dimreepr

Rito, thanks for not trying... I guess...

It mean's, perhaps you should read my posts a second time too, with your spec's off...

Rito 🙄

No, it's because they recognise that they can have a bias, they don't recognise... So, it's a semantic difference.

Maybe worth an etymological study, to find the difference.

Why do you think scientists insist on a double blind study, when appropriate? We all have a bias, even those who believe they don't.

Fairytales, more often than not, contain a moral lesson; for instance, as an adult you have learned that killing more than you can eat now will lead to starvation tomorrow. A lesson that states the reason's in a dry/abstract way, just whistles soundlessly over head; but give the animal a 'proxy god' and make up a story in which the 'proxy god' knows when you're just killing for fun and also knows the best way to hurt you; which is a good enough lesson, until they understand why...

Clearly that's a bad choice of word's, since I'm definitely not a nihilist and my point was meant to be, athiesm has to be taught (nuture) because our nature is to believe.

As, I think, touched on earlier in this thread, true athiesm believes in nothing, which can't be nature. "Every true faith is infallible. It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it." - Nietzshe We all believe in the small God's, especially our personalised one's; the god of the traffic lights, for instance, that turns them to green when we flash our light's on approach, or the god of the game that only helps our team when we wear the correct sock. That's our nature, which is moulded by our culture; and once in a blue moon is questioned by a member.

I wonder if you'd be saying that 100 year's ago? The parable of the madman, is nearly always out of date.

Okay... I guess you have to walk a mile in another man's shoes, if want a blister.

No, not when you take into account the context of his life. Besides, if you search for a truth you expect to find, you can't be scared of it.

In this case it's just a matter of ease, I was listening to a podcast on my google tab, and I had that image saved. It's only a poor approximation of the real translation/quote (but close enough) that was taken from a letter he sent to his sister explaining, if memory serves, why he's turned his back on the church. Every true faith is infallible. It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search. Friedrich Nietzsche

I only introduced it as an illustration of what you were saying, also in keeping with OP, his belief and then rejection of God was due to his father (devote priest), and his illness and death, which is a big tick for nurture, because his nature is very rational and deep thinking, until, later in life, his decent into mental illness.

That's up to you. We could discuss how your interpretion of his work differs from mine, or we could discuss how he basically answer's the OP, with his body of work.

I think, trying to solve the problem is only complicated because we think it has to be solved within the current economic system; which seems determined to crash into the mountain, rather than land before we get there. The human race can afford to house and feed everyone...

What did Kant say about religion?

Indeed, although I had to read your posts in the truth conversation twice, once with me spec's off. I think Nietzsche spent his life, once he lost his faith, trying to find a replacement for God, for the athiest.

Sounds like "a brave new world"...

You could just spit it out, but that would be rude... 🙂

Because you're talking about it, instead of grinning... 😉

Which is what we've all argued against, several times. Imagine you're just minding your own business, going about your daily routine, not necessarily happy but content to survive on the floor, where they've fallen, until a Samaritan offers a helping hand. What your offering, is a contract that state's "if you can't get yourself off the floor, it's the hemp fandango.". Don't imagine that you're immune to life.

No one is asking you too, it's up to you if you want to aquire a taste; so, why are you still arguing about it? If you don't like it, don't taste it; but you'll have to accept a certain amount of societal pushback, think of it like your mother saying "if you don't eat your greens, you can't have any pudding.": the other side of the coin, so to speak, IOW sometimes it's better to just grin and bear it; it's not a poison, it's just yuk. 😝 See above. 🙄

I doubt I can teach you anything, but it's worth a try...

The merits of eugenics is as specious as your argument... 🙄