EVIL!!!!!!!!

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8746
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:36 pm I mean it is the worst evil.
Well, if so, then logically, you must not only believe "evil" is an objective moral category, you also believe there is a hierarchy of other "evils," of which murder is "the edge."

So what other "evils" do you think exist, and upon what do you base your assessment of these acts as objectively "evil"?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8746
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:52 pm You are a Christian who believes that the concept of objective morality comes from God . But belief is a function of the brain which is a physical organ and so you need materialism to be just as true for you as it is for atheists .
Not at all. As a Theist, I do not need to share the Materialists' belief that all phenomena have to be explained as physical. In fact, if I did, it would make my Theism illogical.

And that's the point. Atheism needs Materialism to be true. Nobody else does, though.
You may say that God is the source of your morality rather than your brain . But you believe that God in theory at least physically interacts with the Universe . Which means he can be detected . He may also be metaphysical but that state cannot be detected . And so once again you need materialism to be just as true for you as it is for atheists
Again, not at all. Remember that it is not the case that Theists don't believe materials exist. And it's not the case that they have to think material entities aren't material. What they believe differently from Atheists is that materials are not ALL that exists. They are dualists, in that sense, and Atheists are necessarily Material Monists.
You also need to explain why some aspects of your moral code and my moral code are identical even though you believe in God and I do
not believe in him . Why do I for example accept half of the Ten Commandments in principle when that figure should in reality be zero
It should only, perhaps, be zero if Materialism were true, and all Atheists were rationally consistent. But neither is true. Materialism is false, and Atheists are not generally consistent in their application of Atheism. They do it selectively. When it comes to God, they claim to be thoroughgoing; but when it comes to morality, they back off.

From a Theistic perspective, their inconsistency is due to the fact that Atheists are not actually material monads in a chance universe, but rather the deliberate creations of a good God, who gave every man a conscience to remind him of what right and wrong are. Furthermore, Atheists are raised in a culture heavily influenced by Christian and Jewish moral teaching, and they don't find it easy or convenient to step away from that. So they end up being totally hypocritical: they profess Atheism, but they still act like moral agents who are responsible to a code whose origin and authority they cannot even explain to themselves.

But I'm immensely happy that they are hypocrites in this regard. Nihilism is a horrid alternative, and I'm glad most are too afraid actually to live as if their Atheism were true. It's much better if we all live like Theists, even if some of us claim Atheism.
And referencing Nietzsche is entirely irrelevant here...

Again, not at all. He was arguably the most consistent of the Atheists, and inarguably one of their most acclaimed "saints," if I can use that word. They never hesitate to quote "God is dead," but they shy away from the rest of what Nietzsche said about that.

And it's probably good that they do.
gaffo
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
gaffo wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:15 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:04 am
To say that some men still happen to believe in morality is not the same as to say they have a rationally justified belief in it. Without rational justification
Morality is based upon feelings, and is an instinct.

reason is irrelevant.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm Then morality also is nothing more than a feeling. An "instinct" to have it may exist, but this doesn't suggest it's a good instinct:

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 - for it one shows up in a particular being, the being's behavior disallows progeny.

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.
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 personally think he was prob an asshole with no wisdom, not into dissparaging the dead so no wish to say this, but just clarifying me views.

i do not care if he was an Atheist or not (Augustine was not, and i value his views noting he had wisdom and so something to offer).

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.


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.


why so?

I only proclaim i'm an Atheist, never played the "one true Scottsman" bullhist toward other Atheists.

so again why the false accusation toward me by you concerning my views (which i've been clear about for 2 years now here on this forum)

what is your mind game Sir?



Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm So we onlookers are in a pickle: if we have to judge which is the authentic Atheist, which are we to think? How much testimony do we need? What's the threshold of the reasonable there?
wow you are going off the rails here.

whats the story?

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.

I only claimed i thought he was a foolish asshole, and assumed he was an Atheist. (not that i care, since i value wisdom of fatih - not faith).

and why if value Augustine over Nietzsche.


Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm Morality is destroyed by Materialism,
nonesense.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm and Materialism is necessitated by Atheism.

nonesense.



Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm That's my argument in a nutshell.
if that is your argument, then we are on differing planets.

I have no wish to argue Green is Blue with you.

maybe others will argue with/against your view, but for me your view is too utterly alien and counter to my understanding to bother debating with you on this particular. and i will not.

on other matters, fine, but this one - we are on different planets, and i will not try to convince you that the color Red is Green.

we are that differnent on this issue Sir.



Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm I didn't mention reason, but it's another grounds on which to criticize Atheism.

ok, how so, lets talk about it.

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.

his morality is more central to his nature than which god or gods or no god he proffesses to believe or not beleive in.

----------

that is why you have the same percentage of asshole Christians as you do Hindu, Muslim and Athiests.

as you do good folks in all the above camps.


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.

we can talk Solipsism if you wish - it is in interesting topic for me (at least, since all that is is me - either in Truth or empircally).

my nature is too limited to know which, but not relevent in this life either way - since my nature is too limited to determine whether you exist or not - all my nature is able to know is that i see "you" via me - and so litteraly are me via my senses (so if i misshear what i get is still "you" via me).

you may exist - but cannot prove you do, i would wish that you do, but that is irrelavent - or you don't and you are just me playing talking games with myself for whatever reason i know not).

but no Solipsism denies materialism utterly via its very definition.

"I exist therefore I am" - right now, not yesteday, nor the next second hence.



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.

and either you exist and i'm talking to you (which requires Faith in your existance - i have no faith and do not assume you exist out of comfort - so stay neutral on the matter and not one i can determine either way so do not bother to ponder), or you do not exist and i'm just talking to myself (again if so, i do not assume you do not exist - my limited nature cannot affirm nor deny you exist - only affirm that i am "Talking to - either myself or to another being "outside" (there is not such thing pragmatically speaking to talk about "outside of my skull"), but since i cannot now you exist outside of me............

I make no assumptions - nor have Faith - in either your existance or non-existance.

i only know i hear you via me.


Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm And if something beyond the material world is real,

I have higher education, have an engineering degree, and got 2/3 through a chem degree prior.

so my knowledge of atoms, and forces is via my education.

but i'm a Solipsist! so all my knowledge of atoms, and history (Max Plank black body and Quantum Machamics/Einstian's Gen and Spec Relativiity Theories..................all i know of them is via ME! - did they exist outside of me? do not know, nor can assume via empiricsm - do assume they did requires faith outside of empiricism. I don;t go there. maybe they did - maybe they did not. again i do not fixate, since my nature is too limited to know which.

all history - from ww1 to ww2 (even small stuff like Finland siding with germany and using BF109's -first against the Russians, then swiching sides and using german fighters agains german troops.

for Finns/Russians/Germans/BF109/......etc all history is via ME!!!!!!!!!!!! regardless of whether they exist outside of me or not! - what i know of history/chemistry/etc..........is via ME! (my skull - seeing/hearing/etc..) fuck even "seeing/hearing" are mental constructs made by ME!

i hope there is an external History/Chemistry/Physics/ - and YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - but 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".


Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm then you believe in what...spirits? ghosts? gods? The God? Impersonal metaphysics, like "luck, "fate" and "fortune"?

I said i was a Solipsist - that is "the wall" of philosophy (fuck ya its meager gruel............. - I exist right now.

and?.............

and nothing more can i offer.

I ate philosophical gruel when i "thought about stuff" as a 16 yr old kid - nearly 4 decades ago. i had an apiphony(sp) at 16 (as i later learned - via me? - in college that Descarte had the same as a young man).

I'm 53 now, and have not had proof anyone or anything exists outside of me in all that time. I understood at the time - 4 decades ago - i took philosophy to its limits (and it is as limited as my nature - i exist/solipsism) - there cannot be anything provable beyond that gruel.)

yes to keep my sanity i "play the game of life" and live it assuming you exist and so we converse.

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm But in that case,

I lost track, what case are you presenting?




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"

so per that mindset your existence has no more provable fact than that of your God.

I could proclaim myself God - and that is apt per Solipsism - a God of one with no subjects provable as existing outside of the God's senses telling they do...............

I'm not an egoist though, i do value humility, and so if I am all there is - and so God - it do not relish in that concept, though apt per Solipsism - whether you exist outside of me or not - per me, for all apt purposes I am God.


Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm What do you believe in, that is not merely materials, that makes you "not a materialist"?
see above Sir!!!!!!!!


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).

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).

its all about "openess" of heart. if the other party is open to wisdom they may - not often, but sometimes - hear a new view and become more than they were before (become wiser).

closed hearts (veg anyone?) wall off wisdom via their nature, and so are unable to become wiser.

you are not Veg, nor am i claiming i am wise.

to be honest, you could not care less which god you beleive in (nor which one or non one i do) - I life mission is to become wiser than i am today and was yesterday.

wisdom is not knowledge BTW - they have no relationship. it is as likely that a million yr old ago man of no knowledge has as much wisdom as genius with many post docs in STEM.............

thanks for your gentlemanly reply Sir.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8443
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

surrep

Post by henry quirk »

"Free will means I dont have to accept either his existence or natural law"

You don't have to accept fire's existance either, but it'll still burn you.

#

"So even if he does exist I am still free to think or do what ever I want to"

Of course, just mind the consequences (cuz there's gonna be consequences [like gettin' burned by the fire you refuse to acknowlege]).
gaffo
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm
But since it has no moral and rational grounds for its pronouncements,
don't put words in my mouth. i affirm the UN as a moral and reason body. so it serves those purposes.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm and no real power,

good!

no fan of world empire/army.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm what can it do?

serves as a role model in the concept of an overall rule of law (an international law) - a codex of civilized behavior - as the League of Nations did prior (have the seen the video where the Japs were called out in their Empire building and raping of the Chinese?........the jap deligate just walked out.

you side with the jap lacky? or do you affirm the value of a "debating society" of nations via the League (not the UN) appealing to the greater good - rule of law?



Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm "Propagandize," is the answer. And that, too, is disastrous for liberty, if we believe what they say.
I've already stated that the UN human rights panel is full bore hypocritical.

but unlike you i affirm the UN overall and strive to reform it - it still does more good than bad.

your solution?

nullify the UN.............and?

affirm the vacuum of civilized Rule of LAw internationally?

or do you propose a new - 3rd international body?



Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm
that GREAT! i affirm and support a legal codex for international conduct.
That would mean putting power behind the international collective,

NO - power always corrupts, no exceptions!


I do now wish the UN to have Power - army/etc - just serve a role of appealing to our higher angels.


a debating society - one that has soft power (popular appeal to same nations and princes like Saudi Arabia/Be Salmon (and Israel/Naziyahoo) to same the offending nations via the global popular "man on the street" will.)

it worked with South Africa 30 yrs ago BTW.

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm because a "legal codex" that cannot be enforced is powerless.
our world is not as black/white as you assume.


UN serves a valid role via "soft power".

and in that role i fully affirm and support.

i do not suppor a "world army"

lol

hard power corrupts, all empires become corrupt, from Rome to the Brits to American, to USSR to soon China. so no with to all a UN amry.

lol.



Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm Once again, that would be disaster for personal freedoms.
agreed, but your hysteria is pure folly, there is no UN army.

you should be fearful of the decay and fall of America (Trump and Bush jr before via the lie based Iraqnam war that cost 4 trillion for nothing to show for), and the rise of China (with no understanding nor value of Natural Law liberty). India should/could be a hedge on all this - but they have thier Trump (Modi) - and so right now they are do not value Rule of Law (just illegally took control of Kashmir - Modi did to without Indian PArlement, so illegal - but per Power, did so anyway).




Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm
you wish for the UN to fail and we get ww3?
If we think that UN is what stands between us and WW III, then God help us all...and I mean that.
as an international body it as played a part in preventing ww3, just as has NATO.

you wish to nullify NATO too?

---------------

the main deterent to ww3 is MAD of course, but i do think UN and NATO served to lessen the likelyhood of ww3 also - if to a lesser degree than MAD did/does.



Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm Beyond a shadow of a doubt. The UN has been useless at best, and a screen for hypocritical, tyrannical governments, at worst. Goodbye, and good riddance to that.
we will have to agree to disagree then.


Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm nor have any history of personally practicing these claims they make about universal human rights.
nor should they, the UN is a legal body - a debating club - not a world government![/quote]


Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm But wait a minute -- you just said (above) you believed in them having legal authority.

yes, refer to President Jackson's quip concerning his SC rulling that rulled against him in 1830?. He said "let then enforce their ruling" - related to the Indians pres jackson's treatment of american indians.

so your point is?

what is legal is only via Power? otherwise it is illegal. if so nice thuggery on your part.





Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm How are you going to do that,

I'm going to support the role of the UN as a soft power debating society for the common global man that champions the concept of the Rule of Law as a thing outside of Might make Right.



Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:45 pm without a world government,
We've had 3 world governments in effect since recorded history.

Rome.

Britain

America.

............

some good came from then, but not a fan of adding a 4th UN (which is as likely as a unicorn BTW - the UN was never made nor able to take upon the role of Empire - if you think it can you are a fool).

the next Empire will be China. i suggest you smell the coffee - the one of reality - and maybe see the role of the UN (and more aptly India - assuming indians are smarter than Trumpers and remove Modi and so return to reason and Western Ideals of Liberty) as a hedge against thuggery empire building.




Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm
It's a bad idea in the first place. It cannot be reformed, only removed.

ok so removed, UN is gone.

Pol Pot wannabee murders millions in Tibet, UN is now gone as a body championing human rights.

what body takes its place?

Sir?


Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm What you have to remember is the lesson of history about this: the bigger the collective, the more abuses of individuals are countenanced in order to maintain its authority. The greater the concentration of power, the more human rights are wiped out.
agreed, decay of America via Trump is enemy no 1 for me and the nation i love and see being killed.


per the UN i see no relavence.

as said before i value the UN's nature as a debating society affirm Locke's concept of Liberty - and as a beacon of soft power for all folks that value Liberty regardless of race, sex, religion or nationality.


Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm There has been no exception to that rule.
I agree, I've read both 1984 and Brave New World sir.


Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm And the UN is the most ambitious attempt to concentrate power in one location that the world has seen.

Utter and complete bullshit Sir.

UN was made - like the prior League of Nations- to contain germany...........and soon (46 or so with the Iron Curtain) to contain the Soviet Union.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm Fortunately, it's a complete failure so far.
you are delusional Sir (you are starting to sound like a Trumpite - i know you are not an american, but maybe you would have voted for him given the chance? - or Modi. or Boris --all are the same thugs in different bodies. thugs is as thug votes. you wish to vote for one of the three thugs i mentioned?

you a thug?



UN is not a failure, it remains with us. deal with it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:28 pm By keeping power in the hands of those who can be held accountable by their local people. By national and local democracy, instead of autocratic rule by foreign powers.
agreed, and nothing to do with the valid and valuable role the UN plays in affirming and defending Civilized behavior via internation law convention via soft power.................and shaming nations that rule outside of liberty - via soft power.
gaffo
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: surrep

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:29 am "Free will means I dont have to accept either his existence or natural law"

You don't have to accept fire's existance either, but it'll still burn you.

#

"So even if he does exist I am still free to think or do what ever I want to"

Of course, just mind the consequences (cuz there's gonna be consequences [like gettin' burned by the fire you refuse to acknowlege]).
whatever Henry, I'm just talking to myself.

why do i torture myself via Henry.

I must be a masochist
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8443
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

gaffo, I'm talkin' to surrep and you were talkin' at Mannie...

Post by henry quirk »

...so why you pointin' a finger at me?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8746
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

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... :wink:
...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.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8746
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: gaffo, I'm talkin' to surrep and you were talkin' at Mannie...

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:47 am ...so why you pointin' a finger at me?
Hey....there's the man! :D

Good to see you check in again, Henry.
gaffo
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: gaffo, I'm talkin' to surrep and you were talkin' at Mannie...

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:47 am ...so why you pointin' a finger at me?
I point my finger to myself (Solipsist, so you are me of course) all the time Sir.

I'm my own critic/accuser/enemy............a life long travail.

a "war" that fosters a better me.

not pretty, but necessary i suspect.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:53 am Prove God exists as real first before you begin any of your theistic-based arguments else every premise that follow is non-sequitor, i.e. false.
Actually, what I've been trying to talk about is not Theism at all, but Atheism.

Nobody seems willing to say what we all know: that Atheism requires Materialism to be true, and if Materialism is true then this word with which the OP started ("EVIL!!!!!!!!!") has no meaning.

I have to wonder why Atheists are so afraid of looking steadily at the implications of their own ideology...could it be that they actually don't believe it, and don't even LIKE it at all? Could it simply be it's the "uncomfortable bedfellow" they've taken in, in order to avoid thinking about God, but that he came with a flaming case of moral nihilism?

Nietzsche thought so. I've found nothing so far to convince me that Nietzsche was wrong about that.
You got it wrong, there is no distinct correlation between non-theism [your (a)theism] and materialism at all.
There are philosophical camps within those who are non-a-theist [non-theism] and they are not materialists e.g, some of the philosophical anti-materialists [or philosophical anti-realist].
Buddhists who are non-theists are also philosophical anti-realists.

These [not all] philosophical anti-realists believes human [with body mind and consciousness] are co-creator of reality.

Btw, theism is merely an extension of materialism.
Materialism claims 'matter' is fundamental to all of reality, while theism claims what is 'matter' is created by God.
In both cases, humans are independent of matter and God.

Obviously, theism is the worst of the two beliefs because theism is based on faith, while materialism is at least justified by arguments, proofs with evidences.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:48 am
bahman wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:44 pm
How could you justify the survival of human species is good?
What is "good" in the perspective of morality?

In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions.
Up to here you just define good in term of action which we should make but you didn't the type of action.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:48 am Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil, and is of interest in the study of morality, ethics, religion and philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good[/list]
These are circular.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:48 am Re Morality as above, if survival of the human species [humanity] is not good, then it is evil...
You didn't yet define good.
I did define 'good' above. What is your definition of 'good' then?
Note again, If Good is not the opposite of Evil, than what is the use of the concept of dualism that are applied in the practical world.
Note the Law of non-contradiction, what is good cannot be evil, else that would be a contradiction.

Explain why it is circular?
gaffo
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:34 am
Buddhists who are non-theists
i value facts.

Buddists values the Budda - Gautama - they revere.

some are Athiests some are Theists.

Buddism itself is Theistically agnostic.

value facts, learn more. the net is here for you to so.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4463
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

gaffo wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:34 am
Buddhists who are non-theists
i value facts.

Buddists values the Budda - Gautama - they revere.

some are Athiests some are Theists.

Buddism itself is Theistically agnostic.

value facts, learn more. the net is here for you to so.
You have to learn more and dig deeper to the fundamental truth.
Buddhists revere the Buddha[s] merely as a teacher, not as a deity who is a creator of the universe.

There are three main schools in Buddhism.
Theravada the earliest schools is definitely non-theistic.

In the other two schools, i.e. Mahayana and Vajrayana, some schools believe in some semblance of ultimate reality, but these has nothing to do with theism per se, i.e. existence of an independent God who created the world.

Some sects like the Pure Land School also believe in some form of salvation, i.e. one will go the heaven [Pure Land] when one become a Buddhist. This is not Buddhism proper.

The principles of the Buddhism-proper do not support theism, i.e.
  • theism = belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. [google dictionary]
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8746
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:34 am You got it wrong, there is no distinct correlation between non-theism [your (a)theism] and materialism at all.
If you think that's true, then you'll need to explain to me which non-material entities an Atheist can believe are real, without undermining his/her Atheism.

Go ahead. List a few.
Buddhists who are non-theists are also philosophical anti-realists.
Buddhists are also religious, and believe in things like spirits of ancestors. If you think that's not true, go to Thailand. Or are you going to say, "Those are not real Buddhists?"
Btw, theism is merely an extension of materialism.
Nope. Theism, by definition, requires the existence of non-material entities. Materialism insists "matter" describes all that really exists. It's a monism. Theism is inevitably at least dualistic: God is not world, in Theism.
materialism is at least justified by arguments, proofs with evidences.
Nope. Materialism is an a priori assumption. There are no arguments, proofs or evidences capable of showing that nothing exists but materials.

If you think otherwise, then again, describe a test for it.
Post Reply