical value with an incremental trend against the established secular absolute moral rules as guides.

This doesn't even make sense as a sentence. "Effective," "ensure," "spontaneously and voluntarily," "freewill," "optimal," "ethical value," "incremental trend," "established," "secular absolute rules"...every on of these, in this context is simply empty jargon. You don't seem to mean a darn thing by any of them, except to obfuscate the entire question.

I'm bored. Your thinking is not logical, and your use of language is vague and evasive. There are interesting conversations to be had here, but this isn't one.

I'm out.

Point is you do not have any counter for the concepts I mentioned above which are supported with arguments and evidences. They are simply too overwhelming for your mind [straight-jacketed by theology and existential crisis] to accept.

You are bored is a good excuse for holding to a barbaric sort of moral system and having no good argument to counter the sound model and system I had proposed for a secular model of morality and ethics.

Your mission is no non-theist humans can establish a moral system that is more effective than your barbaric moral system imposed by an illusory God which drives the moral system with the worst sort of threats of violence with perdition and hellfire. I have proven you wrong with a tenable Framework of Morality and Ethics System.

Besides you are building straw-man all over the place and I have burnt all of them down.

[surreptitious57]

explain to me which non material entities an Atheist can believe are real without undermining his / her Atheism

Souls
Spirits
Ghosts
Chakras

[Veritas Aequitas]

explain to me which non material entities an Atheist can believe are real without undermining his / her Atheism

Souls
Spirits
Ghosts
Chakras

The above are illusions.
The personal soul that can survives physical death is a transcendental illusion while the others are mental illusions.

What is non-material [physical] and is real are mental thoughts of an individual, a priori knowledge, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2, synergies that correlate with physical results, others [?].

[surreptitious57]

Materialism is an a priori assumption

Materialism is absolutely everything that exists so it is more than an assumption
This would includes things that actually exist but are still classed as non material
So for example if metaphysical states or beings exist they are by default material

Material pertains to the physical but that definition is limited to our actual sense perception
But what about things that cannot be perceived - they still exist regardless of our limitations

The definition of Universe is ALL THAT EXISTS so is not limited to what we know or perceive
Therefore while ALL THAT EXISTS is definitely a priori it is most definitely not an assumption

Can you name anything at all that exists which is not contained within the definition ALL THAT EXISTS
If you can then how is it logically or physically possible for this thing to exist outside of the definition

[surreptitious57]

The personal soul that can survives physical death is a transcendental illusion while the others are mental illusions

They may be illusions but are still examples of what an atheist can believe in without it undermining their atheism

[surreptitious57]

What is non material [ physical ] and is real are mental thoughts of an individual

Thoughts are not non material but electro chemical signals in the brain or the firing of neurons
And so they should be classed as physical not just mental which is just a sub set of the physical

[Veritas Aequitas]

The personal soul that can survives physical death is a transcendental illusion while the others are mental illusions

They may be illusions but are still examples of what an atheist can believe in without it undermining their atheism

Ok, agree.

Thoughts are not non material but electro chemical signals in the brain or the firing of neurons And so they should be classed as physical not just mental which is just a sub set of the physical

Perhaps the waves underlying thoughts are physical [extreme interpretation] but what culminates as a thought is a result of too many variables in combination that are not traceable to the physical.
It is just like synergy, e.g. 1 + 1 = 3, there is something extra likely physical combinations but we will not know exactly what they are. However whatever the x factor is, it cannot be independent of the human subject, definitely no God is involved.

For example a though of pleasantness arising from mind due to various elements cannot be tracked to anything physical. We can track that to neural activities and thought waves but we cannot be precise about it. As such, I would regard mental thoughts as non-material in the general sense.

[Immanuel Can]

explain to me which non material entities an Atheist can believe are real without undermining his / her Atheism

Souls
Spirits
Ghosts
Chakras

So then, an "Atheist" could believe in all kinds of metaphysical entities, but for some reason rule out God?

Just how would that argument go? "I believe in souls, but they don't come from or go to anywhere....I believe in spirits, which inhabit anything for no reason...I believe in ghosts, though there is for them not any evidence at all; and cosmologically, I'm a Hindu...but I disbelieve in God."

You're going to need to explain the logic of that to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Materialism is an a priori assumption

Materialism is absolutely everything that exists so it is more than an assumption

No, that just means that it's a very ambitious assumption. Size has nothing to do with the basis of the assumption: an assumption doesn't get less gratuitous by being big.

This would includes things that actually exist but are still classed as non material
So for example if metaphysical states or beings exist they are by default material

Yes, what you say about the Materialist ideology here is true. Materialism is "eliminativist," meaning it prophesies that at some point in the future all phenomena will be fully explicable, at least in principle, on the basis of reference to nothing but materials. It doesn't know this, far less have reason to assert it: but comprehensive Materialism is a sort of wish, hope, aspiration or faith -- an ideology, not something proven.

But this aspiration, Materialism, essentially gratuitiously "eliminates" all the properties of which you speak. "Mind" turns out to be only "brain." "Soul" turns out to be a weird and inexplicable side effect or "epiphenomenon" of some physical structure in the body. "Chakras" would be nothing more than electrical signals...and so on.

Material pertains to the physical but that definition is limited to our actual sense perception
But what about things that cannot be perceived - they still exist regardless of our limitations

Materialism, by definition, assumes they will turn out to be material anyway; or if they prove intractable to physical explanation, it dismisses them as ultimately unreal.

The definition of Universe is ALL THAT EXISTS so is not limited to what we know or perceive
Therefore while ALL THAT EXISTS is definitely a priori it is most definitely not an assumption

Well, that's a non-sequitur, really: it does not follow logically. Something doesn't stop being a mere assumption by being very big, as I said, just as something doesn't become convincing by being put in caps. ( "Louder" is not a synonym for "righter." )

In fact, bigger assumptions are harder to defend, because they try to include more phenomena that don't fit the simple theory. That's why you find you still want to believe in things like souls and spirits, perhaps: because you can't find material grounds for them, but sense they are important realities. And if you don't believe in those, you probably do believe in other immaterial realities, such as "reason," "morals," "identity," "meaning," and so on. So in order to keep Materialism from making your world small, concrete and empty (which is what it always does), you have to add a new category of things that don't fit Materialist assumptions.

At least, that's how it looks to me that you're proceeding. But feel free to explain how, without any jump of faith, you can know that these immaterial things you regard as real are going to inevitably turn out to be mere "materials" in the end. That looks pretty assumptive to me, at the moment.

[surreptitious57]

So then an Atheist could believe in all kinds of metaphysical entities but for some reason rule out God

You re going to need to explain the logic of that to me

Atheism ONLY pertains to God and nothing else

But to answer your question : an atheist could indeed believe in all kinds of metaphysical entities as long as none of them were God
Considering the amount of mental energy you expend in discussing atheism I would have thought you would know by now what it was
So go and stick this on your fridge door : Atheism is the non acceptance of a specific class of entity namely gods or God . Nothing else

[surreptitious57]

feel free to explain how without any jump of faith you can know that these immaterial things you regard as real are going to inevitably
turn out to be mere materials in the end . That looks pretty assumptive to me

I dont do faith because its not very reliable or even appropriate
Logic and reason and evidence and proof are my tools of choice

So let me begin with this : definitions are descriptive not prescriptive

I class anything that exists as material or physical because it must have some property otherwise how can its existence be known
And the non material or non physical pertains only to that which either cannot exist or does not exist and absolutely nothing else
The classification of mental as non physical is not a definition I accept because all that exists has to be physical including the mental

So if God exists then I class him as physical because something that is metaphysical is actually non existent by definition
Ditto anything else classed as metaphysical that actually exists such as souls and spirits and angels to name but just three
Also metaphysical states such as heaven and hell and strange phenomena such as telepathy and telekinesis and reincarnation

I will accept without reservation the existence of any phenomenon once its existence has been scientifically validated
So if science could hypothetically determine the existence of God I would accept it without question too - absolutely so

I will never deny reality when the evidence for it is there - only the insane and the ideological do that - and I am neither of those

[Immanuel Can]

So then an Atheist could believe in all kinds of metaphysical entities but for some reason rule out God

You re going to need to explain the logic of that to me

Atheism ONLY pertains to God and nothing else

It also requires Materialism. Otherwise, Atheism can't get grounds to make the claim that God does not exist...it would have to leave that question as a possibility, and that would be agnosticism, not Atheism. In fact, it would be a denial that the "no belief in gods" hypothesis was necessary at all. Belief in God or gods would become optional again. And that's not what any Atheist wants, by definition.

But to answer your question : an atheist could indeed believe in all kinds of metaphysical entities as long as none of them were God

Not with warrant, though. And that's the problem: it would make all Atheism merely frivolous...for it would be nothing more than an obdurate refusal to believe in one metaphysical entity, the most rational one, while embracing belief in metaphysical entities for which there is less evidence (spirits, for example) or none at all (ghosts, morals, and meaning for example).

So go and stick this on your fridge door : Atheism is the non acceptance of a specific class of entity namely gods or God . Nothing else

You'd better add this footnote: "Anybody who thinks that has thought not at all about what his Atheism actually implies."

[Immanuel Can]

feel free to explain how without any jump of faith you can know that these immaterial things you regard as real are going to inevitably
turn out to be mere materials in the end . That looks pretty assumptive to me

I dont do faith because its not very reliable or even appropriate

Then you can't be a Materialist...it requires the faith that materials are going to turn out to be all that can exist.

Logic and reason and evidence and proof are my tools of choice

That's what Atheists would like us to think. But if that's so, if their belief is evidentiary, then they owe us evidence or proof for the "no Gods" hypothesis. And that, even Richard Dawkins knows they cannot supply. So that's not true, actually.

Unless you're the first person to discover evidence for "no-gods," of course. And if you have, then share it.

So if God exists then I class him as physical because something that is metaphysical is actually non existent by definition

That assumes, but does not give any reason to believe, Materialism. "Only the physical stuff exists" is the basic faith-assumption of Materialism.

Ditto anything else classed as metaphysical that actually exists such as souls and spirits and angels to name but just three

So you believe in "souls and spirits and angels," but not in God?

I will accept without reservation the existence of any phenomenon once its existence has been scientifically validated

That also is premised on an assumption: namely, that "science" can describe all that exists.

But if that were true, you could show me a beaker of morality, measure the length of a meaning, weigh identity in scales, and give me a pound or kilo of soul and spirit.

So if science could hypothetically determine the existence of God I would accept it without question too - absolutely so

Well, what do you think of the scientific arguments for God? Or have you actually never heard of them?

I will never deny reality when the evidence for it is there - only the insane and the ideological do that - and I am neither of those

Well, that's fair.