Do atheists actively not want God to exist? . . . However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

I think atheists don't want god to exist in the same way that theist hope god will forgive them.

That's why we have diplomats.

I learned a long time ago that their are different elements within a "side" of an issue, and that each of them plays a role. It's a "good cop/bad cop" routine where sometimes the good cop and the bad cop actually do hate each other, actually do disagree with the other cops methods and approach, and actually see each other's approach as counter-productive. Indeed, the opposition often tries to use this schism against both, dividing and conquering. But at the end of the day, it is one side against the other and those in the middle of the road are likely to get run over. The two different factions have a common enemy and that enemy needs to go down, one way or the other.

"You can go easy or you can go hard, but you're going."

That's the unintentional or intentional genius of something that can be read as conjunctive or conditional. The enemy is called upon to discern the intent or risk looking bad in killing a conjunctive person; creating a martyr.

There is a simple answer to this question: Ask it. It's usually asked like this "Are you threatening me?"

You're missing out. — NOS4A2

So long as I am missing out, we all have to stand here on our own two feet.

You see all those evils against which they fought as the state and the mob. I see their appeal (somewhat successful) was to the very state you decry, in an effort to overcome a mob composed of a bunch of individualists demanding their right to be left alone to oppress them. Regardless, they didn't get what they got by going it alone. And they were realistic about that.

Case and point. — Tzeentch

I guess those who champion individualism need to pin it down. Every time anyone else tries, it's like nailing Jell-O to the wall. If it's simply "every individuals right to self-determination", then where does one individuals right to self-determination end and another's begin; and who is going to referee conflict between the two?

Another thought on feminism: The forces against which feminism seems to be struggling are perceived by me as individualist males who don't extend the individualist notion to include women. Women are chattel. As I understand it, most forms of government that the individualist hates are actually more egalitarian when it comes to the sexes.

I think the first to second wave of feminism was inherently individualist. It's hard to roll your eyes reading the abolitionist and woman's rights champions like Sojourner Truth, Angelina Grimke, or the anarchism of Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre. — NOS4A2

I've never read any of them so I'll have to defer to you on that.

Feminism is a movement and movements, while made up of individuals, requires communal effort for any traction. I don't see women as being adverse to that.

Personally, I can't think of anything more individualist than the concept of pro-choice (I'm happy to ignore those who say "What about the baby's choice?"). But from my own personal life experience, most women I know have a much more realistic understanding of, and comfort with the individual's place in the order of things, than do men. That place is grateful for and accepting of reliance upon the group. The whole "it takes a village" idea tracks well with my understand of a female orientation. And that orientation is not so "individualist" in my understanding of the "don't tread on me" attitude of those who don't want anyone meddling with them.

I'm not saying there isn't a female out there branded as "individualist", but I don't often see them flying the flag. I think that, all in all, they have a more balanced approach to the idea of individualism and that which individualism would abhor. I don't have a good grasp on the latter, because every time you try to pin a self-identified individualist down, they slime around with some excuse as to why they avail themselves of the benefits of an intrusive government. The point is, women don't seem as "either/or" to me. If there was an either/or, I think they'd come down on the side of the non-individualist, like most reasonable people.

That's just my anecdotal take on it.

Sexist. :roll: — Harry Hindu

Me, or individualism, or both?

Let us not wallow in our pity, let us celebrate our suffering! — Nagel

There you go. :up:

what are your thoughts? — Charlotte Thomas-Rowe

Well, again, I'm not so sure I understand what was being said, and I may be missing the mark, but when I was a little boy I could will my will. I remember a time, when I was about 5 or 6 or so, when I would somehow become aware of a way that I would like to be. I would acknowledge that will once, at night, before falling asleep. Then, maybe four or five days later, it had become an indelible part of my personality. It only happened about four or five times, over the course of a year or so, before life got in the way, and I fell off of that ability for some reason. I had willed what I would will.

I can't remember what all the wills were, but one of them was to be a good person. Another was siding with the underdog. I can't seem to shake those characters, try as I might. I can remember one other incident, but I don't want to share the details. Suffice it to say, the specifics were a waste of will; but the general lesson that I could will my will was itself not waste, and therefore worth it.

Now that I'm slowing down, I'm trying to re-attain that ability. But a lifetime of experience may present an obstacle. We'll see, I guess.

We have will, but it ain't free. It's going to cost you. And it will accost you.

Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer. — Charlotte Thomas-Rowe

I started to pen some thoughts on this, contesting it, but I figure I should step back and have someone explain it to me; make sure I understand what is being said. I haven't read the whole thread, so if my curiosity would be satisfied by doing so, I apologize. Just lazy.

It seems everything physical that is also meaningful on a metaphysical level which
involves humans also involves shit. What a coincidence! — god must be atheist

:grin:

Just thinking out loud here, but reading this thread, and thinking about individualism, it strikes me as, somehow, inherently masculine. When I think of women reading and thinking about this, I envision a lot of eye-rolling. :roll:

Sorry to break it to you champ, but humans ARE animals. — Seditious

Everyone who forgets that just needs to think about it next time they are taking a shit.

:100:

:sparkle:

However, the thing which I am puzzled about is why do you want the briefest definition when it is such a complex topic? — Jack Cummins

I just saw a video on LinkIn of a chick picking up a snake and moving it from an urban walkway over to a water body and some reeds, while other people freaked. The caption: "Any fool can do something complex; it takes a genius to do something simple." (Pete Seeger) Spark! I'm a genius! LOL!

I'm no biologist, but it's my understanding the firing of a synapse involves electricity, and that the body has electrical impulses firing all the time, in the heart and whatever. I don't know when this starts, at conception, or even before. But I can imagine the creation of everything absent a spark, in which case we have a meat bag.

How, why, when, what, I don't know, but I think we get a jump start and then POW! there you have life. I think that spark is eternal and it doesn't go away before or after death. It may change forms, it may flip to matter and back again, or not. But I think it comes into us, branching off but connected, and then flows back into the whole when we die. From death's perspective, we never left, we were never separate, we where always part of it, like a finger to a hand, a hand to an arm, and arm to a torso, a torso to a human, a human to All, and everything else. Sometimes All will stare at it's finger and say "This is good." And it is. Except when it's not.

It may be total BS, but I like the visual of a mass of enzymes and whatnot floating around as a glob in an ancient sea and then BAM! a lighting bolt comes down out of a storm cloud and the rest is history.

I mean, these seem like stupid questions only because of the fog of historical perspective. — schopenhauer1

I don't think they are stupid questions at all. In fact, as I indicated earlier, we "knew better" at the time, or at least ignored, dismissed or beat down those who objected. And it wasn't just the Indians objecting. There were those in our "own camp" who objected. Abolitionists, if you will. And all kinds of excuses were made (manifest destiny, savages, civilization, blacks were inherently inferior, etc.). But "might makes right" ruled the day and often does. It's easier to be magnanimous from the cat bird seat. I get that. And I understand why one might raise an eyebrow. But if we can't aspire to better for others, we can for ourselves. That whole Real Politik stuff, with strategic interests, oil, etc. keeps us in bed with monarchies, religious states, dictators, etc. Makes it hard to lead by example. But that doesn't mean we should quit. "Angels of our better nature" and all that.

Yeah, I'm just looking at it from the 3D perspective. The message seems to be, "You should have done X, Y, Z deeds prior to the 20th century (or at least WW2), otherwise you are SOL. Meanwhile, I'm going to lick my ice cream and enjoy my view from the history that we were able to accomplish. How convenient this all turned out". — schopenhauer1

There has always been a disconnect between aspirational idealism, and might-makes-right. If we were to allow the track record of the latter to inform or influence the former, then there would be no former. We would not be allowed to learn from history, or we would only take the lessons from it that current wrong actors are taking from it now: "Hey, the U.S. did it and it worked, so . . ."

All I'm saying is, the U.S. doesn't have to fund it. Giving $3.8b per year in military aid to a nuclear superpower so it can defend itself against a stateless territory with no air force, army or navy is $3.8b we could use here. It's not unlike the waste in response to 9/11.

in all honesty somewhat trepid about getting myself involved in a 28 page Israel thread. — coolazice

:100:

In other words, "We're cool with the arrangement now.. Germany got their war-thing out of their system..America has manifest destiny, Britain has its social welfare and common wealth, America is basically backing the world's security so others can have their social welfare program.. Australia has its country, all the players in place" So NOW is the time to call foul.. Right NOW, no no, right NOW. — schopenhauer1

Your historical analysis makes it sound like this is new. It's not. It was done then. And, when it was done, the doers were making the same excuses that the doer now (Israel and it's defenders) are doing now. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. And we don't have to fund it.

I just think it's an interesting thing that Western countries take a high ground after a certain establishment has been met.. I would say around WW2, one of the worst of atrocities. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, it's like the criminal who becomes so successful that he can go legit. The Plutocracy is chock full of them. And if you can only make it to death and leave your spoils to your spawn, they are gold.

Though I see your point about this being silly, I do think it brings up a point I brought up earlier:
I hope everyone in British, Spanish, French, and other descended countries know the irony of the criticisms of imperialism. I guess it’s only ok if done before the 20th century? I believe Australia had a policy for “hunting” aborigine into the 20th century. Hey guys.. it's okay.. just "history" if done before the 20th century when YOUR ancestors benefited from it :lol:. You get to make up for it by being a human rights zealot now :roll:.
— schopenhauer1

We can add in asymmetric warfare along with imperialism in there too. Hey, keep going about your business. It's only those people that are committing X atrocities. MY history gets me to "realize" the errors others are making.. Meanwhile, keep eating your ice cream and enjoying that view. You deserve it. — schopenhauer1

That's "whataboutism." No one stands higher on a pile of bones and souls than does my own U.S., including all the denial and lack of contrition or reparation. But if what was wrong then is wrong now, two wrongs don't make it right. One might say the U.S. lacks moral authority to counsel one party or another in a conflict, but the U.S. has 100% moral authority to refrain from funding one side or the other.

Children are devils. I'd rather the devil that I know.

Besides, when thinning the herd, you take out the females, so there's that.

.Please if you could give your definition as short as possible. — dimosthenis9

Spark.

Are you being serious? — Tzeentch

As a heart attack. The state isn't making individualists breed. They are doing that on their own. If an individualist doesn't like the cage they are in, and if they feel trapped in that cage like they can't leave (they can) then why bring another individual into the cage? That's on the individualist. It's a cage of their own making.

Anyway, the wife is pulling me out the door. The floor is yours. I'll catch up later.

People didn't choose the society they were born into, so the analogy of a cage fits perfectly. — Tzeentch

Some individualist chose for them. But the cage analogy does not fit. You can leave.

Lets say I trap you in a cage and force you to work for me. Every moment you do not kill yourself by holding your breath until you die of asphyxiation is a moment you agreed to my terms, no? — Tzeentch

False equivalence. I'm not trapped in a cage and no one is forcing me to do shit. If, on the other hand, I voluntarily went into your cage to receive three hots and a cot and to have you protect me from getting trapped in a cage and forced to work for that other asshole, then yeah, I agreed. Especially when I could just leave if I wanted to.

Pick a cage: The one you can leave, or the one you can't leave. Of course, there is a third option: pick the cage you can leave, but don't. Sit around and whine about the cage you chose. The cage you helped create just by being. You are a bar in my cage.

P.S. I'd love to stay and play, but I'm going into the big city to get me some of that.

Do I understand you correctly that you believe people not killing themselves is a sign that they agree? — Tzeentch

That, or not leaving and going somewhere else. Oh, wait, they can't! Because individuals, exercising their god-given right to breed more individuals, have stepped on their own dick. There is no where left to go. Individualism brought this on itself. There is always going to be people. You see, the social contract is an adhesion contract and, as far as I know, the U.S. is the best deal going. So yeah, not leaving or not killing yourself is agreement to accept the benefits of society in return for them exercising sovereignty over you.

I live in an area where individualist go to get away from individuals. It's sad to see what they have done to the environment without regulation. They've ruined it and created exactly what they thought they were trying to get away from, with their stupid "Don't Tread On Me" and "Trump" flags. I'd love to regulate the hell out of them, but this is 'Merica, right? What really pisses me off, is half of them can't handle the isolation so they either leave their detritus behind and go, or they spend half their time in town. Jeesh.

Nor did the individual agree. — Tzeentch

Yes, he did, and he did so by accepting the benefits of everyone looking the other way.

This situation you sketch is brought about by individuals who chose to have children, and by a state that facilitated a certain standard of living. — Tzeentch

The situation I sketch is brought about by individuals who have individuals, regardless of the state.

One cannot force these conditions on an individual and then claim one is entitled to their coorperation. — Tzeentch

Yes, one can. And so can many. Anyone who doesn't like it can kill themselves.

Why is that so difficult to grasp? — Harry Hindu

I'd say it has something to do with physics. Everything you do has an impact on others. Just being consumes perfectly good space that could better be used by nothing. When you start moving beyond being, you start using what used to be perfectly good air, drinking what used to be perfectly good water, eating what used to be perfectly good food. But when you start procreating, oh man! Now you've really done it!

The point here is, there is no free lunch. The individual externalizes the cost of his existence onto the backs of those who did not agree to assume those costs in an arm's length, informed transaction. So, we get together and agree to look the other way while we all go about being.

Every swinging dick and tit should pack their trash and get the hell out. The whole Fertile Crescent. Take their stupid sheep, goats and other domestic animals with them. Start the re-wilding and get the place back in shape. Say 10,000 years, no people.

They could go to Somalia, Afghanistan, or Texas.

So... what's stopping you? — god must be atheist

$ and the fact that $ in equity is not the criminal law.

How about this, — 3017amen

How about you accept your assignment?

I see you descending into a pit of ad hominem — 3017amen

What's even worse than ad hominem is the anti-intellectual passive aggressive BS; and what's even worse than that is when you get some of your own medicine, you can't handle it. What does Philosophim have to say about your tactics?

You know what your assignment is. If you want to regain your credibility, do your work. Remember, you have to convince me you understand my clear argument (even if you disagree with it) before I can trust that you are not a mere troll and a waste of my time.

Last chance.

Don't take it personal :wink: — 3017amen

I don't. I'm used to it.

Otherwise, you might want to consider working on your people skills. — 3017amen

We're drifting off topic now, but since we are offering critique, you might want to spend a little more time formulating your questions. You know, rather than a rapid-fire slinging of shit on the wall to see what sticks, actually think about how you're formulating/asking of a question might solicit an answer that genuine intellectual curiosity would seek. Refinement might also avoid confusion, digression and misunderstanding. Try to find the "lead" from the get-go, rather than spending pages of two ships passing in the night. And then lead with that.

Carry on.

My assignment was completed :joke: — 3017amen

Actually, no it wasn't. You got an F. You failed to make my case for me, which would have demonstrated your comprehension of what I said. Your failure makes clear that you either did not read, or did not comprehend. I called you to task, and you just basically said I failed to break through your ignorance. That doesn't wash in Philosophy.

Until next time!

I'm sorry you did not complete your assignment. Sigh. I can lead you to knowledge but I can't make you think. Sorry.

Then, how did we stop this practice through evolution? — 3017amen

Who said it ever started?

I don't know what that means. Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. Thank you. — 3017amen

If you don't know what it means, then don't use the words and phrases. They are yours. I was trying to humor you. You brought up "random mutations and genetic accidents." That's evolution and, normally, unrelated to values or value systems. But, since you brought them up in this thread about values, I tried to stretch for you and figure that random mutations and genetic accidents" are valuable and thus might transmogrify (in your mind) into some kind of value judgement. But yeah, that's on you.

But other species do. Hence my original question to you in support of your evolutionarily argument. — 3017amen

So compare those other species to cats and wolves. You see how humans are not unique on the cannibalism front?

That's your job. You made the claim, I didn't. Didn't you posit evolution as your justification? — 3017amen

No, it's not my job. It's your job. You brought up evolution, you tried to tie value to evolution, you seem to be trying to get me to say one (human or non-human) is more valuable than the other. This is what happens to you when you can't keep your eye on the ball, can't express yourself clearly, and engage in digression.

What does that mean? — 3017amen

It's self evident. We evolved to what we are now, as did everything else.

We might be getting somewhere. How does human's value systems arise from evolution? — 3017amen

Lead with that next time. The same way animal value systems arise from evolution. See above.

If we're no different, we should not care about killing the OP poodle under any circumstance, right? — 3017amen

Wrong. Circumstances can control. If we are hungry and want to eat the poodle, we will kill it. If we perceive the poodle to be competing for resources with us, we will kill it. If it's annoying us, we will kill it. This analysis applies to the wolf - poodle relationship to.

I know this may seem frustrating, but you can't say something is so without justifying your position. — 3017amen

It's frustrating because I have justified my position, repeatedly. So much so that I will, from here on out, simply say the record speaks for itself. Unless and until you broach a new issue, you must seek any further answers to your question by going back and re-reading the thread. In fact, as your new teacher, I hereby give you this assignment: Go back, re-read the thread, and make my argument for me. At that point I will be able to discern the sincerity of your curiosity.

That's exactly what I'm arguing. — 3017amen

Then I guess you should have said " . . . kill to eat each other . . ." instead of " . . . kill each other for food. . . ." But I'm glad we're past that.

You are thinking it's a digression. — 3017amen

It was, because it's irrelevant.

It's not. — 3017amen

It is.

It should be an integral part of your theory. Right? — 3017amen

Wrong. It's irrelevant to the valuation of humans vice non-humans.

As such, you are now "speculating" that evolution decided that we should not eat other humans. How does that work(?). Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. — 3017amen

The only reason I was speculating was to humor your irrelevant digression. If you don't know how evolution works, get a book. If you want to attach "value", or call them "value systems" then that which is found "valuable" is a random mutation or genetic accident that survived. But this is all irrelevant to the question of whether animals or humans have more value.

And so are you suggesting then we should rightfully kill the poodle as posited in the OP? — 3017amen

"Rightfully" has nothing to do with it. If you're hungry, you're going to do what evolution geared you to do. The poodle will do the same.

1. Based upon your theory, yes. — 3017amen

Then support your argument.

2. Agreed, and you haven't argued for value. — 3017amen

Yes, I have. I've argued that one is no more valuable than the other. Pay attention.

3. They are not germane to value systems from higher consciousness/humans — 3017amen

Yes, they are. They demonstrate the lack of value distinction.

4. You did, but it fell short. It didn't incorporate value systems, other than acts of violence and other barbaric behavior. — 3017amen

It did not fall short. It didn't incorporate value systemS (plural) because one is no more valuable than the other.

5. I simply asked why, in your theory of evolution, we are still not eating each other for food like some other animals do. — 3017amen

This is the first time you've asked that, but now that you seem to get the difference between killing for food and killing to eat, I will humor you: You make a false distinction when you say "like some other animals do" as if no other animals don't, as if we are unique in the animal kingdom. We are not. On the one hand, we will eat each other if it comes down to it and, on the other hand, there are omnivores and carnivores that don't. Human reticence to eat other humans is not unique in the animal kingdom. In fact, it's the norm. While many predators kill other predators, just like we kill other humans, they don't consume them unless, like us, they are starving. Cats don't eat cats. Wolves don't eat wolves. The list goes on. But the point here is, your search for evidence that one animal is more valuable than another will fail, save some subjective analysis that is not intra or interspecific.

So, if you want to distinguish between animals that are cannibals as a matter of course, then you need not compare them to humans. You can compare them to other animals that don't cannibalize as a matter of course. The latter is the norm and thus any alleged distinction between value systems or value is irrelevant. Hell, in honor of the OP, substitute poodle with some fish that cannibalizes all the time. So what? One is not more valuable than the other. They are what they are.

If we are no different, as you claim, then you should be able to tell me why, how and by what method did that evolve. — 3017amen

We are no different, as I claim. The why, how and method are the same how, why and method of other animals. Evolution. Darwin. I'm not a biologist. We're talking about value.