Besides the Nicomachean Ethics, these (more or less contemporaneous) works come to mind as proponents of secular morality: Confucius' Analects, Plato's Euthyphro, Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus, Epictetus' Discourses ... — 180 Proof

Given that we are on a philosophy website, this is fair. But you have to speak to your audience. Nobody in his right mind on this website read the above works, other than possibly you and for sure philoso4. (I forgot how s/he spells his/her moniker exactly). Maybe three or four others. But to the present correspondents (including to me) your post is a fallacy of appeal to authority. You are not making an argument; you are referring the argument, and it is correct in a group where people are familiar with those works, but here it's inappropriate.

All that those atheists and humanists above are doing is copying some of the moral principles from religion and leaving out the references to God or karma. — baker

You got it backward. It is the humanist and atheists above that have a grip on what morality is, and the religious pulled in God or Karma to make it palatable to themselves.

Nobody owns morality. It is a human trait, that can't be given and can't be taken away. You think that it's God-given; I think it is a product of evolution.

You think everything is god-given; I think nothing is god-given.

There is no argument. Neither by you, nor by me. I can't prove everything is not god-given; you can't prove anything is god-given. It is a matter of faith, belief, weltanschauung. To argue that you have the truth and for me to argue that I have the truth is futile. This is purely a matter of faith or belief, and therefore nobody has the upper hand on the other.

The upper hand only can be applied if the two notions can be unified, the two notions being "God created the world and everything in it" and "no god created anything", which two notions will never be unified, so the upper hand will never be applied rightfully.

I've no idea what you're talking about. — 180 Proof

Well, that's sad. I was writing about your writing style, and pointed out some fundamental mistakes in it.

But since you did not get it, there must be some fundamental problems in my writing style, too.

silly — Jackson

Agreed.

. Knowing the mean is not the same as acting on it. — Jackson

Unless you are a mean sort of fella.

There were three guys from Sparta
Each had a mean sort of phalla.
They cleaned up the town
Their leader went down
In history books as Fella.

Do you think fish would invent and make bicycles if they could? Like, most of them would get one? — Bylaw

if someone, anyone, could do something, do you think they would do it or not do it?

Think of a carpenter: he or she could make a table or a kitchen cabinet, but instead he or she starts a new religion afresh from a stale old one.

Would you continue the relationship, and treat this finding as permission to give full vent to your most sadistic, narcissistic fantasies? (Polls are anonymous) — hypericin

It does not work that way. A true sadist never finds true satisfaction, because he or she does not feel the pain of the victim. This is why sadism / masochism is oft a flip-flop switch. If s/he does not feel his/her victim's pain, then s/he does not feel s/he is inflicting pain. If the subject is a zombie, then the sadist is even farther removed from his/her goal, which is inflicting pain.

This is why trying to inflict pain in bartricks is a losing endeavour. S/he is truly a troll; a rock-eating, heave-ho mountain troll. She has no feelings, she is a badly written A/I program that went loose cannon. To shut her up is impossible by holding a mirror to her; to shut her up you need to not respond to her.

"Sentience" may be epiphenomenal and serve no more of a function than color-sightedness. — 180 Proof

If this practice of skepticism was followed through thoroughly and logically and truly, then you'd need to put every word in quotes whatever you write.

I think you'd do better by following the language convention according to the unwritten rules of the convention, instead of making maverick exceptions with select words, that are illogically unconnected to the context of your selection.

To wit: function is an epiphenomenon.
Wit is an epiphenomenon.
Be is an epiphenomenon.

I have more and more respect for you as the time goes by and the more I read of your posts, but you actually ANGER :death: :naughty: :rage: :fire: :vomit: me with your illogical writing style.

Nobody has ever proposed a theory to explain everything — Cuthbert

Sure they did. Lots of religious writers have. "God is the culprit." Or words to that effect.

:-)

Pyrrhonianism, fallibilism and actualism, respectively. — 180 Proof

I have no clue what any of those three keywords mean.

No big deal, just sayin'.

It might be a lot simpler just to list the paradigm shifts in empirical science over the past 400 years — Joshs

why did I not think of that. Anyhow, 180 proof did precisely that, so we owe him a thanks.

It made perfect sense the original way.

What was the answer? — Joshs

It was not THE answer; it was AN answer.

I think there has been progress in philosophy.

Not too much, and the steps of progress are hindered by counter-arguments, but the hindering is done mainly by lay philosophers, not by professional ones.

Steps I know of:
1. rejection of deities' ruling the world and supernatural forces exerting influence on the natural world.
2. rejection of our perception of reality as a reliable thing to depend on to know what's out there. (Plato.)
3. "Cogito Ergo Sum" -- the only thing that is empirical knowledge yet it is proven to be necessarily true.
4. recognition of causation being a potentially mistaken effect, due to recurring coincidences. (Hume.)
5. recognition of empirical methods being useful. I can't tie it to one single philosopher.
6. Darwin's and the newer scientific neo-Darwinist evolution-theory. Evolution is a mechanism, in principle, and it's applied to living things, in practice.
7. recognition of illogical events in the real world, that defy the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. (Quantum theory.) This has given rise to the thought that the a priori truths we all accept as infallible are a product of our evolutionary minds. Our evolutionary minds never had to deal with things, because they never observed them, like going from place A to place B without traversing the distance between A and B.

I am not a professional philosopher. The professionals mainly deal (in my imagination, and I need to be corrected if necessary) with micro-issues in philosophy, such as "if the Earth was a breast, where would its nipple be?" (originally asked by my teacher and master, Paul. A. S.) — god must be atheist

A Theory That Explains Everything Explains Nothing
I can't give a proof that this is necessarily so. But I can give one example that supports the proposition.

God. Everything is created, moved, and manipulated by god.

That explains everything, and yet it explains nothing about the dynamics of the causal world.

I don't know... somebody answered the topic's question, and it got no attention. Instead, people here exchange maxims and quotes from those who they think are / were much smarter than themselves.

A patent lack of discipline to stay with the topic or even bother about the topic. Everyone instead just blathers on about anything that comes to their mind.

This is philosophy at its best.

Humans need god like a fish needs a bicycle.

No, you can have something proven as a base that begins the system. — Philosophim

I don't understand. You mean an axiom, or a subsystem inside of the system that is proved by other parts of the system? In that case it's still the case that the subsystem is proved by something outside of itself. If it's an axiom you talk about, then it's not a proof, but something given that is accepted to be true; no proof exists to prove axioms.

If you say that the base that begins the system (originates it? Creates it?) is part of the system, that can't be, because nothing can create itself. Things can be thought to have existed since infinite past, but they were not begun. If they are made to begin, then they are created, and they are created by an outside thing.

Smith said that he is not 100%... we each have our good days and our bad days. It was a bit surprising to see this happen, but no big deal, I have survived greater mishaps. Like back in 1974, when my shoelace broke during the national elections... And Smith apologized, which is fine, but the shoelace factory did not.

So, tell me, why is it that a theory that explains everything explains nothing.? — Agent Smith

Now I have to explain everything?? :smile:

It's an even bigger strawman than you described. It's not question of whether a theory can explain everything... the question is whether a theory can PROVE everything. That's what the OP asks. I already closed that, saying theories don't prove anything, they only explain.

EDIT: the original post originally said different things than the original post. Some people need to be more precise from the get-go.

Can you show me where exactly I picked cherries? — Agent Smith

No, I can't. If you can't see it already, then there is no amount of explanation in the world that will make you see it. Sorry, I have my limitations of patience, too.

A theory that proves everything. — Agent Smith

You're right. A theory is not a proof. It is a substantiated explanation.

So the original statement is wrong, ad obo. "A theory that proves everything" in and by itself is a false proposition.

I missed that.

Threats, no matter how remote, must be assumed to exist — Agent Smith

In scenario 2, the suitcase may contain a bomb. That is remotely possible and must be assumed to exist. It may contain Satan himself who will grab you. eTc.

Opportunities, no matter how attractive, must be assumed not to exist. — Agent Smith

If I go to school, and enroll in University to become a certified public accountant, I must assume that certified public accountants do not exist.

I don't think your assessment is right. Anything can contain a nearly infinite number of threats; and anything can contain a nearly infinite number of opportunities.

You cherry picked the ones to suit your finding; but if you dig deeper, you will see the error in that cherry-picking is the easiest fault in logic to spot.

I take a different angle on this.

The everything is a closed system.

Proof requires something outside of a system.

There is nothing outside of everything.

Therefore if everything attempts to prove itself, it fails, because it invokes nothing from the outside of everything to make the proof valid.

You are saying in the three examples that being pessimistic is better than being optimistic; being cautious is better than being foolhardy; and that being forewarned is better to heed to than not to heed to.

I can see where you are going with this: better to live a Christian life and accept its beliefs, because if there is no god, you lose nothing but if there is a God then you can only gain. Or if you don't follow a god's wishes, you'll end up in Hell.

This breaks down (sorry to say this), because:
1. You don't know what gets you to Hell or to Heaven given there is a judgmental god. If He says "do good and you go to heaven", you can believe it but you'll be in for a great surprize because the god you worship is a liar. (If he is. I don't know, but it is a real possibility.) You say he can't be a liar because he is god. Well, that's the safest thing to be for a liar, because nobody would suspect he is a liar.

2. Your god is not the one to listen to, because he does not exist, but a counter-god exists, (possible? yes!) with diametrically opposite teachings.

3. You will convince nobody, as I have never convinced a god-worshipper of the above. Logic does not trump belief.

I think there has been progress in philosophy.

Not too much, and the steps of progress are hindered by counter-arguments, but the hindering is done mainly by lay philosophers, not by professional ones.

Steps I know of:
1. rejection of deities' ruling the world and supernatural forces exerting influence on the natural world.
2. rejection of our perception of reality as a reliable thing to depend on to know what's out there. (Plato.)
3. "Cogito Ergo Sum" -- the only thing that is empirical knowledge yet it is proven to be necessarily true.
4. recognition of causation being a potentially mistaken effect, due to recurring coincidences. (Hume.)
5. recognition of empirical methods being useful. I can't tie it to one single philosopher.
6. Darwin's and the newer scientific neo-Darwinist evolution-theory. Evolution is a mechanism, in principle, and it's applied to living things, in practice.
7. recognition of illogical events in the real world, that defy the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. (Quantum theory.) This has given rise to the thought that the a priori truths we all accept as infallible are a product of our evolutionary minds. Our evolutionary minds never had to deal with things, because they never observed them, like going from place A to place B without traversing the distance between A and B.

I am not a professional philosopher. The professionals mainly deal (in my imagination, and I need to be corrected if necessary) with micro-issues in philosophy, such as "if the Earth was a breast, where would its nipple be?" (originally asked by my teacher and master, Paul. A. S.)

I am hopeless at remembering members by their identifying user names. A few stick in my mind, but Streetlight's did not.

So I ask anyone to enlighten me please: was Streetlight an atheist scientist, or a religious person? For the life of me, I can't remember at all.

I read four pages about his banning, and from that I learned: he was angry, he turned political, he was feisty, and he had been well-versed in academic philosophy. But none of these tell me about his basic belief system.

I know I've encountered a few fanatic political fanatics here, mainly those of the extreme left. I am a lefty myself, but these guys were insanely leftists. I can' t remember the user name of any of them.

Your opinion "So this goes to show that America has not adopted the German education system of Nazi Germany" — Athena

You countered this with America's history of marginalizing visible minorities and at times, killing them.

Which came first in your opinion? The war on Indians, the Slavery of Africans, or Nazi Germany?

Then you continued to say that America has adopted the German education system of teaching technological subjects, when America has adopted the enemy's system.

Which came first? The German education system, or Naziism?

You are all over the place, and your timeline needs straightening.

I mean, you make general statements without observing the facts first. Yes, I don't read your posts end-to-end because it hurts to see so many absolutely jumbled reasons and to see and ending with an unsubstantiated point.

Please apply more discipline in your thinking, then in your writing.

Perhaps those failed democracies might yet be repaired by a sufficiently pissed-off middle class expecting a government to make decisions on the basis of reason rather than ideology. — Banno

In Canada, the motto of most ruling political parties is "We steal as much as we can possibly get away with." Is that reason, ideology, or is it decision making in the first place? :-)

Trump supporters were not brainwashed but both Trump and Hitler were appealing to people. That is good showmanship, not exactly government control brainwashing. — Athena

In the case of Germany, it was. Textbooks were permeated by slogans and snippets of "truth".

So this goes to show that America has not adopted the German education system of Nazi Germany. In this aspect at least. I think that's what you said at one point and that's what I found exception with.

As to not reading your posts properly, guilty as charged. I find your style hard to comprehend. You make no points, but write a flux of ideas and you are enthusiastic about some of them, but it's hard, at least for me, to grasp your points. To me it seems that your points that you actually state are not related to what you write in the surrounding text.

I find it a bit disturbing, because if I raise an objection against a point you make, then you will refer to other parts of your text where you deny that point, or mix them up and confuse your debating opponent totally.

Just my experience with reading your posts, please don't pay any heed to it if you don't want to.

True. However, evidence may be compelling in cases of dispute about opinions. ()
— god must be atheist

Please, provide examples of compelling evidence. I am having a hard time understanding your meaning. — Athena

Christianity has no evidence of the validity of their faith. This website is replete with arguments between Christian thinkers and atheists, and atheists show evidence why Christianity is a false belief, and yet the overwhelming amount of evidence still don't daunt the Christians to admit where their faith shows logical impossibilities. That's what I meant by saying "All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule." Because to them evidence is not compelling in cases of dispute.

That's exactly what I typed, and I am sorry you had a hard time with comprehending, or found it impossible to understand the meaning. I hope you get it now.

Here are our present core subjects

Math: Four years – often includes algebra, geometry and trigonometry
English: Four years – covers classic and period literature, drama, research, and writing
Science: Three classes – often involves biology, chemistry and physics
History: Three classes – U.S. history, world history and civics are common requirements
Foreign Language: Two years (sometimes optional) – Spanish, French and German are long-standing offerings, but Japanese, Chinese and Russian are increasingly popular
Physical Education: Two years – can often be replaced by approved after-school activities
Computers: Two classes – typing, office programs and web standards are just a start
Health: One class – nutrition, disease, sexuality and first aid are often covered — Athena

This is DEFINITELY not the Nazi German model.

Nazi Germany made Biology compulsory, as it purported to point out differences between races.

In Nazi Germany, students were brainwashed to idolize Hitler, and to hate Jews. The slogans permeated all textbooks.

In Nazi Germany education focussed on the greatness of the German nation, on the diminutive worth of the individual and on the importance of maintaining a German nation by exerting special efforts by each individual.

Heroism and patriotism was high in the curriculum.

However, the curriculum's core subjects did not change much from the curriculum of the Weimar Republic.

---------------

In comprarison, and I am winging it, because I don't have any direct experience with education in the USA, I don't think the schools in the USA promote racial hatred, but strive to do exactly the opposite; they don't have personal worship of one particular politician; the students are not told that it is a good way of life to sacrifice one's own freedom, free speech, free choice of religion in order to sustain the nation; and pupils in the USA are taught that individuality is okay, libertarianism is okay, (which is in direct opposition to the Nazi German totalitarianism), and that democracy is where it's at (opposed to Nazi Germany's state ideology).

Now, when you said the USA has adopted the German education system: I have no data or understanding the USA system, but the statement is sweeping and can be misinterpreted:

It may mean USA has adopted:
- the curriculum
- the methodology
- the rigor
- the spiritual brainwashing and brainwashing of values
- the teaching of idealized lifestyle
etc.

You did not say which of the above aspects of the education system of Nazi Germany has the USA adopted, but I assure you, not all aspects, that's for sure. The curriculum and the rigor is missing, but the brainwashing is a similar feature. However, the topics and directions in the brainwashing is completely opposite to each other, so different: In Nazi Germany, the brainwashing involved a worship of the leader, the nation and the cause, whereas in America the brainwashing involves a worship of freedom, God, and Christian values.

if there’s no free will, there’s nothing to discuss, because the outcome of any discussion is already predetermined, so it’s not worth having. — Wayfarer

Except the discussers don't know the outcome until they reach the end of the discussion.

Also, if there is no discussion, then the ACTIONABLES arising from that discussion are not going to happen.

Therefore discussions must happen, despite the fact that they will predictably end in one resolution (if they do). The reason is that no human mind can predict the end result of the discussion therefore we must carry it out in order to find the resolution.

Are the only arguments for determinism assuming the universe is a clock? — TiredThinker

Bad assumption. The universe is not like a clock. It is more like a rugby game, or a well-planned vacation in Europe.

Those who have excellent values correlate highly with those who are very intelligent according to empirical studies. It is predictable that someone who has what people rate as usually possessing "a good character" will also be considered as "a reasonable" individual (most of the time.)" — Marvin Katz

I am afraid that a benchmark had to be made to establish what "excellent values" are. The studies are made by highly intelligent people. So the "excellent values" are also determined by highly intelligent people (because they are the ones capable of creating studies). Hence, I call bias, because "excellent values" may be the "excellent values" of the highly intelligent, but not in an absolute scale. The not-so-intelligent have values, and to them they are "excellent values".

This is a dilemma, because there is no absolute scale of what "excellent values" comprise. If you ask the highly intelligent, they tend to give different answers than the not-so-highly intelligent. But only the highly intelligent have a voice when creating studies. So... this may be the same structure as calling some of the population virtuous, the other part not virtuous... and it's always the virtuous who decide who is who.

I think... it was John Lennon that said there was no such thing as an original idea, or something along those lines — MonfortS26

Yes, but it was not original. Machiavelli said that, too, and so did Omniprotharos. Before them, Kostas Soumapoupoupulus, and before that, Skippy, the Nero said that. And before that, Moses said that, and before that, Kain said that.

No one is forced to believe anything. — Athena

True. However, evidence may be compelling in cases of dispute about opinions. (All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule.)

Do you mean you wonder why I say the US adopted the German model of education for technology for industrial and military purposes? — Athena

I am afraid you are not familiar with the pre-war educational system and curriculum in Germany. I am not familiar with it either, so it's a battle of opinions. I base my opinion on my own experience.

In my country, Hungary, all students had to take all subjects. All the way to the top of high school. Then they had to matriculate seniorly in four subjects (recently), and six subjects (before WWII). One of the matriculate subjects were technical (math) and three were in the humanities (history, Russian as a foreign language, and literature). A student could elect to matriculate in an extra subject. Biology, a second second language, chemistry, geography, physics, masturbation, and philosophy (of sorts). Music, i.e. singing, gym and art were all compulsory throughout the entire span of education, but were not matriculand subjects.

Was the German model different? I don't know. I'll research it.

may not entail any interesting correlation between stupidity and religiosity. — Cuthbert

You're right about that. My point alone is that it is the status quo. That's where my point ends. I admit WE DON'T KNOW if this is a caused statistic, or a random one.