Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:19 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:37 pm
Well, an Atheist perspective can never be used to explain what "good" and "evil" actually mean.

I can do do talk about Good and Evil - because as a man and moral animal, my Athiesm does not define my character - anymore than your Christianity.

my conscience convicts me when i play the coward and do the wrong thing too many time, but my conscience guides me and convist em when i am a coward, and later when i find the courage forces me to do the right thing.

as it does with you Sir.

its all about the inner voice, which too often we ignore - kill.

that inner voice is always good!!!!!!!!!!! - so unlike you i do think all men are good via thier nature - just kill that voice out of self pride/foolishness/etc......

i just think man is more good than you - i think man is good - even the worst of us (they just kill the conscience we are all born with) - Hitler/Stalin/etc........and deprave themselfves killing all others instead of themselfves (cowards kill others instead of themselves)

the broken in spirit if cowards transfur the darkenss to others.

we all have darkness, but that darkness is via cowardness.

if Stanlin/hiter/etc had guts, they would have understood thier brokeness, and instead of killing others, would have strived to fix themselves -and learned to listen to your conscience (which is always good).

instead they took the easy way out - blame others - kill others -etc...................

such is life/history.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm**

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:17 pm I agree with all you say - as one good man to another - and thank you for not being a rscist (you seeing Wahabist Saudi's as having the same "Spirit" as you and me.

I do. But also, think about what that implies...it implies that a person who has a "normal" spirit, that is, one that is the same as yours and mine, can be a Wahabist terrorist.

What does that say about your "spirit" and mine, then? Of what are we capable, if given reasons to act badly?

We may think we're inherently better than terrorists: we're not. We have the same nature they have.

My view is that morality - the sense of right and wrong - is via animal instinct (Man is just another animal) - animals have their own code - and so have instinct - inlcuding "doing right" for there "tribe". as we have since million yrs ago or so.

Well, I know better than to imagine animals have a "code." They don't. They do whatever their instinct inclines them to do. A polar bear or a crocodile will eat a human being 100% of the chances they get. Ethics? A pride of lions will pull down a gazelle and literally eat it to death as it struggles. And female lions have to protect cubs from male lions, because the males will gladly crush the skulls of their own offspring in order to put the females back into estrus. Where are the "ethics" in all that? I don't seen any "code" there.

thanks for being a man with a conscience (and a Christian also - the former is more important to me - the latter irrelivent),

In truth, my conscience is informed by my faith. Were I not a Christian, I believe I'd be a much less pleasant person to deal with, for everyone. By my own nature, I'm not intrinsically any nicer...and probably a fair degree worse...than most men. I freely admit that.

And to me, that's an interesting feature of Christianity...it seems to make people better than they would otherwise be. I have known Christians who began life as drinkers, street people, bikers, addicts and criminals, but because of their faith became much, much better people -- you'd never know them as any of those things today.

However, I have yet to meet the first man to say to me, "I was a wife-abuser / pervert / addict / prostitute / criminal, but then I discovered Atheism -- and thank the great nothingness that waits to swallow me, I'm now gloriously free of all that..."

It hasn't happened once. That should tell us a great deal.

peace to you Sir.

And to you.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:33 pm**

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:37 pm
Well, an Atheist perspective can never be used to explain what "good" and "evil" actually mean.
I can do do talk about Good and Evil - because as a man and moral animal, my Athiesm does not define my character - anymore than your Christianity.

my conscience convicts me when i play the coward and do the wrong thing too many time, but my conscience guides me and convist em when i am a coward, and later when i find the courage forced me to do the right thing.

as it does with you Sir.

Perhaps so. But conscience...what is it? Is it just an instinct?

If so, we are not any more duty bound to obey it than we are to follow our instincts for violence, greed, or sexual gratification. Those are instincts too. So we must ask, "What makes our consciences so different from other instincts, that we think we owe it to obey them...and we think we'd be "bad" people if we didn't?"

So how odd is that?

And what do "good" and "bad" mean in an Atheist world? Do they only mean "I do like X," and "I don't like Y"? But what if I decide I DO like Y? Am I then free to do Y? If I am, what did I mean when I said it was "bad"?

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:52 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm
gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:17 pm I agree with all you say - as one good man to another - and thank you for not being a rscist (you seeing Wahabist Saudi's as having the same "Spirit" as you and me.
I do. But also, think about what that implies...it implies that a person who has a "normal" spirit, that is, one that is the same as yours and mine, can be a Wahabist terrorist. What does that say about your "spirit" and mine, then? Of what are we capable, if given reasons to act badly?

Note your equating Wahabists as terrorists.

98-percent of all Wahabists - like Independant Baptists and Pentocostals - fundies, are NOT Terrorists (none of them have my views - but all three share views/mindsets of the Wahabist).

per Saudi Arabia - just getting real here (you value reality? yes?) - per Saudi Arabia, 19 percent of Saudis are Atheists/Agnositcs - did you know this? they, unlike myself, live in a land that is hostile to that non-beleif, and so remain silent (as i would in their shoes) - They ARE still there, though silent (and so why i reject a Religous State mentality - be it America or Saudi Arabia).

I'm thankful that unlike Saudi arabia, i can be an Athiest without fear of persectution.

the millions of silent - 19-percent of Saudis - are due to thier shit culture.

per Wahabist, they are like the Pento.Baptists - same mindset!

per terrorism, most Wahabists are like your Baptists (they are not terrorists - they just have a shit mindset - they do not kill others that do not share it).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm We may think we're inherently better than terrorists: we're not.

We - the 98 percent of Wahabists, you and me - are better than Terrorists, because we hear our inner voice voice, rather than ignore it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm We have the same nature they have.

yes we do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm
My view is that morality - the sense of right and wrong - is via animal instinct (Man is just another animal) - animals have their own code - and so have instinct - inlcuding "doing right" for there "tribe". as we have since million yrs ago or so.
Well, I know better than to imagine animals have a "code." They don't. They do whatever their instinct inclines them to do. A polar bear or a crocodile will eat a human being 100% of the chances they get. Ethics? A pride of lions will pull down a gazelle and literally eat it to death as it struggles. And female lions have to protect cubs from male lions, because the males will gladly crush the skulls of their own offspring in order to put the females back into estrus. Where are the "ethics" in all that? I don't seen any "code" there.

thanks for being a man with a conscience (and a Christian also - the former is more important to me - the latter irrelivent),
In truth, my conscience is informed by my faith. Were I not a Christian, I believe I'd be a much less pleasant person to deal with, for everyone. By my own nature, I'm not intrinsically any nicer...and probably a fair degree worse...than most men. I freely admit that.

And to me, that's an interesting feature of Christianity...it seems to make people better than they would otherwise be. I have known Christians who began life as drinkers, street people, bikers, addicts and criminals, but because of their faith became much, much better people -- you'd never know them as any of those things today.

However, I have yet to meet the first man to say to me, "I was a wife-abuser / pervert / addict / prostitute / criminal, but then I discovered Atheism -- and thank the great nothingness that waits to swallow me, I'm now gloriously free of all that..." It hasn't happened once. That should tell us a great deal.

peace to you Sir.
And to you.

All animals have a morality per their species - just like man, who is just another animal.

no animal (including man) is immoral, for via evolution, if it were so, they/we would have died off via evolution!

Morality is an instinct - all animals are moral - man's version may be different in particulars , buts its general nature is similar/same to the rest of the animal kingdom.

2-cents.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:27 pm**

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm
gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 8:17 pm I agree with all you say - as one good man to another - and thank you for not being a rscist (you seeing Wahabist Saudi's as having the same "Spirit" as you and me.
I do. But also, think about what that implies...it implies that a person who has a "normal" spirit, that is, one that is the same as yours and mine, can be a Wahabist terrorist. What does that say about your "spirit" and mine, then? Of what are we capable, if given reasons to act badly?
Note your equating Wahabists as terrorists.

I did not. I merely pointed out that one could be a Wahabist terrorist. In point of fact, https://www.nps.edu/documents/105988371 ... 312191b5bb shows what the real relationship is.

98-percent of all Wahabists - like Independant Baptists and Pentocostals...

Made-up statistic. There are 0% of Baptists, and 0% of Pentecostals that are terrorists.

per Saudi Arabia - just getting real here (you value reality? yes?) - per Saudi Arabia, 19 percent of Saudis are Atheists/Agnositcs - did you know this?

Not surprised.

i reject a Religous State mentality - be it America or Saudi Arabia).

So do I. I think no religion should have State power at all. Neither should Atheism, or any other ideology. I believe the public square should remain ideologically neutral, so people can have free conscience.

per Wahabist, they are like the Pento.Baptists - same mindset!

Not even close, actually. That's why when one says "fundamentalist," it's so important to say, "Fundamentally what?" For example, Hassidim and Mennonites are both classified as "fundamentalists." Yet these groups have never had a pogrom, an inquisition, a war, or a terror attack. So what's the justification for lumping them in with people like the Wahabists?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm We may think we're inherently better than terrorists: we're not.
We - the 98 percent of Wahabists, you and me - are better than Terrorists, because we hear our inner voice voice, rather than ignore it.

I don't think we are. If we were born in their country, and had their assumptions, we might well be worse people. There's no telling. For as you say next...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm We have the same nature they have.
yes we do.

All animals have a morality per their species - just like man, who is just another animal.

They do not, actually. Gators are cannibals. Male lions kill lion cubs. Chimpanzees are vicious with each other, lynching the "head chimp" when he becomes to weak or unpopular to survive. These are not moral actions...nor immoral either, since animals do not have moral codes, but only instincts.

no animal (including man) is immoral, for via evolution, if it were so, they/we would have died off via evolution!

Oh, that's certainly not true.

"Survival of the fittest" is not a moral principle. One could thus practice a code of "kill the weak" and be very well evolutionarily adapted.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2020 2:52 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:27 pm
gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:30 pm
I do. But also, think about what that implies...it implies that a person who has a "normal" spirit, that is, one that is the same as yours and mine, can be a Wahabist terrorist. What does that say about your "spirit" and mine, then? Of what are we capable, if given reasons to act badly?
Note your equating Wahabists as terrorists.
I did not. I merely pointed out that one could be a Wahabist terrorist. In point of fact, https://www.nps.edu/documents/105988371 ... 312191b5bb shows what the real relationship is.

Eric Rudolph noting need be said more.............

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 7:17 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:27 pm "Survival of the fittest" is not a moral principle. One could thus practice a code of "kill the weak" and be very well evolutionarily adapted.

This year I had a science teacher go on a major rant about how "survival of the fittest" is not what people think it is.

It is a circular idea - since the "fittest" is defined as "those who survive". "Survival of those who survive" is not a useful concept.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 9:07 pm**

stacie wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 7:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:27 pm "Survival of the fittest" is not a moral principle. One could thus practice a code of "kill the weak" and be very well evolutionarily adapted.
This year I had a science teacher go on a major rant about how "survival of the fittest" is not what people think it is.

It is a circular idea - since the "fittest" is defined as "those who survive". "Survival of those who survive" is not a useful concept.

Yes, that's true. It's not an informative thing. It's at most, a kind of retrospective claim: "This one is the fittest, and you can tell, because he survived." It doesn't help one predict anything.

And again, it's not at all moral. It's certainly not possible, even in retrospect, to say, "This one survived, so he deserved to; and this one died, so she deserved to." As Clint Eastwood so famously said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

It might well be that the morally best creatures die, and only the moral wretches survive. How would we know?

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 9:28 pm**

stacie wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 7:17 pm It is a circular idea - since the "fittest" is defined as "those who survive". "Survival of those who survive" is not a useful concept.

By "fittest" I think Darwin meant best fitted to their environment. So the concept would be, survival of those who are best fitted to their environment. The truth in that seems self evident, rather than circular.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 10:31 pm**

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 9:28 pm
stacie wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 7:17 pm It is a circular idea - since the "fittest" is defined as "those who survive". "Survival of those who survive" is not a useful concept.
By "fittest" I think Darwin meant best fitted to their environment. So the concept would be, survival of those who are best fitted to their environment. The truth in that seems self evident, rather than circular.

"The survival of the Fittest" was not Darwin's phrase, but Herbert Spencer's.
The phrase has persisted since it is accurate and effective.
All effective arguments are perfectly circular; that is not to say that all circular arguments are good ones; nor that the circularity of an argument says anything about its value as an argument.
In the case of this one.
"survival" is not the same as "fittest". When Herbert Spencer coined the phrase after being inspired by Darwin the argument was a good replacement for "Things survive by god's design", or "by god's grace."
So, nothing wrong with it. Things survive because they are best fit to their environment.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 10:54 pm**

stacie wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 7:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:27 pm "Survival of the fittest" is not a moral principle. One could thus practice a code of "kill the weak" and be very well evolutionarily adapted.
This year I had a science teacher go on a major rant about how "survival of the fittest" is not what people think it is.

It is a circular idea - since the "fittest" is defined as "those who survive". "Survival of those who survive" is not a useful concept.

That's interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

According to Wiki "Survival of the fittest" was a phrase first coined by the social philosopher Herbert Spencer and was later picked up by Darwin. Spencer apparently phrased it accordingly in his Principles of Biology in 1864:

"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

I don't know. I know contemporary biologists generally use it to refer strictly to reproductive "fitness". But even still the whole notion of "fitness" always seems to have overtones of struggle and competition to me. The term "fit" seems to imply good qualities or characteristics and stands in contrast to "unfit" which seems to imply bad qualities or characteristics.

Overall, lately, I've come to believe that science alone isn't enough in this world. There actually NEEDS to be a God. Otherwise, I believe there is no guarantee of justice and things become hopeless and meaningless because words lose their foundations. I don't know if there is a God or not but I hope there is.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 11:04 pm**

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 9:28 pm
stacie wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 7:17 pm It is a circular idea - since the "fittest" is defined as "those who survive". "Survival of those who survive" is not a useful concept.
By "fittest" I think Darwin meant best fitted to their environment. So the concept would be, survival of those who are best fitted to their environment. The truth in that seems self evident, rather than circular.

I sort of wonder if evolutionary theory is falsifiable? I mean, if survival is based on "natural selection" (Darwin's original words), then how would you be able to prove if something survived that was against "natural selection"?

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 1:28 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 10:54 pm I don't know. I know contemporary biologists generally use it to refer strictly to reproductive "fitness". But even still the whole notion of "fitness" always seems to have overtones of struggle and competition to me.

Of course that's right. The term "fitness" seems to hide the unsavoury implications, meaning the "non-fit" dying...and, by implication, good riddance to them. That's why Spencer's "Social Darwinism" was such an appalling doctrine; but all it was doing was taking the implications of Evolutionism to their logical conclusion. After all, if Evolutionism is how hominids came to be what they are, then they, like any other creature, are the present beneficiaries of the competition -- soon to be eliminated by whatever comes next.

Overall, lately, I've come to believe that science alone isn't enough in this world. There actually NEEDS to be a God. Otherwise, I believe there is no guarantee of justice and things become hopeless and meaningless because words lose their foundations. I don't know if there is a God or not but I hope there is.

Well, here's the bad news: a God won't come to exist simply because we need Him to exist. But here's the good news: if there's a God, he won't cease to exist if some people refuse to believe in Him.

And the question the need raises is this: why would Evolution put into us a need for something that does not exist? Indeed, how could Evolution do that at all, since (as Darwin explicitly said) natural selection can only select for things that already constitute adaptive advantages. If there were something purely speculative, natural selection couldn't select for it at all, since it wouldn't amount to an adaptive advantage until it was fully actualized, and couldn't survive not-being-selected-for in the stages when it was only partially formed, and hence useless to survival.

Picture, for example, a hominid with no God idea in his head, versus a hominid with a very, very vague delusion that something might exist which actually does not. How would the deluded hominid be advantaged for survival purposes over the harsh realism of the first hominid, so as to be selected for the next round of evolution? It's much more natural to suppose that, if anything, the vaguely deluded hominid is at an evolutionary disadvantage there.

But let us suppose away that problem, and say that though we can't imagine how, somehow it happened. Then we have this problem: that it turns out to be adaptive that human beings have a need for God -- even if it's only a delusion (as the Atheist would insist). But then, on what basis does the Atheist want to induce us to abandon that adaptive property that has got us the advantage in the first place? That looks like a less-than-adaptive strategy, and the Atheist would be better just to let us carry on...and maybe join us as well, if his theory is right.

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 8:25 pm**

Strategies are not forever. Change is immanent in all things especially in ways of thinking. A bacterium which may have appeared friendly at one time can easily invert its features in another. One learns to the end of one's life. During that period god either appears as Principle or vanishes forever as a non sequitur.

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 11:07 pm**

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 8:25 pm Strategies are not forever. Change is immanent in all things especially in ways of thinking. A bacterium which may have appeared friendly at one time can easily invert its features in another. One learns to the end of one's life. During that period god either appears as Principle or vanishes forever as a non sequitur.

Or perhaps we need to rethink what we mean by "God". Do we mean the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible or do we mean something else? The science of "evolution" seems pretty solid so I don't think the Genesis creation story is viable anymore but perhaps there is a different sort of supreme, divine being? I don't know, but the universe seems like a very lonely and desolate place without some guarantee of ultimate justice and continuation of being after bodily death.

Philosophy Now Forum

Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?

Re: Why is nazism popular today?