gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:58 am
I affirm evolution, so all animals, including man are a product of evolution.
all instincts are therefore "good" per survival.
there is no such thing as a "bad" instinct
I don't understand your explanation, but I believe you are being consistent.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
because we also have an instinct toward aggression, promiscuity, violence, dishonesty, etc., all of which "morality" (whatever that is, tells us often can be evil)
correct, and none of them are "evil" since we have them as instincts - i.e. there is a reason we have all the instincts, even one we view as "bad". we have them because they survived in our survival as a species, and so are not "Bad" but in fact good in some instances (they may be bad in other instances, but we still have them, so they must serve more good overall and bad, otherwise they would have been bred out of us (and other animals too). Man is just one of trillions of animals on this planet, so i do not see man as outside of evolution, and why i make a point to include all the other animals on this planet and their behavior as "good" overall like i do man.
Again...this does seem logical, if Evolutionism were true. I can't fault your reasoning there.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Well, literally millions of people, and every expert you can name, (except Jung) has acclaimed Nietzsche as a major Atheist.
I made no claim that Nietzsche was not an Atheist, only that i did not value his views.
I assume he was an Atheist, you know him better than me (in fact you seem to revere him (noting your references to him) though you are a Beleiver.
why so? curious.
Revere? No. I quote him because Atheists often imagine he gives them a free ride. But Nietzsche was too smart for that, and he unpacked the further implications of a world without God. I appreciate the honesty of that. But yeah, it's funny that I, as a Theist, treat him better than the Atheists do.
I always respect the consistency of a man who will follow through logically with his won assumptions. Nietzsche said "God is dead": then he argued that because of that, morality was dead too. Most Atheists I meet have nowhere near as much courage of their convictions as Nietzsche and you seem to have.
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...
But I won't trust him. That would be foolish. For he will be a man with no morals.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
However, only gaffo has proclaimed himself as a true Atheist, a good representation of the view.
Pride is a sin - refer to Amo's work (my fav in the OT). you are unjustly disparaging me for some reason.
Not at all. I'm just pointing out to you that if Nietzsche is not, for you, a representative Atheist, he is for all the other Atheists. It's actually you who are unusual in this regard, not Nietzsche.
But I'm not insulting you. I'm just pointing out he has more backers among Atheists than you have. You're not representative of the average Atheist, it seems.
And that's fine.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
I don't think it's reasonable to call Nietzsche "not an Atheist."
You know and revere him better/more than ma.
Interesting.
I only claimed i thought he was a foolish asshole,
Even though, as you say just above here, you don't know him well?
and why if value Augustine over Nietzsche.
Help me out with that...what's the source of your appreciation of Augustine?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Morality is destroyed by Materialism,
nonesense.
Sorry. It's inevitable. Only an inconsistent Atheist can believe in morality. His Materialism makes it irrational, but he can do it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
and Materialism is necessitated by Atheism.
nonesense.
Sorry. That's also inevitable. But again, only if the Atheist in question is being logically consistent.
we are that differnent on this issue Sir.
I know.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Atheism has no power to give any reasons for morality either.
agreed, a man's character is not related to his Belief or unBelief constructs.
Oh, I did not say that. Beliefs are why we do what we do -- especially our basic ontological suppositions.
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.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
I'm not a materialist i'm a Solipsist!!!!!
That's like saying, "I'm not a husband, I'm a male." You can easily be both. They don't contradict.
they do Sir. you show you do not understand Solipsism in stating the above.
Yes, actually, I do. A person can be a Materialist AND a Solipsist, with no rational contradiction between the two. Or he may choose to be a Materialist, and rather irrationally, decide to be a Humanitarian. The point is that in a Materialist universe, neither is good or evil. They are just choices.
we can talk Solipsism if you wish
That would be a good idea. 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.
but no Solipsism denies materialism utterly via its very definition.
"I exist therefore I am" - right now, not yesteday, nor the next second hence.
Oh, I see...you actually disbelieve in the existence of the material world? Interesting.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
If you're not a Materialist, then by definition, you must believe that something beyond the material world, something real that never can be reduced to materials, exists. What would that be?
ME - right now, not yesterday nor tomorrow.
just me - "I exist" right now.
So you're not made of "matter"? I have to wonder what you think you are composed of. Do you regard yourself as a sort of incorporeal spirit?
I make no assumptions - nor have Faith - in either your existance or non-existance.
And yet we're still talking...
...to affirm there are requires Faith (and to deny does too!!!!!!!!!!!) - i again remain neutral, on the matter since all this is outside my powers via my limited nature to only know "I exist -- right now".
Well, this is interesting. You're right: to know anything takes faith. Once again, you surprise me by being more aware than many Atheist with whom I have talked.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
on what grounds would you be an Atheist anymore?
Solipsism per definition is "I am all I can know to exist"
And yet, again, you're telling it
to me...
Why are you talking to me, an entity for which, as you say, you have no faith that it exists?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
I'm sincerely asking, because I can't see how that makes any logical sense. But I'm open to being informed.
and thats why i like you sir!!!!!!!! you have a mind and willing to converse, and you see the same in me.
I do like you, but still think you are bigoted WRt to Athiests (i.e. your mentalist about Athiesm is not mine, and you link it to morality, whereas i do not).
No, I don't "link" it to anything: rather, rationally speaking, it "links" itself to amorality.
I'm fine with debate and even full bar dissagreements - and a few times i learn, and become wiser from dissagreement - understanding other views and then even latter agreeing with those views).
Yes, that's how I feel about it. I have no hard feelings with anyone who disagrees with me, no matter how strongly. I only dislike
ad hominem exchanges, because they're so empty-headed. But you don't make those, so we're fine.
thanks for your gentlemanly reply Sir.
You're welcome. The same to you.