s1eep

I don't see what's "obvious" about the suffering of species leading up to humans. Don't all species "suffer" to some extent? Or are you saying humans suffer more than other species because we have high intelligence? Does high intelligence increase suffering ("they obviously weren't suffering as much")?

South Africa is renown for it's third world suffering, but their lives and habitats were not always as broken as they are today. It's obvious that, because they evolved to the form of a human, prior stages in evolution (we supposedly came from monkeys), they were not suffering to the extent we see today, they were prosperous to have been selected to continue.

When you talk about "Africans", are you talking about human Africans? Because you also talk about billions of years before humans evolved, so it's a bit unclear.

 

Yes, human Africans.

Humans are no more "advanced" than any other species. That's not how evolution works. Other species aren't "advancing" towards becoming human. We just have high intelligence, but that alone isn't what gives us our adaptive capabilities and allow us some control over our environment.

 

I'm not being egotistical when I say advanced. As well as the other species humans are advanced, and I would say the fact they are at the top of the food chain on Earth is showing that they have worldly value, or nature, that is above other animals.

Suffering is yet another subjective assessment you're trying to generalize. Do you think everything is suffer-free in "nature"?

 

Nature considers things? Do you have any support for the idea of nature being capable of thought?

 

I don't understand why you brought this up, it seems completely out of context. Why do you mention this?

 

Again, I'm baffled. Within Africa, there are countless separate populations that are affected differently by changes in allele frequency. There is no single "African evolution", just as being African has absolutely no bearing on anything but geographical location. And I can't even begin to imagine how you're trying to tie another subjective concept like "suffering" to evolution or Africans in general. Baffling.

 

And since no one else did, I have to wonder why you feel the need to defend this stance. This is another example of your preconceptions causing you to argue from a "canned response" position. You create strawmen to battle but ignore the real arguments, what people are ACTUALLY saying.

 

I'd still like to know how you feel about bad things that create good things. Like a senseless death that galvanizes a community to make changes to prevent recurrence. If your definition of good requires that lesser goods be created, this senseless death seems to fill the bill.

You implied I hastily blamed nature for evils when you assumed I automatically thought these things (mentioned in your post) were 'bad'.

Let me rephrase my statement, rather than 'consider', 'treat', nature doesn't treat these things as though they were evil, they are treated as though they are relative. A relationship consists of two or more parties, and these parties co-exist, not separate to each other (lots of bubbles together, rather than each individual a bubble and no co-existence with other bubbles).

About Africans, for billions of years before they evolved to humans, they obviously weren't suffering as much. Humans are an advanced species, we don't come about through only passiveness, or only weakness, it takes hard work (years of survival, sometimes in tough conditions). It has not always been the case where South Africans were suffering. I'm basically agreeing with your words about how these things, that I may consider evil, aren't evil because of the science behind it. I didn't consider them evil, this is one of the reasons why. The application of my statement "we developed a sense of pain for a reason", is implying that pain is not evil but good.

 

This is another aggravating habit you've fallen into. Where did ANYONE even hint that "good is not real"? It's been said that good isn't an objective assessment, since it varies from person to person. It's like you have some canned responses you're bound and determined to drag out even if nobody is actually making an argument. Can you see this from our perspective?

 

I was pointing out the dangers of changing definitions on people you're having a discussion with, and you respond as if I said, "Hey, good isn't real". I didn't, I can support that by re-reading what I wrote. You should try this.

 

 

 

Would you like a short list of bad things that also create "lesser goods" (if I understand this made-up phrase correctly)?

 

Lying is bad, right? But as children, it's an important step in our development psychologically, since it signals the start of planning ahead for the best results. Lying tells parents their child is thinking about the future and how to make it better.

 

Breaking the law is bad, right? But if nobody broke the law, we'd never know that some laws are bad. My state no longer puts people in jail for A YEAR for smoking pot, but this would never have changed if so many people didn't break the law to show how silly it was.

 

Having a fever is a bad thing, right? But raising your body temperature is the body's way of killing off infections, which contributes to overall health.

 

Context is everything, and your redefined system seems to throw a big generalization blanket over the concept of good. I also don't understand why you mention "the judge of what's good is above them in the hierarchy (natural selection, planets to humans, etc)". This seems to imply that Earth is our judge on what is good. This assigns mental process capabilities to an inanimate object, which is every bit as supernatural as any deist position.

How is it not an objective assessment? We have hunger, which implies we are to eat or we are to die. this happens simultaneously and dynamically to thirst. I can objectively assess both objectives forced upon me through hunger and thirst, and come to the conclusion that I probably will do the good thing for the combined objective of survival. When matters that concern two or more parties are involved, then the objective assessment is between two people so even in the sense of communication and humanity I'm being rational. I have applied value to the human species in the form of nature's support of existence.

And I wouldn't consider any of these things bad, and it isn't considered bad by nature (it preserves); we developed a sense of pain for a reason; how did some Africans evolve to be Africans if they have always been suffering? I wasn't so hasty to blame nature for evils in the world...

It paves the way for civil war in western countries. I will never accept Islam...

Most societies would take the view that aiding a diseased human would be the ethical, i.e. good thing to do.

They have a different objective than the one I gave as an example.

And just because it's good for me doesn't mean it has to be good for you, there are some cases where the morality could be between two or more parties who faced a similar objective; such as, life on the planet.

 

In attempting to redefine commonly used terminology, you're effectively increasing the useless "noise" that the rest of us have to sift through to find the "signal" so we can understand what you're talking about. You put a bunch of words together like a tossed salad with no regard for how they sound to people who are used to mainstream terminology.

 

This all takes more time than many people feel it's worth, but you then make things worse by trying to defend your actions using more broken terminology, and even go so far as to claim what other people say is "invalid". You're getting so much pushback because you insist on reworking the dictionary, you assume AND insist you're right, and don't explain what you mean in a way we can understand. This is plainly a case where what's in your mind isn't coming across correctly.

 

"Because everything nature is to individuals within nature, I have defined as good; this is my starting point." You obviously know what this is supposed to mean, but I've tried several times and it makes no sense grammatically or scientifically. It's a HORRIBLE starting point if you can't explain it to others.

But if good is not real, what is it's importance as a word? I see no problem in changing it if there is a better suited definition, and I haven't strayed too far from the original definitions.

For aid with this thread, here are the original definitions of good:

The mind is free until it is forced to yield to hunger, thirst and tiredness, where it has to eat, drink and sleep if it wants to continue; there are times where we are objective, some objectives are more significant to us than others (such as eating, drinking and seelping); we are not fully purposeless when we consider the bond we share with nature...

 

And you still haven't defined what this means. How does one decide whether the universe is good? How does one quantify goodness? What is the metric for assessing this? i.e. how do you make the objective rather than subjective?

Again, I am redefining good, so imagine there wasn't already a concept for good and evil.

I said it in one thread, what is a term we use to describe "deliciousness' for one objective, and 'coolness' we use to describe another? I'm spotting a pattern in the full and cohesive whole of the universe.

Because everything nature is to individuals within nature, I have defined as good; this is my starting point. It's good on account of the lesser goods it creates; and they are good because the judge of what's good is above them in the hierarchy (natural selection, planets to humans, etc)

How is it stupid?

I theorize that Nature is a "greater good", and creates lesser goods that harmonize with it. Ultimately, I'm suggesting the universe is good, but I'm redefining good, taking it away from religious belief into rationality.

The planet is a prime example of nature acting as a greater good amongst lesser goods, this is by no means an insult to their goodness, the term ‘lesser’ refers only to the dimensions (such as size) of humans and animals on the planet; they are ultimately good.

Why are they good, what defines them as good? Everything has to be good in accordance with the nature that homes them (i.e. planet Earth), or they cease to exist; so nature decides what’s good and evil (ourselves most explicitly), it is the greater good that we can either harmonize or de-harmonize with, and most significantly for us, the planet.

We can be relaxed with the definition of good, it can be used in the useful and real sense, where, for example, I would not go near a diseased human because that would be “evil” in accordance with my objective, which is to live. If we rationalize and highlight in our minds, our home planet, Earth, and use our objective (mental capabilities) minds, we can find out what’s good and evil for the livelihood on this planet. Good and evil exist as real concepts, it’s not all spurring from the bible, or God. You don’t have to picture morality as something exclusive to an out-of-dimension observer who judges you at the end, as there is a useful way to use good and evil that has actual beneficent or maleficent effects on our lives.

 

Wow, thanks. I appreciate your removing any and all restrictions on the way I reference this subject. I'll still try to stick to statements I can support.

I don't have anything to say...

Okay, let me explain again, and then I'll respond to whatever you say.

I agree that like-mindedness can be dangerous, but as you said, in physics, surrounding yourself with like-minded people is actually productive, but I suppose we still need to assess it's danger.

I guess like-mindednes is danger-inherent, but it's in my belief this danger can be overcome with mental power

Said in a serious, good-willed yet depressed tone, "we should only think about sex".

The author(s) of the bible are what I would call the "final boss".

I stand with nature, for I can sense inevitable inferiority.

Whatever...

I agree with the OP to some extent.

Existence is not 'tranquil' (and the semantics I'm using here are something along the lines of "lack of magic", "lack of imagination"); and what I mean by that is, we can imagine things different from the self, and we are affected by other things.

It's not all about oneself, and to think that the self as this depiction from the third person, does not address a majority of the nature about the self experienced from the first person.

"No-one has a right to be wrong", does not imply I'm right, and it's not saying it's impossible to be wrong. It could be what's beneficent for an objective, again, "prosperity of the human species" (in which case I would be right).

 

Maybe the problem is with the interpretation of "like-minded".

 

It's one thing to have goals you've assessed as positive and helpful, and then to surround yourself with people who are striving for the same goals. As long as the goals are productive (by whose judgement?), this seems like a great way to enhance the process.

 

It seems to be completely different when you just want to be around people who think the way you do. Is this one of those instances where what you think you want and what you need are different? An old friend used to tell me, "If you and I thought exactly alike, one of us would be unnecessary". I can see where it might be comforting to hear someone parroting the same things you say, but I don't think we grow as much intellectually if we're not mentally challenged on a regular basis.

"Like-mindedness for like-mindedness' alone is dangerous, but with a reason such as "prosperity of the human species", it becomes something, which enhances the process, it is essentially a way to accomplish the goal. Sometimes it's good to see things out to the end.

I agree that people should accept other perspectives to challenge their own, but I don't think one should neglect the objective of one perspective if it is important.

For example, I don't think anyone should have a right to be wrong; I'm sure of this, should I accept other perspectives, but wouldn't these be the ones I've deemed as guilty?

 

I don't usually think of cults this way. Do you have any links to supportive evidence? I usually think of cult leaders as charismatic individuals who sway rather than force, which means their "flock" often comes to them for guidance. I wouldn't think they'd need to bother with those who aren't already predisposed to their mindset.

Sin is a broad subject in religions, they obviously have studied sin to some degree.

There was a case with Eliot Rodger (the murderer), where religious people were close to him, being supportive, general interest in his problems. Priests often turn up in mental hospitals or prisons, but I haven't got scientific proofs, no, just my own observation.

And as for the first part of your post, I can see dangers where the Earth was concerned too, but I cannot apply it to every case of surrounding yourself with "like-minded" people, some wouldn't be dangerous at all, and are actually productive, as you mentioned with physics.

There is danger inherent with this natural phenomena, but not all cases are dangerous, as you said sometimes it's profitable. I think it is rational when applied to real stressing issues, such as the mind, or the planet.

A lot of cultists are attracted to the people that aren't like them, and try to force their beliefs upon others, or even merely observe these people because it entertains them; cults often have wide-interest in those alien to their beliefs.

 

But then in comes Islam to fill the gap that Christians leave. The sooner the Middle East is Westernised, the better.

That's a very racist way of putting things... Why not Easternized?

It seems that God-believers think that God would work well with society if it was everywhere, because the methodology applied in the bible can be helpful. This is true to some extent, but by no means is this a reflection of God, it's not God's work, it's written word (by human hand); if anything, people with a perception that the bible supports (is evidence of) God, are truly highlighting the aptitude of humans to follow teachings and laws without the need for law enforcement (the work in the bible, beyond God, applied in society).

Just saying, don't confuse the concept of God and the concepts written further in the bible... The highlighted goodness of the bible (i.e. it's technicality, the way it works), is not proving God is true, but rather humans are able to some extent.

What is a word we use to describe all the "usefulness" for one objective, and "deliciousness" to another, and so on?

Yeah, we try to avoid letting one person figuratively crap on another person. How awful to be forced to visit the site and be censored in that way.

That was addressed earlier by Phi for All,

To add to what I said in my last post---this is ironic, it seems as though you two are socially conditioned the same... You will say the same semantics that are centred around the objective of moderating the board, which I said I had no problem with; I'm treating it as evidence for discussion.

This is good practical advice.

It may be good advice, for being an average kind of victor, but there are more important matters than politics, in my opinion, such as the world and the human condition, that are greater victories.

And whether or not you think morality is insignificant or not, it's there, in the relaxed sense I'm using it to describe the possible beneficent or maleficent actions in light of an objective. And it being there is a good thing and helps me to progress with some of the problems I face when proving that people are being evil towards the Earth; not to mention making the suppressing of religious stupidity harder because they are the accepted representatives of morality. I think that objective morality is a rational morality. What is a word we use to describe all the "usefulness" for one objective, and "deliciousness" to another, and so on? I think good fits quite well.

 

Making pronouncements without regard to any dissenting point of view or other contradiction. That would include repeating what you say without addressing points others bring up, or not backing up claims of fact with credible sources.

 

Let's compare:

 

 

How did I do? And what is unclear about the statement of the rule?

 

But that's not the entirety of the description. Additional context is given in the rule, quoted above.

Okay, then I am wrong.

 

Very well said. And exactly the way science should work, updating always to the best supported explanations.

 

And this is the part a preacher will probably never understand. They have no intention of ever changing their minds. They don't feel the need to "update [their] own thinking" because they've joined here to spread the word about the idea they've locked onto (thus closing their minds to discussion in any form). They falsely consider their own logic to be faultless and ignore efforts to show them otherwise.

 

They're happy to take questions from the audience gathered around their soapbox, but they don't really want anyone trying to refute their Truth.

To be honest, I do update my thinking anyway, but I'll have to come out here, I find myself advancing faster through debate.

I'll take your advice though, but I have many ideas of my own that I'd like to clear up first. If something I find more rational comes along, I'll probably change for the better.

I'm no preacher, I just have a very unique perspective on many subjects; what I say is controversial, they are new things, and if true, it changes things. I guess, maybe that is what I'm trying to do, change things, but it's not for my own benefit. And I'm by no means preaching beliefs, I'm trying to articulate on my beliefs, otherwise, I wouldn't believe in them.

I find it hard to put trust in other scientists when we live in a reality that is supremely artificial. A lot of people have no concern for the pure things, like trust. That doesn't mean I will say you're incorrect, if you are correct, but I wouldn't go to you first.