EVIL!!!!!!!!

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:24 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 am
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.
no, I'm not an expert on Buddism, just noted your post and clarified the matter WRT to Theism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 am
Buddhists revere the Buddha[s] merely as a teacher, not as a deity who is a creator of the universe.
yes, that is my limited understanding concerning that "Faith".


Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 am
There are three main schools in Buddhism.
did not know this. i welcome education on the matter.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 am
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.
ah Mormon Buddists. like the Allowite Muslims, i understand.



Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 am
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]
ok, tell me more, i know mostly about Western Religions, and some about Hinduism - the 7? incarnations of Vishnu - Ramma, Krishma are the only 2 of the 7? i know the names of.

i know less about the formal doctrine (or more likely doctrines(as you seem to affirm in your post) of Buddism, though have a Buddist mindset personally.

I welcome education on the 3 schools of Buddism we have today (and any other forms of Buddism that is now dead - if you know of them).

I value learning, so i welcome your post on the matter and look forward to becoming more educated on the "religion" of Buddism from you - if you care to educate me.

not obligated, just noted you seemed to know something about it and would welcome education on the matter.

thanks for reply Sir. (you are the Muslim Hater - i rem you from last year - but noted you seem to hate Muslims less than you used to - I'd welcome you story on that count too if you are willing to converse on the matter - of course its none of my business( i think i confused you with another with similar name WRT Muslim screeds, so dissragard if you are not him)

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:48 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:04 pm
Explain how materialism and morality are incompatible
If materialism is true, then everything...including us...is just "materials." That means we are entirely contingent entities, drifting without objective purpose through a universe completely indifferent to us.

And we're animals. As animals, we have no moral duties. Lions are not "evil" for killing zebras or each other (they do both, actually). We're not even "evil" if we strip the planet of all life. For who's around to say, "You shouldn't do that"? Genocides? Not evil: just another way people can choose to behave. Rape? Just fine, if you can get away with it. Murder? No such thing, really...just another contingent choice for purposeless creatures.

Nietzsche saw all this. And he was brave enough to say it. But the Atheists who have come after him have mostly not had his courage.
Explain how if morality is not a mental concept where it comes from
According to Materialism, there are no "mental" phenomena. We might think there are, but they are just another arrangement of "materials": the brain playing tricks called "mind." They have no objective reality.

So when you say, "I don't like murder," that's just because the molecules in your skull happened to line up that way. And when Stalin says, "Well, I do!" then that's also because of the arrangement of molecules in his skull -- no more. And neither one is more "moral" than the other, because "moral" refers to nothing but a delusion.
You got it wrong with your shallow and narrow knowledge of philosophers, e.g. you are building straw-man all over the place.

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

Note;
  • Nietzsche is not a critic of all “morality.”
    He explicitly embraces, for example, the idea of a “higher morality” which would inform the lives of “higher men” (Schacht 1983: 466–469), and, in so doing, he employs the same German word — Moral, sometimes Moralität — for both what he attacks and what he praises.

    Moreover, Nietzsche aims to offer a revaluation of existing values in a manner that appears, itself, to involve appeal to broadly “moral” standards of some sort.
    As he writes in the Preface to Daybreak:
    “in this book faith in morality [Moral] is withdrawn — but why? Out of morality [Moralität]! Or what else should we call that which informs it — and us?….[T]here is no doubt that a ‘thou shalt’ [du sollst] speaks to us too” (D 4).

    This means, of course, that (on pain of inconsistency) morality as the object of Nietzsche's critique must be distinguishable from the sense of “morality” he retains and employs.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/niet ... political/


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.
Scientists has discovered the presence of mirror neurons [correlate with empathy] in humans in larger quantity relative to the primates.

Humans do not have to depend on a moral system which is enforced by threats of hellfire from an illusory God.
Humans has an inherent faculty of moral and ethics functions within the brain and we only have to map* the neural algorithm of this function and expedite its evolution from the base build over 200,000 years of trial and error.

* possible via
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
The Human Connectome Project aims to provide an unparalleled compilation of neural data, an interface to graphically navigate this data and the opportunity to achieve never before realized conclusions about the living human brain.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:12 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:24 am
thanks for reply Sir. (you are the Muslim Hater - i rem you from last year - but noted you seem to hate Muslims less than you used to - I'd welcome you story on that count too if you are willing to converse on the matter - of course its none of my business( i think i confused you with another with similar name WRT Muslim screeds, so dissragard if you are not him)
I am not a Muslim Hater.
I view Muslims as victims of the ideology of Islam thus I will empathize with them as fellow human beings.

I am Anti-Islam, thus a very serious critique of the ideology of Islam.
It is same with, if at present one is anti-Communism, one do not hate Russians, Chinese or Cubans, and the likes. Rather an anti-Communist will critique the ideology of Communism.
Therefore one can be anti- anything to any ideology one is opposed to.

A person who hates Muslims is intellectually immature and relied on bad logic, i.e. hasty generalization base on the shallow observations that many terrorists are Muslims.
We MUST differentiate between being Anti-Islam and a Muslim Hater.

The terrible evil and violent acts by Muslims are caused ultimately by the ideology of Islam which contain loads of evil and violent elements that inspire SOME Muslims to commit evil and violent acts.
Muslims who commit evil and violent acts must be accountable for them, but the focus to resolve these violence must be tracked to the ideology of Islam as primary.

You are the one who advocated the internet to learn anything.
Here's from Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism
You can go into the details from the above listings.

gaffo
Posts: 3239
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:30 am

thank for prompt reply to me Sir.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:15 am
if Evolutionism were true. I can't fault your reasoning there.


ok thanks for affirming my logic.

do you have a doubt about evolution (I'm not a dick, if you are creationist, fine my me, but i'm not going to debate evolution - to me it seems self evident.

3 of my 5 best friends are evolutonist BTW - we disagree on this and politics - they republicans (one voted for Trump, now regrets, the other held his nose and voted for Billary (as i did - hate that corrupt bitch but voted for her, trumps was worse) - would have voted for Libertaraian (foreget his name now) or Green- Stine but not the ballot).

we remain best friend in spite of our politics - have the same character.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm

Revere? No. I quote him because Atheists often imagine he gives them a free ride.


Do they? i did not know this. i had 2 phil classes in college eons ago. Neich was not in them, but know a little - "god is dead" is all i know. after college hearing about him did not interest me in the least.

tell me more about Neich and his followers - and why they follow if willing.



Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm

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.



ok now I am curious, tell more why you like Nietzche (I know nothing about him outside of "god is dead". you think he had some sort of wisdom about our realm, do tell!

i welcome education.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
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.


ok. I'm an ignoramus about the man, what was is argument/consistency?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Most Atheists I meet have nowhere near as much courage of their convictions as Nietzsche and you seem to have.
maybe you have not met enough Atheists?

I do have conviction, maybe Nietzsche did too- can't speak for a dead man i know nothing about (you may be able to knowing him better than me - though not into speaking for the dead in general since they cannot refute, but if you do know much about the man i think it might be ok to do so IMO).


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
If someone is willing to live as a genuine Atheist, I have no argument with him. I will, of course, still think he's wrong; but at least I won't have to unpack the implications of his view for him, and he won't whine when he realizes that Atheism leads to some very harsh truths. If he can live with those facts, I'm okay with him as a person...
gee thanks. lol

but i get you and agree - per believers from my perspective.



Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
But I won't trust him. That would be foolish. For he will be a man with no morals.
gee thanks for nothin, just as i was thinking of calling you a friend.

;-(


I'm a Judaic Athiest, so you forced me into reciprocity, I "won't trust him(you)" for being a Believer.

thanks.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
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.

I don't give 2 shits what Nietzsche said about Atheism, nor do i represent his Atheistic followers.

I speak only for myself about myself - my personal Atheism.

do you speak for all Christians Sir? - or only yourself as one Christian person?



Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
It's actually you who are unusual in this regard, not Nietzsche.
I'm just "me" common or unusual - i speak only of myself, not for "all atheists".


I suspect Atheists are as diverse as Christians - not a uniform baddi you make us out to be - with all sorts of forms/beleifs - as it would seem likely in a complex world populated by human beings.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
But I'm not insulting you.

But I won't trust him. That would be foolish. For he will be a man with no morals.


lol if you say so Bubba.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
I'm just pointing out he has more backers among Atheists than you have.

maybe so, i know nothing about the issue.

I'm not into a popularity contest, and in fact the "prophet is an enemy in his own land" - and your top prophet was the least popular and was crucified.

so i do me, and only me, if others want to follow the popular horse, their game/folly - no concern of mine.




Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
You're not representative of the average Atheist, it seems.
maybe not - or maybe you assume more knowledge of the "unified bohemoth" of Athiesm than thier actual nature?

is suspect its a little of both - but do not now nor care about the nature of why other Atheists are Atheists.

everyone has there reasons to be Athiest or Beleiver - but outside of me and me, i do not judge them as to why they are as they are. if you like to play the judgement game without walking in the shoes of beleivers and none - go for it, but leave me out.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
And that's fine.


gee thanks.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
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.
???

whats interesting?


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
and why if value Augustine over Nietzsche.
Help me out with that...what's the source of your appreciation of Augustine?
reading some of his "confessions" in college and his view of babies is infinately selfisih - which is the definition of Evil............not sure it St Aug make that connection (He might have - class was in 1987 so long time ago), but i did.





Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Morality is destroyed by Materialism,

??????? no clue what you are saying, elaborate Sir.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm

Sorry. It's inevitable. Only an inconsistent Atheist can believe in morality. His Materialism makes it irrational, but he can do it.
??????
you claiming i am in inconsistant Atheist or a materialist or both?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Beliefs are why we do what we do
No Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beliefs (in God/s i assume your reference was to above - not things like honour/character/charity/love/mercy - which are also Beliefs.

the LATTER Beliefs define one's character, not the former - belief in the proper god (as you rape small kids (clergy)/etc..........).

so you are full of shit here.

Asshole count on this world is 10 percent - regardless of which God one believes in or does not.

the rest of us 90-percent are good folks - regardless of beleiving in your particular god or not.

clue - a beleif in your particular God does not convert one single asshole non-beleiver into a moral believer saint. they raped kids before they found your god and continued to rape kids after finding your god.





Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm

Atheism's basic ontology is Materialism. And a man's character...well, that's quite a different issue. There's no such thing as "good character" in a Materialist world, because there's no such thing as "good" (or "evil.")

Under Materialist assumptions, what is, is. That's all that can be said. It's not good, and it's not evil. It's just what is.
I have no clue what you are talking about.



Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Yes, actually, I do. A person can be a Materialist AND a Solipsist,
you seem to lack understanding of the nature of the latter.

no Solipsist is a materialist.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
with no rational contradiction between the two.
u.....wrong. infinate contradiction.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Or he may choose to be a Materialist, and rather
then he is not longer a Solipsist.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
irrationally, decide to be a Humanitarian. The point is that in a Materialist universe, neither is good or evil. They are just choices.
there is no choice, only reason.

reason affirms "i exist"...............all other "Stuff" may or may not - i cannot declare an affirmative without evidence, and all evidence is per my own mind (confermation bias -so not good enough).

reason affirms Solipsism, it does not affirm reality of the material world
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
we can talk Solipsism if you wish
That would be a good idea.
ok great, i love talking to myself!

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
What do you personally take "Solipsism" to mean? Maybe you'd best explain that before we continue, so I don't end up using a different definition than you do.
same as Descarte's, though made independently (or maybe not? maybe 5 yrs later I learned about his guy descarte who made the same conclusion as an older man than me and 300 yrs before me - but of course maybe the 300 yrs before and Descarte is just another part of me and so............)


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Oh, I see...you actually disbelieve in the existence of the material world? Interesting.
no you do not see!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I neither affirm nor deny your existance nor that of the material world! (im not being a fence sitter pussy here - i'm being humble and using empricism). I can only know via empricism "I exist" - my nature allows ONLY this.

nothing more, i do not "Disbeleive in the existance of the material world" - any more than i "beleive in the existance of the material world"


for sanity's sake and to function as a man with a job/etc, i assume you and others exist along with the material world - by default (for functions' sake) - NOT Belief's sake. I have no prob with the concept that you/world do not exist - nor do i "dissbelieve you do" (MY NATURE is too limit TO KNOW EITHER WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - so i to function i asssume you ARE - nothing more. i do not have faith that you actually ARE any more that you ARE NOT.



get it?



Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm

So you're not made of "matter"?

"matter" is what i learned as a chemistry major, i do not know if "matter" exists, nor do i know what - if anything - i am made of.

i KNOW only ONE TRUTH - "I AM" (right now) -same Truth i found 37 yrs ago, i've not found any other since that time.

my nature is too limit to know more.

I accept that sole meager Truth and live my life as best i can without inventing other Truths later (as IMO Descarte did).

but i do not dissparage Descarte - solipsism is a meager philosphy (if you can even call it that), so i undersand why he invented other crap that was not provable (Solipsism like Atheism offers nothing or little - the former offers Truth (a meager one) the latter offer nothing at all).
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
I have to wonder what you think you are composed of. Do you regard yourself as a sort of incorporeal spirit?
????????????

I regard myself as a consciousness. maybe the whole universe (god!)

for pragmatical purposes, assuming you and your god exist, i am still "The universe/God" per my reality - since my reality is via my own mind.

again which is it?

I'm God

or

you Are and your God may Be

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

i cannot ever know - so do not concern myself with, my nature is too limited to know (maybe upon death your God will mind mend with me and my nature will expand to know more than just "i exist" - who knows, not my concern since not empircally provable in this mortal realm).
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
You're right: to know anything takes faith.

no Sir, one thing is self evident, I exist, this is a/the Truth - and does not require Faith.

all else of course does require Faith - which i lack.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Once again, you surprise me by being more aware than many Atheist with whom I have talked.
ok, thanks i guess.

maybe you should take to more Atheists?



Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm


Solipsism per definition is "I am all I can know to exist"
And yet, again, you're telling it to me...[/quote]


it you say so - are you wearing a loud tie to prove you exist? - lol.

reference is Robert Sheckley's 1960's short "warm" - about Solipsism - main character is doubting the existance of his buddy, but buddy is wearing a bright tie to prove he actually exists (Sheckley was a brillant Sciecen firction writter satirist in the 50's and 60's utterly forgotten today - sadly.

also refer to Heinland's They short. another tallented author - less forgotten than the former - thankfully.

i get sad when tallent is forgotten, sheckely no longer rememebers saddens me - he was a God of tallent - top 10 of all time IMO in sci fi realm, and utterly forgotten - even though Doug Adams (Hitchhiker to the Galaxy listed him as his mentor and inspiration for his works).


oh well, just like Arch Obler (radiodrame God - Lights Out) is forgotten today - even though Rod Serling noted him as an inspiration for his works
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Why are you talking to me, an entity for which, as you say, you have no faith that it exists?
out of sanities sake, to survive mentally i assume you exist to live a reasonable outside of a sanitarium.



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.
???????

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:17 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:41 am
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.
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.

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.

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.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:15 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:30 am
do you have a doubt about evolution
Sure. Lots. Let's start with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE&t=2183s
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm

Revere? No. I quote him because Atheists often imagine he gives them a free ride.


Do they? i did not know this. i had 2 phil classes in college eons ago. Neich was not in them, but know a little - "god is dead" is all i know. after college hearing about him did not interest me in the least.

tell me more about Neich and his followers - and why they follow if willing.[/quote]
Well, Nietzsche famously said, "God is dead." And he did so with great rhetorical and literary flourish that impresses undergrads. He sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and he says a lot of brave, bad nonsense that young Atheists tend to admire. But they don't really read him, because he also says that the alleged death of God is going to be overwhelmingly bad for humanity -- it will destroy all meaning and morality, and leave us all spinning through a pointless universe on a journey to death.

Still, Nietzsche tries to embrace the opportunity. He says, essentially, since we can't be good or evil anymore, let's be very focused on seizing power. He think that a thing he calls "the will to power" is the life-force of humanity; and getting power means we need to be bad in very vigorous, purposive and unrestrained ways. If you're like that, you're an übermensch, a "superman," in his vocabulary (Nietzsche apparently did not believe in any "superwomen"; this was for men only).

People like Nietzsche primarily because of these features: he boldly insults Theism and God, he stylishly rages against moral restraint and allows us to make up our own choices about "values," and he seems to them to give them what they want -- complete freedom. It's all very adolescent, really. They don't read the dark side of Nietzsche at all. For them, he's a candyman.

But Nietzsche would (against his wishes) end up inspiring Hitler. And when you look at Nietzsche's philosophy, you can't find any moral code that would suggest Hitler was wrong to do what he did -- so Hitler is a permissible option within Nietzsche's system. So the effects of his Atheism have been rather bad in practice. But this does not stop many of his admirers from still admiring him.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
tell more why you like Nietzche
I don't "like" him. I only respect that he had the courage to go farther with his Atheism than the weak, half-baked Atheists of today seem to be willing.

I regard him as a brave, bad (and now dead) man. That he was wrong, he now knows. But he had at least some kind of honesty, along with all his badness.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Most Atheists I meet have nowhere near as much courage of their convictions as Nietzsche and you seem to have.
maybe you have not met enough Atheists?
Far more than most people ever will.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
If someone is willing to live as a genuine Atheist, I have no argument with him. I will, of course, still think he's wrong; but at least I won't have to unpack the implications of his view for him, and he won't whine when he realizes that Atheism leads to some very harsh truths. If he can live with those facts, I'm okay with him as a person...
gee thanks. lol

but i get you and agree - per believers from my perspective.
That's fine.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
But I won't trust him. That would be foolish. For he will be a man with no morals.
gee thanks for nothin, just as i was thinking of calling you a friend.
Well, it's a problem. If Atheism becomes rationally consistent, it destroys all possibility of morality. And I'm very thankful that most Atheists aren't thoroughgoing Atheists, because the world would be a horrendous place if they were.

Marx was the one who said, "The critique of religion is the first of all critiques," and look at what he did...Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim Jongs, Castro, Maduro...the misery just goes on and on.
I'm a Judaic Athiest,

Culturally Jewish, but an Atheist?

As I recall, one of the sons of Isaac took a similar view. :wink:
so you forced me into reciprocity, I "won't trust him(you)" for being a Believer.
I don't blame you, if you don't know what it is I believe. The history of that man-made construct "religion" has been a checkered one, for sure. But I think if you knew what I actually believe, you'd know you were safe. You can relax. :wink:
do you speak for all Christians Sir? - or only yourself as one Christian person?
I try to discern what it means to be consistent and rational as a Christian, and to speak for that. It's a work in progress, to be sure; but it's the right direction.
I'm just "me" common or unusual - i speak only of myself, not for "all atheists".
Well, you're only speaking solipsistically, right?
I suspect Atheists are as diverse as Christians - not a uniform baddi you make us out to be - with all sorts of forms/beleifs - as it would seem likely in a complex world populated by human beings.
What makes Atheism non-diverse is that it really only (dis-)believes in one thing. It's pretty hard to be diverse with one thing only to believe. So there are only two types of Atheist, really: consistent ones, and those who are fudging their Atheism by, say, living like Christians or Humanists while claiming pure Atheism.

However, I've never met, found or talked to a completely rationally-consistent and practicing Atheist. They all seem to be of the equivocal type. That's because ultimately, Atheism is unliveable. They find they have to add something to it to make it work for them....something they can't ground, usually.
I'm not into a popularity contest, and in fact the "prophet is an enemy in his own land" - and your top prophet was the least popular and was crucified.
Yes, indeed He was.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
and why if value Augustine over Nietzsche.
Help me out with that...what's the source of your appreciation of Augustine?
reading some of his "confessions" in college and his view of babies is infinately selfisih - which is the definition of Evil............not sure it St Aug make that connection (He might have - class was in 1987 so long time ago), but i did.
Help me out with that, too: in a world with no God, why would "selfishness" be "evil"? Ayn Rand called selfishness a "virtue." So it's certainly not the an idea it's impossible to doubt.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Morality is destroyed by Materialism,
??????? no clue what you are saying, elaborate Sir.
If Materialism is true, then the world came about as a result of an accidental collision of material forces, and has continued ever since by the inevitable chain of material cause and effect. In such a world, there is no inherent meaning (we are a cosmic accident), no freedom (we are predetermined to do what we do by the chain of cause and effect), and no morality (because nothing is really "good" or "evil" in a cosmic accident).
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm

Sorry. It's inevitable. Only an inconsistent Atheist can believe in morality. His Materialism makes it irrational, but he can do it.
??????
you claiming i am in inconsistant Atheist or a materialist or both?
I'm thinking that if you're a Solipsist, you wouldn't really have an opinion about God. After all, you would be in doubt of the real existence of the world, and certainly of anything behind it. So you wouldn't really be an Atheist or a Theist. You'd be a kind of lone monad, wouldn't you?
they raped kids before they found your god and continued to rape kids after finding your god.
You're speaking of the Catholic clergy scandals, I suppose?

Well, I'm not a Catholic, and would not be the right person to defend them. I would never have imposed their system, and would not excuse what they have excused. I think you'd also find that God is not of their opinion on that.

Jesus Christ said, "By their fruits you shall know them." Just as a good apple tree is defined not by looking good, but by making good apples, bad apples come from a bad tree. And we will know them by that, legitimately.

So you are speaking of the deeds of men who do not genuinely believe what they say they believe: not those who do. And I say that not on my authority, but on that of Jesus Christ.

But you make a good point: that many times deeds say more about what we actually believe than our words do. And that's my observation about Atheists: they don't live like they say they believe. If they did, they'd not even think about morality. They'd think like this:

"I want to raise a generation of young people who are devoid of conscience, imperious, relentless, and cruel." -- A. Hitler
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm

Atheism's basic ontology is Materialism. And a man's character...well, that's quite a different issue. There's no such thing as "good character" in a Materialist world, because there's no such thing as "good" (or "evil.")

Under Materialist assumptions, what is, is. That's all that can be said. It's not good, and it's not evil. It's just what is.
I have no clue what you are talking about.
I thought it was clear. The terms "good" and "evil" have no meaning in a universe that is merely made up of materials accidentally collected by chance. We don't have "good" rocks and "evil" trees (except in Harry Potter, of course :wink: ). We don't have "good" and "evil" fishes, lions, dogs and cows. They are neither "good" not "evil," morally speaking. But if humans are just another accidental animal, then the same must be true of us.
no Solipsist is a materialist.
Not a (in philosophical terms) Realist, then? you don't believe there's a real "reality" out there? Just you, all by yourself?
reason affirms Solipsism, it does not affirm reality of the material world
Well, one can affirm Solipsism, but not on the basis of "reason." To have "reasons" would imply an external world from which those "reasons" could be drawn, and as you say, Solipsisim "does not affirm the reality of the material world."
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
we can talk Solipsism if you wish
That would be a good idea.
ok great, i love talking to myself!
And yet...you're talking to me.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
What do you personally take "Solipsism" to mean? Maybe you'd best explain that before we continue, so I don't end up using a different definition than you do.
same as Descarte's, though made independently (or maybe not? maybe 5 yrs later I learned about his guy descarte who made the same conclusion as an older man than me and 300 yrs before me - but of course maybe the 300 yrs before and Descarte is just another part of me and so............)
Well, Descartes method was entirely skeptical...meaning it was capable of producing doubt, but not of producing belief in anything. So Descartes could not give you reasons for believing in Solipsism. What he did was cast doubt on everything that could be doubted, even in extremis. But he did not prove -- nor even try to prove -- that these things don't exist, or that we have reasons to disbelieve in them. All he said was, "There's a way I can find to doubt it."

But Descartes was doing this in order to see if there was a way to believe something on completely solid certainty. And it's in this connection he came up with his "cogito ergo sum" statement: "I think, therefore I am." But he did so in the hope of building back to certain knowledge of the external world and even of God.

In this, most philosophers agree, he failed. He showed that doubting everything leaves you nowhere.

But an alternate conclusion is possible: namely, that it is in the nature of knowing itself that we find we must believe in order to know. The Latin for that is "credo ut intellegam": "I believe in order to know." And I think that's much closer to the truth.
i do not "Disbeleive in the existance of the material world" - any more than i "beleive in the existance of the material world"
I do not think that's true. if it were, you would not be writing to me.
my nature is too limit to know more.
Maybe because you will not put any faith in anything, and thus cannot know more, if the credo above is correct.
I accept that sole meager Truth and live my life as best i can without inventing other Truths later (as IMO Descarte did).
He didn't, actually. Descartes was a believer in God. The full title of his "Meditations," from which the cogito comes, is "Meditations on First Philosophy in which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated."

How's that for a long title?
i cannot ever know -

If so, then by definition, whatever you are, it's not God.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Once again, you surprise me by being more aware than many Atheist with whom I have talked.
ok, thanks i guess.

maybe you should take to more Atheists?
As I say, I've talked to more than most people will ever know in a lifetime. Trust me.
it you say so - are you wearing a loud tie to prove you exist? - lol.
I will do so in future. :wink:
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:22 pm
Why are you talking to me, an entity for which, as you say, you have no faith that it exists?
out of sanities sake, to survive mentally i assume you exist to live a reasonable outside of a sanitarium.
How can "god" go insane? Again, you must not be He.

Thanks for your thoughts...even if I'm not really here to hear them. :wink:

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:42 am
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"?
But our discussion was not about whether evil is objective or not. It was about whether human nature is good.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7707
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Good to see you check in again, Henry."

Post by henry quirk » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:16 pm

been busy...time of the year...but: I live

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7707
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"I point my finger to myself (Solipsist, so you are me of course) all the time Sir."

Post by henry quirk » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:22 pm

If we're all figments of your imagination, then -- please -- do a better job of imagining.

There's far too much crap and far too few roses.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:44 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:48 am


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?
It is circular because you define good as the opposite of evil but you didn't provide a definition for evil, perhaps opposite of good and this is circular.

I don't have any definition of good or evil. I don't think that there is any definition. We just divide actions into good and evil.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:29 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:42 am
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"?
But our discussion was not about whether evil is objective or not. It was about whether human nature is good.
Okay, then let me ask you how you find an objective standard for "good," so that it makes some sense for you to characterize human nature as "good."

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:29 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:42 am


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"?
But our discussion was not about whether evil is objective or not. It was about whether human nature is good.
Okay, then let me ask you how you find an objective standard for "good," so that it makes some sense for you to characterize human nature as "good."
That I have already discussed. If killing is evil then population growth is a measure for how much people are good.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8381
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:59 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:29 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:04 pm

But our discussion was not about whether evil is objective or not. It was about whether human nature is good.
Okay, then let me ask you how you find an objective standard for "good," so that it makes some sense for you to characterize human nature as "good."
That I have already discussed. If killing is evil then population growth is a measure for how much people are good.
You mean that you think "good" means "reproduce'? :shock: That's it? :?

Then viruses are "good." They reproduce really quickly.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3114
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:59 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:29 pm

Okay, then let me ask you how you find an objective standard for "good," so that it makes some sense for you to characterize human nature as "good."
That I have already discussed. If killing is evil then population growth is a measure for how much people are good.
You mean that you think "good" means "reproduce'? :shock: That's it? :?

Then viruses are "good." They reproduce really quickly.
Sure it is. If viruses have judgment ability then they would think of us as evil whereas they being good.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7707
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:18 pm

Generally: self-direction & -responsibility flavored with a modicum of compassion is 'good'.

Evil, then, is any blunting of self-direction, -responsibility, and compassion.

Whole whack of stuff conventionally thought of as 'okay' fits under the Evil umbrella if you look at this way.

But, Henry, that's way too general! We need specifics!

meh...living is messy, organic...pick your first principles: act accordingly

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests