Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Irrelevant to this conversation.

No, absolutely germane.

However, I did ask you to present your definition of what morality is. You side-stepped that (glorious) opportunity. Would you kindly offer your definition that, according to you, corrects the one I offer.

I'll wait here patiently holding my breath . . .

and conduces to nothing but amorality.

Depending on where one stands and what definitions one holds, yes, it could lead to immorality. But that requires someone to make the assessment and define what is both moral and immoral.

[Harbal]

What is not questioned is that living organisms adapt to their environment,

I don't question it either.

But that's what's sometimes called "micro-evolution," because it only involves one species morphing in non-fundamental ways, within a particular species.

What would we call it, I wonder, when a long succession of micro-evolutions occur over a vast expanse of time?

I know! We could just call it evolution.

So yes, "anti-scientific" is exactly the right descriptor from the way Evolutionism has claimed infallibility, been believed without sufficient warrant, been denied the opportunity of scientific critique, and then sold to the public as "settled".

They didn't sell it to me; I got it for free. I'm still trying to figure out how these "Evolutionists" are profiting from their elaborate deception, and why simply telling the truth would be far less lucrative.

[tillingborn]

Creationists, such as yourself, have created a myth that evolution implies that the fossils of missing links should be under every stone, and that the bulk of humanity should have fully formed adaptations, wings or gills for example, because anything less than fully formed organs confer no advantage.

It has nothing to do with Creationism, actually. It's what Evolutionism would itself imply. Even were there no such thing as Creationism, it would remain Evolutionism's problem.

The thing you cannot admit is that if there were no creationism, there would be no "Evolutionism"; it only exists as a straw man for people who prefer to believe old books rather than evidence.
As for the rest, Harbal has already answered better than I was about to.

[Immanuel Can]

Irrelevant to this conversation.

No, absolutely germane.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with what YOU think. And I did not create YOUR definition for you.

Answer my question, please: do you stand by your conflation of "action" with "morality"?

[phyllo]

In order to understand why you oppose my (sound) definition, one must understand what informs your understanding.

I also oppose your (sound) definition.

In a society, there are people with ideas and values such that they would never take a life.

In the same society, there are other people who have other ideas and values and they are serial killers.

So what does your definition say about the morality of these individuals and of the society as a whole?

All it seems to say is that acting on ideas and values is morality and nothing else. Something critical appears to be missing.

[Immanuel Can]

What is not questioned is that living organisms adapt to their environment,

I don't question it either.

But that's what's sometimes called "micro-evolution," because it only involves one species morphing in non-fundamental ways, within a particular species.

What would we call it, I wonder, when a long succession of micro-evolutions occur over a vast expanse of time?

I know! We could just call it evolution.

Except it's not. Evolutionism requires trans-species transformations, not variations within species, no matter how many there are.

This confusion is one of the ways Evolutionists have succeeded in pulling off their parlour trick of making Darwin's finches or dark moths count as "evidence" for something of which they actually provide no evidence at all.

I'm still trying to figure out how these "Evolutionists" are profiting from their elaborate deception

Who said they "profit"? There might be ways of turning such a thing into profit...like being responsible for a new and popular scientific theory that generates dollars and prestige, maybe...but I don't see any of that as primary here.

The incentive is simpler. Eliminating God from the universe maximizes what they want: moral freedom for humanity, and open license for human manipulation to do anything it wants to do...including through the methods of science, but not at all limited to them. The human race in general wants to believe it has no moral responsibility and will never give account to God, and so that's great incentive for embracing Atheism, and Atheism needs an alternate narrative of how things came about -- absent God, of course. Evolutionism is the flavour of the day.

So we can practice abortion, euthanasia or eugenics, or call men "women," or sexually exploit or even murder our children, or manipulate other people as much as we want, or declare ourselves "masters of our own fate" without fear, or expect the future to bend to our will and none other, if we can only find a way we can bring ourselves to believe there's no God. That's Evolutionism's huge gift -- and curse.

[Immanuel Can]

Creationists, such as yourself, have created a myth that evolution implies that the fossils of missing links should be under every stone, and that the bulk of humanity should have fully formed adaptations, wings or gills for example, because anything less than fully formed organs confer no advantage.

It has nothing to do with Creationism, actually. It's what Evolutionism would itself imply. Even were there no such thing as Creationism, it would remain Evolutionism's problem.

The thing you cannot admit is that if there were no creationism, there would be no "Evolutionism";

Oh, I can admit that, alright. If there were no God, there'd be no Atheism, too. But that begs the important question...

[Harbal]

Except it's not. Evolutionism requires trans-species transformations, not variations within species, no matter how many there are.

"Species" is just a term in an artificial categorisation system.

This confusion is one of the ways Evolutionists have succeeded in pulling off their parlour trick of making Darwin's finches or dark moths count as "evidence" for something of which they actually provide no evidence at all.

I doubt that many who go into science do it with the aim of performing parlour tricks. That really is an absurd accusation.

The incentive is simpler. Eliminating God from the universe maximizes what they want: moral freedom for humanity,

Evolutionism doesn't eliminate God, though. True, it eliminates that rather ridiculous account of Adam and Eve, but who still believes that anyway? I really don't see what implications evolutionism has for morality. I'm sure that even that arch villain Dawkins doesn't suggest that a benefit of dumping creationism and God would be our freedom to lower moral standards.

The human race in general wants to believe it has no moral responsibility

How on earth did you come to dream that up? What possible justification is there for sucha bizarre claim?

So we can practice abortion, euthanasia or eugenics, or call men "women," or sexually exploit or even murder our children, or manipulate other people as much as we want,

These things are not freedoms of secular society, they are subjects of secular law, which seems to function okay without reference to God.

or declare ourselves "masters of our own fate" without fear, or expect the future to bend to our will and none other, if we can only find a way we can bring ourselves to believe there's no God.

Dismissing the idea of God would only lead a fool to think it put him in total control of his fate and the future. Bringing oneself to believe there is no God has no dependence on the truth, or otherwise, of evolutionism, you can take my word on that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Irrelevant to this conversation.

No, absolutely germane.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with what YOU think. And I did not create YOUR definition for you.

Answer my question, please: do you stand by your conflation of "action" with "morality"?

My most precious, my most dully precocious child: listen!

I will fill out the definition already provided (and yes I stand by it of course) so that your dullish mind might be able to grasp it. Yet I do not have unrealistic hopes.

And again: your mind and your perceptual system is dominated by Judaic and Christian notions of morality. These inhibit you from seeing in any other way.

I wrote:

"People have *ideas* and they have *values* and, as a result of defining them, and believing in them, they are then compelled to put their beliefs into action. And there is a special word for that! It's called morality."

There is a famous study of the social life and ethical-moral practices of a Pygmy tribe. They have very strict rules when they hunt in group and if one member breaks the rules -- cheats basically -- and is caught doing so, there are heavy social consequences: the wielding of shame & blame. There is then a morality that was defined, and this is what I meant by 'ideas'.

Those ideas depend on environment, circumstances, and other factors. I am not sure if I'd say that the Pygmy morality in respect to hunting and social custom was 'handed down on stone tablets' so I describe it as their ideas and their values.

When defined, obviously, these are 'put into action' as rule, law, convention, etc.

Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).

Obviously, moral systems share similarities but they are not all the same. What is licit in one place and among one people may not be licit in another place among other people.

Nevertheless there do seem to be general moral beliefs that seem universal. At least general patterns are recognizable.

Now I hope that you will provide me with the proper way that morality should be understood. Here in the presence of your peers.

C'mon man, give it a shot! It won't kill you . . . and if it did you'd immediately resurrect as you do everytime you get slaughtered . . .

[Lacewing]

Extremists live in the hellishness of extremism.

Not true as far as I see.

Some people may be have been sucked into it against their will but I don't think the true believers suffer at all.

Compared to balance, extremism is constantly in service to itself... fighting, defending, justifying, etc., which affects mind and body to continually support only that which is extreme. Compared to the greater calm and acceptance of a balanced state, extremism is rather "hellish", and even a bit insane in its fury and obsession. (This is what I've observed.)

They will pursue that to its disastrous results if they cannot choose to seek more balance.

The result isn't clear. It may be disastrous (or not) but for who?

Firstly themselves (physically and mentally]... and possibly others.

My path is to avoid, circumvent, or outlast their toxicity... if reasoning and balance are not an option. Simply having more calm clarity in the face of another's mindless fury can reveal effective insights about the paths to take.

And this is the best way to deal with it?

It has worked well in my experience. Do you think there is a "best way"?

But since no specific extremism is being presented as an example case, there won't be any specific path presented as a solution. It's a vague general 'solution' to vague general 'extremism'.

Since you think my explanation is too vague, can you choose an example of extremism from your point of view, and then describe the specific path you present as a solution?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Our most extensive experiment in cross-breeding is what we've done with dogs. There are now tall and short ones, ones with big mouths and small, ones with long legs and short, all colours, a wide variety of propensities (hunting, guarding, alerting, retrieving...) but all dogs remain dogs...in one species, all interfertile, and not interfertile with non-canines. No dog becomes a cat, a rabbit, an emu or an ibex. And no ape becomes a man...as we now know, genetically, since even Evolutionists have abandoned the ape-to-man theory, retreating into a common-ancestor approach after the follies of the ape to man theory became to pressing, in spite of all efforts to protect it from criticism.

Should anyone be interested I found Immanuel's analogue. And here he explains, more or less, what Immanuel is trying so very hard to explain convincingly.

You can also watch this video which better demonstrates what is being asserted ultimately and what is being protected when the Genesis narrative is held to.

How the earliest proto-life forms branched out from the original organism is, of course, a challenging puzzle. It is also intuitively obvious (and practically true) that no amount of selection seems to be able to give the dog feathers or the chicken teeth.

Wherever the first genetic coding came from, or how it originated -- that seems to be the unsolved puzzle.

So I am now resolved to accept the Genesis story. My entire shtick will now begin to resemble the dude in the first video.

Immanuel, brother, I'm back!

[iambiguous]

Watch it yourself and get back to us.

Holy Mother of God — is there more than one of you?!?

Of course: you're completely stuck in regard to actually taking your "serious philosophy" intellectual contraptions about race and Jews down out of the theoretical clouds so turn it all into a...quip?

[iambiguous]

Watch it yourself and get back to us.

Holy Mother of God — is there more than one of you?!?

Of course: you're completely stuck in regard to actually taking your "serious philosophy" intellectual contraptions about race and Jews down out of the theoretical clouds so turn it all into a...quip?

Anyway, should one day, you actually do grow a pair and choose to abandon your path of least resistance up in the theoretical clouds with all the other serious philosophers here, get back to me on this:

Just as with race, what I would like is for you to discuss your thoughts and feelings about Jews theoretically, academically, analytically etc., and then take those conclusions out into the world that we live in today.

Imagining others who think like you do in a position of power in any particular community. What might Jews expect from them? How would you yourself interact with them? What would you approve of, what would you disapprove of...in terms of reproduction and education and employment and social interactions.

And, of course, hearing your own reaction to the polices of Hitler and the Nazis. Were there things they got right? Were there things they got wrong?

Then this part: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... ws-a-race/

Your views on that.

Of course: wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Anything to keep the discussion either up in the clouds or all about me.

Well, okay, without Googling anything, to me a Jew is someone who subscribes to the religious faith -- the moral narrative -- that revolves around the God of Abraham and Moses. Historically. But it can then get murky because while some are born into Jewish families others convert to the Jewish faith. So just about anyone can call him or herself a Jew. Now, to the extent that there are Jewish genes and Arab genes and genes for all the other ethnic communities...damned if I know. What does science say about that?

Me, I react to others more or less ignoring all that "racial" and "gender" and "ethnic" stuff. I'm far more interested in how intelligent they are, how tolerant they are, their sense of humor, their emotional depth, their social skills, how far off the beaten path they are, how fascinating their life is and how just plain engrossing they are.

Instead, I go back to the assumptions I make about dasein. And that was explored in the 2012 film The Other Son: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... y#p2476698

Watch it yourself and get back to us.

I’ve begun to grasp your method and your lexicon! If one choses not to be led by you to a foregone conclusion managed by you — that is wiggling. You set a trap — then demand that your victim walk into it. What a hunter you are! The Elmer Fudd of PN!

Any answer that is not for you accepting entrapment is riding skyhooks into concept-contraptions far far above ‘reality’ which, as it happens, you also manage. I gather that is what this mysterious dasein must be.

You cannot proceed calmly and methodically in conversation even if one desires to cooperate with you (say speaking about my thoughts on Judaism, Jewishness, the so-called JQ, or about Israel and Zionism) and get resolutely flustered when foundations are established.

Finally, mercilessly! you pepper your prey with links to truly exacerbating diatribes on your personal arcana which one reads wishing one had long ago died ….

If I’ve missed anything let me know …

Absolutely shameless!!!

Right, IC?

Come on, AJ, you are in way, way over your head with me. Why? Because unlike those here who will go up into the theoretical clouds with you in order to establish those pedantic intellectual "foundations", I insist that you bring those conclusions themselves down to Earth. Black, brown, red, yellow skin folks...Jews. What is to be done with them in order to stem the "demographic crisis"?

What did Hitler get right? What did Hitler get wrong?

Grow a pair and walk your talk.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Watch it yourself and get back to us.

Holy Mother of God — is there more than one of you?!?

Of course: you're completely stuck in regard to actually taking your "serious philosophy" intellectual contraptions about race and Jews down out of the theoretical clouds so turn it all into a...quip?

If you want to understand my views (and really anyone's views) you will have to go much more slowly and carefully. You constantly inhibit the response you say that you seek. To get some background (which you do not want of course) read my recent response to Atto. It is just a page or so up.

[iambiguous]

Holy Mother of God — is there more than one of you?!?

Of course: you're completely stuck in regard to actually taking your "serious philosophy" intellectual contraptions about race and Jews down out of the theoretical clouds so turn it all into a...quip?

If you want to understand my views (and really anyone's views) you will have to go much more slowly and carefully. You constantly inhibit the response you say that you seek. To get some background (which you do not want of course) read my recent response to Atto. It is just a page or so up.

Okay, fine, let's just agree to disagree regarding what the expression "grow a pair" means. Play your word games with others here if you must. Besides, as long as you are content to keep your superior intelligence "up there" in the pedantic clouds, the other races and the Jews can go about the business of sustaining our grim demographic crisis unimpeded at least by you.

Right?