Philosophy Now Forum

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:57 pm Certainty, like all words that reference the transcendent, can only refer to certain Enough. There is no ultimate certainty, and that's ultimately not important.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:08 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:52 pm I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.

Reciprocity is fair play. Right?

Mine might hold truth, but the religious are flat out lying every time they say something/anything about a god they do not and cannot know without a defective supernatural believing mind.

Regards
DL

The question from Immanuel's position (which is of most people with some form of religion) is "Why should anyone behave with any 'moral' when there is nothing BUT other people to demand that we do?"

Do you have a conscience?

I do.

What prevents you from using it instead of an imaginary evil genocidal god that some poor thinkers think is good?

and "If one CAN behave to their advantage when no one is there to observe, would not anyone behave even against the negotiated agreement of conduct when it suits them best?" [This last question is related to the "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to see it, does it make a 'sound'?"]

We all have times when we will choose to compete instead of cooperate. Evolution says that if we do not take advantage of those less fit than ourselves, we are fools who are not showing their fitness.

So, in other words, even IF we set up government as the 'secular' means of defining morality, what other than FORCE by other people is left to command how we should behave.

Follow the secular laws because secular law has already shown that is is more moral than theistic laws made by a genocidal p**** who likes to stone fornicators and unruly children to death. Not quite an eye for an eye eh?

It is a valid concern of which was taken up by Neitzche and where the answer to "God is dead" is that he expects us to still set up some fake religion as a means to still assure people are compelled to behave 'morally' when no one is watching.

My arguments with him is to argue that we still have the same problem when religion is used except that for those in power, they are able to have the advantage when or where they IMPOSE religion upon others while simultaneously NOT be religious themselves in fact. That is, even if one argues for religion as 'necessary' to maintain civilization, the utility of religion just narrows the powers of those utilizing religion as a mechanism to get OTHERS to follow the tenets of some provided religion, with exception of themselves. This argument has to be expanded upon to show why it is still 'practical' to be moral regardless of religion, something that Veritas*, here has been attempting.

Edit: made the mistake at the asterisk originally saying Advocate but meant Veritas, though I'm sure Advocate may share this too.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:16 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:46 pm
Now you need proof for that.

I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.

In the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.

In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:16 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:52 pm
I offer the same evidence that the religious offer for their beliefs.

In the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.

In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.

A "Gnostic" by Gnostic is not arguing as a 'mystic' but by the means that the original gnostics meant: THAT what scriptures and other religious records HIDE regarding mysterious entities has a SECULAR interpretation when properly addressed. I happen to feel the same and why I try to show how particular sources or origins of what has become 'religion' has some basis in secular reality that has DEVOLVED into myth. There was a danger to challenge those who interpret old documents incorrectly, especially when they turn them into LITERAL history or 'fact'. Thus the original 'mystics' can be understood in light of those like the MAGICIANS today who expose fraudulent thinking by demonstrating how people can easily get fooled. The ancient 'gnostics' may have been thought of as acting mystical because they learned to ask questions as responses and left some listeners hanging. That is because one could easily be killed for DIRECT offense of even another's weirdest claims.

He is not a 'mystic' in what you may be interpreting it is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:42 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:16 pm
In the cases of gratuitous mystics like yourself, perhaps.

In comparison to other cases, no, you don't offer anything. In fact, I've seen zero evidence from you so far, despite two requests.

A "Gnostic" by Gnostic is not arguing as a 'mystic' but by the means that the original gnostics meant: THAT what scriptures and other religious records HIDE regarding mysterious entities has a SECULAR interpretation when properly addressed.

Actually, Scott, I'm certain I have better information about the history and literature of the Gnostics than most people are likely to have. In fact, if you wish to debate their ancient writings, I have many of them on hand.

They were not secular. That's a very recent innovation, and one, I think, unlikely to stick. They are a religious sect that actually predates even Christianity, historically. That's why Paul was keen to refute them, using their own language, in Colossians and elsewhere.

One doesn't debate or refute a sect that doesn't exist yet. So we know for certain they predate Paul. There was no church when Gnosticism first appeared, and no "Gnostic Christians" until much later, although that word remains an oxymoron, since, as you see from earlier messages, the Gnostics hate the God of the Bible anyway. Their religosity takes a skeptical form in regard to that, on the one hand, even while they feverishly embrace the most bizarre speculative mysticisms about hierarchies of heavenly realms with the other hand.

Secularism and Gnosticism have only really got hooked up in the last fifty years or so, and increasingly with the new Techngonsticism sponsored by things like information technologies. Prior to that, they were thoroughly religious for thousands of years, and in a tacit sense, still remain very much so, although they've relocated their religious enthusiasm and hopes to things like modern technology.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:43 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:39 pm If you believe self-interest isn't sufficient for morality, i encourage to see how many self-interested results you get without morality.

Oh, many, many!

I get as many possessions as I desire. I get as many women as I desire. I can act with impunity to obtain anything I desire. Without morality, self-interest carries me toward some wonderful results. On the other hand, I can play selectively "good" and fool my neighbours so that I never pay any unpleasant consequences, either.

Since it is so clearly in their self-interest to be free of moral constraint, or at least selective in their application of it so as to maximize their self-interest, how do you justify telling anybody not to steal, molest, rape, burn, pollute, violate, and so on with impunity if they believe they can?

That's a child's level of morality. "Get whatever you can" has a much lower ceiling than "cooperate".

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:58 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:01 pm I offer logos, logic and reason.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:15 pm You spoke about knowing a lot about Gnostic Christianity,

First, we hold no supernatural belief.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:19 pm That's a child's level of morality. "Get whatever you can" has a much lower ceiling than "cooperate".

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:17 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:19 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 11:31 pm putting religion in it's proper place

Don't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.

Pacific Buddhists are burning Myanmar Rohingya villages and raping their women, with the blessing of Aung San Suu Kyi

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41566561

The only active evil laden religion at present is Islam whereas most of the major religions are constituted by an overriding pacifist maxim.

ROTFLMFHO
You are living in a dream world of your own belief.

• The Five precepts ... constitute the basic code of ethics to be undertaken by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from,
  • 1. killing living beings,
    2. stealing,
    3. sexual misconduct,
    4. lying and
    5. intoxication.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:23 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:19 am Don't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.

The central problem of religion isn't in how it's interpreted, it's in that it must be interpreted.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:22 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:19 pm That's a child's level of morality. "Get whatever you can" has a much lower ceiling than "cooperate".

A "ceiling" on what scale?

Nietzsche's scale held that "get whatever you can" is higher than "cooperate." Ayn Rand's likewise. Huxley's scale would say, "Survive, and let the weak die," not "cooperate."

So it's by no means evident that, unless you can justify your scale, what you are suggesting is true. You'll have to justify that claim.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:25 am Please refer to modern respectable theories of individuals' moral development by stages, beginning with Piaget.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:27 pm...they all really have no sensible answer for why evil exists at all.