By the way, WW2 was not about saving the Jews, because the final solution was not implemented until later, nor to stop fascism, which was already in place in Spain well before 1939. Fascist parties were alive and well in the UK and The US and doubtless elsewhere, and were at the least well tolerated by the governments. It was a power struggle, not a crusade. The system of mass starvation in concentration camps, used so successfully by the British in South Africa, only became the icon of evil when used by Johnny Foreigner.

Fascism is alive and well. — Vera Mont

It's global rise and it's ability to organise and co-ordinate was smashed, and the fact that it still has little national embers, and manifestations, does not explain how is was so significantly defeated, despite your claim. that the nefarious cannot be defeated by the good and the good have had no significant victories.
In the West, significant peasantry and serfdom no longer exists. These are significant Victories. Free medical care systems, Free education systems and welfare state systems are significant victories over the nefarious. The list goes on.

But the aspiring German empire was smashed not by good people doing good things; it was defeated in a bloody, brutal, wasteful, horrible war, by other nations using the very same method as the aggressor. — Vera Mont

So, no 'good' people were involved in the defeated of the Germans, Japanese, Italians etc in WW 2?
That's just BS!
The defeat of fascism was indeed achieved by good people doing good things, like destroying the ability of the enemy to exist, in any form, which is able to act as a force.

Good people can use nefarious people against nefarious people.
— universeness

And then they themselves become nefarious. — Vera Mont

Some can and do, many remain 'good' but a little conflicted. The point is that good people will get in amongst the mud, the blood, the guts and the shadows to defeat the nefarious, if they have to.
The 'good' cannot defeat the nefarious!!!!! Hah! What utter tosh!

Did you side with the scientifically elegant bombs? — Vera Mont

I side with choosing the better of two evils if there are no other choices.

That's not the choice for values. That's a simplistic depiction of a long and complex moral development. — Vera Mont

You are just engaging in superfluous wordplay Vera.
Putting together all the parts of the internet involved a long road of complex creations and developments. The internet is the result. The 'complexity' involved, is of little interest to the users and is treated as a black box. We can now each choose our base values from all the inputs, processes and outputs we observe and experience everyday. How much you choose to drill down into the complex historical development of each IPO, is a matter for each individual. Those who are inspired by, and aspire to, the scientific method, will probably drill into the historicity of IPO's, more than theists will.

Then they are no different from bad people. If there is no difference in behaviour, what is the difference? — unenlightened

There is a massive difference in the outcome for the majority of the stakeholders involved.
No-one is 100% good or 100% bad.
We are all capable of being judged as either good or bad, based on the act being judged and who is doing the judging.
For example. I personally judge Winston Churchill as being an evil man. But I would have made the same decision he did, regarding the evacuation of Coventry, he could have ordered, before it was almost bombed into nonexistence during WW 2.
The difference between us, is that I don't think I could have continued to live, after the war. I think I would have killed myself for that particular decision.
I would act like an evil man and would accept my own destruction and utter condemnation, if it meant that I destroyed the nefarious in the process and significantly improved the lives of the majority who were hitherto subjugated by them. If many innocents died because of my method of destroying the nefarious then I think I would still do it, but I don't think I could survive it.
I leave the judgement of who is nefarious and who fights the nefarious to others such as yourself.
We each develop our own moral compass. Others will judge the legitimacy of your moral compass, whether you agree with them or not.

So, no 'good' people were involved in the defeated of the Germans, Japanese, Italians etc in WW 2? — universeness

Good people are always involved, whether they want to be or not, and they are usually forced to do bad things. If you choose not to know how many good people are swept up in the actions of 'bad' countries, or what the governments and armies of 'good' nations do in war, I'm sure you're happier.

You are just engaging in superfluous wordplay Vera.

Apparently.

I leave the judgement of who is nefarious and who fights the nefarious to others such as yourself. — universeness

Yes, once you have removed all the differences, it is impossible to make a judgement.

And yet you do make a judgement, as do I. but my judgement is that some acts are bad; violence, torture, rape, deception, you know the usual stuff. And because good people do not do bad things, bad people have the advantage of being able to be good when it suits them and bad when it suits them more. Now sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils, and sometimes we can disagree about such complexities. Nevertheless, the imbalance remains; indeed it has to remain in order for there to be a moral order. If evil was always punished and good was always rewarded, then being good would be mere common-sense and evil would be silly. That is why the religious rewards and punishments were always located "elsewhere".

But your problem is that you are trying to incorporate a moral framework into a crude scientism, and failing to do it, and then just inventing the frankly contradictory notion that good triumphs over evil on that material, self-interest level. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

If you choose not to know how many good people are swept up in the actions of 'bad' countries, or what the governments and armies of 'good' nations do in war, I'm sure you're happier. — Vera Mont

Are you being self-referential here or just making a general statement of opinion about the approach of many or most people? I assume the 'you' you are referring to above, is not me, as I don't see how you could conclude that I am, from what I have typed so far in this thread, someone who would do what you suggest in the quote above.
When the nefarious are on the rise Vera, I do think that a kind of cold 'necessity as the mother of invention,' will often come into play. Are you not suggesting something similar yourself?

because good people do not do bad things, bad people have the advantage of being able to be good when it suits them and bad when it suits them more. — unenlightened

But I think that does not describe the real situation. Some people, that I would still consider good, will do bad to bad people. Often, as a 'taste of their own medicine,' or as revenge, if some of their heinous acts were against people you personally cared about. I understand if you would not consider a person who did bad to bad people, good. I would judge on a case by case basis.

But your problem is that you are trying to incorporate a moral framework into a crude scientism, and failing to do it, and then just inventing the frankly contradictory notion that good triumphs over evil on that material, self-interest level. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. — unenlightened

But it's not a problem for me, other than I don't have you as a supporter of my position on these issues.
I can continue to try to convince you otherwise or I can look for support in others or I can do both.
Such is life!
For me, Science and the scientific method provide me with a foundation for my life values and strongly compliment my morality infused, socialist/humanist political viewpoints.

But it's not a problem for me — universeness

Clearly not. And if you do not have a problem, I can offer no solution.

Clearly not. And if you do not have a problem, I can offer no solution. — unenlightened

I don't recall expecting you to. I tend to look to those who I think are capable of offering solutions, or who are capable of supporting the solutions myself and those like me would champion.
If I cant convince you to support me than I don't deserve your support, that's one of the main tenets of democratic socialism. Support is given from the people and only when the majority supports an action, should that action be taken. I believe in that approach, whenever it is feasible to employ it.

Are you being self-referential here or just making a general statement of opinion about the approach of many or most people? — universeness

A general statement of most people of faith.

Well they certainly seem to be able to say nice things about the utterly nefarious god described in the christian old testament, but despite that, it is certainly true that many good theists have saved the lives of many people in the past, and many of them have given their lives to protect the innocent.
I do accept that the umbrella term should be good and bad people rather than good and bad theists or atheists. Both theism and atheism probably have an equal share of good and bad people.

they — universeness

Not just they; all of you. Faith in deities, faith in science, faith in humanity, faith in Good... all the same.

Not just they; all of you. Faith in deities, faith in science, faith in humanity, faith in Good... all the same. — Vera Mont

Not the same. those are qualitatively different modes of faith.

Science has succeeded in fulfilling our material wants, and provides intellectual stimulation of the kind some brains can't live without, but it does zip/nought for our spiritual needs unless ... science is religion (in disguise) [re Neil deGrasse Tyson's very new-agey Cosmic Perspective and The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters]

our spiritual needs — Agent Smith

Such as?

The realm of philosophers, poets, mystics as opposed to the world of biochemists, physiologists, neuroscientists.

those are qualitatively different modes of faith. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's true, I guess:
Believing - in the absence of any evidence - that someone who created humans will solve the human condition.
Believing - contrary to all evidence - that something humans created will solve the human condition.

Believing - contrary to all evidence - that something humans created will solve the human condition. — Vera Mont

What do you mean by 'contrary to all evidence,' in the context you use it above?
I 'believe' the 'human created' Asprin, will cure my headache(a human 'condition').
Such belief is based on empirical evidence, is it not?
I also believe that praying for my headache to go away, will empirically fail!
Efficacy of prayer.

So why blame "biochemists" for not being "mystics"? Science does what it's exceptionally good at and nothing more. Criticizing a hammer for not being a paint brush or a theorem for not being a sonnet profoundly misunderstands each of them. Sciences and arts are not 'mutually exclusive' practices or ways of being (Laozi).

Studies can't tell if prayer works because the experiment can't measure faith or know anything something is given in place of what is prayered for

Studies can't tell if prayer works — Gregory

Of course they can. Get every member of any evanhellical church, to enter any hospital or even better, any palliative care based hospice, and pray constantly over every terminal patient in that hospice. Then see how many patients become no longer terminal! We could even restrict it to terminal patients of a fixed age range, so that the theists cant use the excuse that the patients were just 'too old to save.'
On the other hand, a decent god should be able to save any human it want's to. Surely if it existed it should feel some responsibility to act to at least save some of these patients based on the previous fundamentalist dedication and worship demonstrated by such groups as evanhellicals. 15,000 children dying of preventable causes everyday, despite the 'claimed power of prayer.'
God seems completely unable to demonstrate its presence in any testable way whatsoever.
Perhaps that's because it does not exist.

God demonstrates his presence to those with faith. As I said, God answers prayers as he wants, not as faithless people want. Someone might pray for a dog and instead get a beautiful wife. They might pray for a cure and get more faith instead. You just don't know how prayer works because you don't practice it

How do you know this?

No offence but your examples sound exactly like what someone would say if there were no gods and no way to demonstrate them. Pray for a cure for cancer and instead get a new dog. Such a desultory, random, chaotic outcome of prayer makes a mockery of prayer, right? And to argue something like, 'you don't understand it because you're not a believer' is one of those wonky justifications that resembles, 'you can't see my imaginary friend because you don't believe in her' type of justifications.

Prayer has never been about getting stuff. It's opening oneself to spiritual things one finds uncomfortable. People who pray for cures already know this. Infinity resides in everyone. To disbelieve God is to doubt yourself.

sounds like exactly what someone would say if they had no way to relate to god/s but felt they needed to double down on certainty.

To disbelieve God is to doubt yourself — Gregory

Well, only if you "believe" that you are "God".

And it could be what the truth sounds like. You're going to take this as 50/50 chance? Everything has many interpretations abstractly. Conversations are for bringing out clarity

.

Spinoza says we are modes of God just as Aquinas says God is in everything in his essence. Obviously the consciousness we experience here is not God because it is not all perfect. But then again to be one with the eternal is to be eternal as well since you are one.

I 'believe' the 'human created' Asprin, will cure my headache(a human 'condition'). — universeness

Aspirin, prayer, the rack, MRI, nuclear missiles, polio vaccine, the guillotine, television, chemotherapy, refined sugar, ma jong, plastic, electricity, fracking, DDT, the Mars rover, birth control pills, flags, gods... Lots and lots and lots of inventions. Political and religious ideologies are also human inventions.
Humans use these inventions. There is a clear track record of how humans have so far used these inventions.
To believe that next week or next year humans will all come together in a single, benevolent "We" and start using their inventions wisely for the betterment of all is a great leap of faith.

... to be one with the eternal is to be eternal as well since you are one. — Gregory

I don't grok the point you're making.