Science will never be able to create immortality. That's just a fairytale — GraveItty

How can you be sure about that? At the past years what science achieved sounded like "fairytale" also.

Are you serious? If so, you sound just like a fundamentalist. So I hope you are not and take yourself too seriously, like fundamentalists do. I hope it's just meant to provoke. You had bad experiences with religion? — GraveItty

Not fundamentalist at all. The strange thing is how you ended up to such conclusion.
And no didn't have any bad experience with religion either. In fact though an atheist I have much respect to theists. It's obvious from my previous posts here.

I also had opened a thread some time ago mentioning among others, how theists should be respected and the hard conflicts I had were with atheists. They accused me of being an "undercover theist" pretending the atheist.
That says something I think.

Not sure how could be done. I could only guess by finding the answers for how the whole universe works and its purpose(if there is actually one). Or maybe if science one day makes possible immortality.

Still probably some people would follow any kind of God for other reasons, but atheists then would have more "scientific claims" as to prove them wrong.
And theists would be radically reduced (especially if humanity ever make it to "escape" from death).

I don't think that's what philosophy is about. You just make it substitute for religion. — GraveItty

For me surely philosophy involves that too and I mentioned it since it's the specific issue of being discussed at this thread.At what degree can be a efficient substitute for religion.

What existential void are you talking about? You think without gods the world is empty and amoral? If so, why you connect moral with God? — GraveItty

For me no. But for many people is. You can easily identify it since the vast majority of people even nowadays are theists . And of course God and religions are mostly connected with morals too.

No without God world isn't empty and amoral but religions are used as the "main excuse" for many people as to follow morals.
The reasons for why this happens have been discussed in other posts here from other members also.

So if you have all the answers you can accuse them of being wrong? — GraveItty

Still no.But especially since science knowledge hasn't reached there yet, God is still an open issue.

but the topic at issue here being discussed is whether or not philosophical thinking (and its progeny) is better for the life (and livelihoods) of the mind than religious believing — 180 Proof

Well for me philosophical thinking is better indeed since gives you a deeper realization of morals and the actual reasons for acting "good" in societies. Makes you dig deeper inside yourself and with not just following divine orders without any questioning them at all.

But again I m not sure we could make a rule out of that. Since as for others, philosophy is not enough to fill their existential void and have the need of turning into a God as to find "answers". It's a subjective matter after all.
I can't accuse them of being wrong and me the right one, since me myself I don't have all the answers.

My problem as I mentioned again is with the fanatics and not with theists themselves.

that the natural grounds from moral norms are derived via (ecology/culture-sensitive) defeasible reasoning. — 180 Proof

True but isn't that normal? At the end aren't religions only human inventions? So of course these morals were taken from nature, reasoning, social beneficial behaviors etc etc. Religions copied all these normally.

But the thing with religions is that they were the most functional "moral glue" (so far at least) for the societies. Their "excuse" was what persuaded most people to follow all these pre-existing morals. As people to get convinced following them.

And unfortunately even nowadays people need a God as to get convinced(with all the problems which come in package with that kind of attitude) .Fear and reward of a divine authority.
Since sadly Logic isn't enough for them. Yet at least.

Whatever gives a happy feeling inside you. That's beauty for me.

Just look at the national flags of the Nordic countries. Do note the symbolism. — ssu

Hahaha. Man I never noticed that!!!

And now I wonder how many others flags of countries includes a Cross! Or any other religion symbol.My country's flag includes also!

Damn I liked that!I think that is a huge proof of how religion has been such a huge moral base in every aspect of our human societies.

Simply Western democracies who want to uphold freedom of religion and be multicultural (in the positive way) don't simply want to brandish the religious aspects of their heritage. Or especially admit how their core values are partly Christian values. — ssu

I think they do good on that if their goal is to unite every culture-religion under a common state "umbrella".It's logical imo.

I'm still not aware of — 180 Proof

Yeah but you can be unaware of.In unconscious level.

At the end all the crucial years of a child's character formation(age 16) you were given religion morals from your parents. No?

But well even if at the end you don't, that doesn't mean that other atheists even unintentionally don't get influenced by religion morals.
Since these morals are-were everywhere in our societies.

The "excuse" for religion morals is, yes as you mentioned, divine commands, but that doesn't change anything I think. The essence remains the same. Morals are still there even built in such a lame excuse.

I think that your ideas on trying to define 'God' are important because the idea is so ambiguous and used in such different ways. The analysis of language may be so important in discussing religious concepts. — Jack Cummins

My use of the word "God" here is = "answers to existential questions".
God is maybe the most vague human idea indeed, so with much respect to the language problem, I think that proper wording could solve a very big amount of problems in such issues.

People should state and agree, from the beginning of their discussion, on the exact definition that THEY would mean using the word of each concept they discuss about.
And then start discussing.

At that case, my bad, cause I should have stated it from the beginning.And I didn't.
My guess is, that I probably liked the way the phrase "sounded" and I didn't want to "spoil" it by expanding it more.

Perhaps the religious aspects often blend in to what commonly is viewed as "culture" or "cultural aspects" as we don't want to admit the religious undertones in them. — ssu

So true. Even atheists mostly take their morals from religion even unintentionally.
Since they get raised in mostly religious societies. And like it or not human societies were built on the base of religions morals.

For example, Imagine an atheist who was raised from religious parents. What "sort" of morals would he get?
But yeah, most would never admit that indeed. They somehow see it as a taboo matter, imo at least.

But that "something to believe in" is not the trust (worship of) a supernatural mystery of theists. — 180 Proof

No it isn't.

I have never needed to "define God", only demonstrate that 'what theists claim sine qua non about "God"' is not true. It's delusional to believe in (trust) untrue claims, no? — 180 Proof

Define "God" I mean in the sense of trying to find answers that theists have already from their God. Even atheists have to find something to believe in. Even if that "something" is their own self, or universe or whatever. Fill that existential void as Jack mentioned. That's why I mentioned philosophy as refugee for them.

I find it delusional also but if a theist doesn't try to enforce his beliefs on others and he just finds peace in any God then I don't care.
At the end don't we atheists also believe in other untrue claims? Not specifically about God but about anything in general. We might be delusional and believe in lies in other fields. Nobody is perfect.

Me personally I don't have the need to prove his "God" wrong .As long as he isn't fanatic.
Since science hasn't reached to the answer of everything yet, God is still an "open issue" (well not for me but for some is and I can accept that).

This lead me to think how for many the pursuit of philosophy may fill a void in the loss of religious ideas. — Jack Cummins

I think that answers your question. Existential questions were the root for philosophy in humanity at first place.
Well as not to go it further and say that death is the actual mother of philosophy.

Philosophy is the refugee of the atheists. Where they turn as to find some peace inside them since they can't rely on any God to answer their questions.
That doesn't mean of course that theists aren't or can't turn into philosophy too. But, imo, their kind of philosophy is starting from a different base. Trying mostly to define God's word as to live accordingly. Atheists try to define "God" himself.

Any number of ways. Perhaps the zombie argument can yield the correct result if the conclusion-begging premise is better analyzed. — Pantagruel

Even if his conclusion is correct it would never be accepted, if the way he tries to prove it is via starting from this false base. Everyone could just push it with the tip of his finger and it would collapse.

So as to be taken serious he would have to choose a different path. More solid one.
We could discuss what could be the appropriate base as to make his conclusion right or seem more reliable at least.

I consider myself idealist and believe that mind is non material but I would never choose such a lame premise as to convince a materialist. I would be easily defeated.

But it is still possible to come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. — Pantagruel

By pure luck?

Well no you don't, but surely helps.

He relies heavily on the case of the phenomenal zombie, which is functionally and psychologically identical to him, but has no phenomenal experience. — Pantagruel

Well as long as you say that he relies his case on that. Then don't think there is much to discuss here. He starts his position from a total wrong base. So his outcome can normally only be wrong too.

Functionally and psychologically identical presupposes human phenomenal experience. They come in package. You can't have the one without the other. However convenient would might be for him to built his case on, still can never be right.

But logic and "search for truth" relentlessly pursuit by scientists (who indeed are similar to truth or logic engines, though luckily there are exceptions) and applied to Nature brings our physical, and all the live in it, to the brink of extinction. Many species have already been swiped away from the Earth's surface, people suffer from science-based technology — GraveItty

I think we talk about different things here. Science use Logic of course, but aren't the same. Science itself isn't evil at all either but of course the use we make of some scientific achievements can bring evil indeed.

Still no Logic's fault though. In fact it's the opposite. The use of science without Logic brings harm and evil.

"Human societies", like "a country", are abstract concepts and can as such not be good or bad. A country or society has no mind of its own. Nor has a society. Good and bad are not "defined", they are just human qualities — GraveItty

Human societies aren't abstract concepts. They are reality. Just saying that meanings like "good" and "bad" are only conceptions that human use as to live together in harmony.

To answer your first question, it can. And in science-based societies it's doing even evil, with no bad intentions though. Look at the state of the world. Look at the harm done to Nature. — GraveItty

Which exactly human a priori skill is by nature evil? We can discuss the use we make of such a priory skills and how we can create evil. But by nature these skills on their own can never be evil. Is our walking ability evil also then?

Look at the harm done to Nature. — GraveItty

I can't follow you. Is that Logic's fault?

Searching for a truth engine (whatever that may mean...) helping us most to evolve? If you wanna evolve into a truth engine then it's maybe handy. I surely don't! — GraveItty

I don't want to evolve into anything. We humans have that mind ability already. Logic is our mind's searching for truth mechanism and I still can't see not even one thing that Logic brings harm.

And yeah of course Logic helped us the most to evolve. We use Logic as to find the best solution - truth in every situation - problem we faced as humanity. And that's how we got here.
I can't see how anyone can deny that. But apparently you do.

Even if it is, aren't people part of the universe and thus good and bad? — GraveItty

Is there any good or bad in universe except human societies? Aren't these simple things that people try to define as to make our societies and our living together function??

Can an a priory human skill like Logic ever be bad or evil? Especially logic which is our "searching for truth engine" , which helped us the most to evolve?
We could discuss maybe if we make sometimes bad use of some of such a priory human skills. But regarding to Logic, I don't see not even one harm that could bring or brought into humanity.
On the contrary, I see many harms caused by lack of it. Underestimating it and ignoring it.

Logic is our most precious virtue. Nothing evil with that.

Doubt is a verbally expressible, informed, justified wavering between two options. When you doubt, you waver between A and B, and you know your reasons for doing so.

Worries, uncertainties, anxiety are more general, often not even verbally expressed/expressible. — baker

I don't think it's necessary doubt to be always about only two options.
Worries, anxieties, uncertainties etc just plant the seed for doubt.
As to correct my previous post, they aren't exactly the same but surely they are extremely connected and in most cases doubt involves them.

Respected.

Doubt is not a pleasant emotion. :grimace: — Wheatley

Neither necessarily unpleasant.

You appear to have not understood what was said. — Banno

That was not the case.The point is that you mention things that you can't support. Like that doubt is overrated and that someone can be certain for whatever he wants.

The middle path, doubting here and being certain there, is the only viable approach. — Banno

Just showing you where you are answering to yourself.

For example:

In fact, we live only in doubt.
— dimosthenis9 — Banno

And that shows that I m easily manipulated then by your weird approach.
Sorry but it's just another ad home argument and nothing more.

Doubt is our fuel as humanity as to expand our limited truth and get closer to the absolute truth, either you like it or not.

That's not doubt, though. It's worry, uncertainty, indecision, that feeling of unease. — baker

In my mind they are the same. Aren't worries, uncertainties etc the roots of doubts? Sure they are for me.

You appear to be unavailable for conversation. Cheers. — Banno

You appear to have being trapped by your own statements.And you seem clever enough to understand it.
So getting away like that, seems like a "good" strategy. Making a fancy "exit" out of the conversation as not to "lose face". Using an ad home argument as a getaway vehicle.Anyway whatever suits you better.

Cheers.

Doubt and certainty are propositional attitudes; they are ways of thinking about this or that statement. You doubt that the Earth is flat, or are certain that this is a hand. — Banno

So what? What all of what you mention here proves?? That doubt and certainty are connected?They might be yes. So?? That makes doubt less important??Or meaningless?? Or that doesn't exist??

The argument you stated was "doubt is overrated" and that's what I responded. All these you mention where exactly support your initial argument? In fact they make it even more weak. Since at half of your posts you urge me to "doubt"!

you can go ahead and accept whatever you like as certain. Or you can doubt whatever — Banno

What are you talking about? There are things that science made us not to doubt anymore. Except if someone doesn't accept science. So no you can't accept everything you like as certainty!

At the past people were doubting about the shape of earth. Science came and prove it's not flat. Of course there might be lunatics who would reject that. But so what? That past human doubt was solved by science! As many others!And guess what? It was solved cause initially someone doubted that it is flat indeed!!

What do you think? — Banno

That it isn't at all.

It comes back to the notion that philosophy consists in conceptual analysis. — Banno

Kant wouldn't be very happy reading that.

SO you are claiming: that doubt is dependent on certainty says nothin about doubt. — Banno

Only about the nature of the doubt.Its origin. But so what? It doesn't make it vanish or solve it. So for me at least it isn't much helpful.

Hmm. That's a bit contrary. — Banno

How so?

Doubt the sense of that. — Banno

I m not following you. What exactly sense to doubt about? That there must be an explanation of Universe and how it works? That this explanation (truth) must be one and only? That human truth like (good, evil, death etc etc) has nothing to do with universal truth?
If that's what you want me to doubt about,well no thanks. Doubt yourself.

You sure about that? — Banno

Let me correct it a little. We mostly live in doubt. And for that yeah I m sure.

Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted. — Banno

So what? That doesn't say anything about the doubt itself. Life is undoubted yes, but that doesn't help at all to find out our purpose of life. Doubt is still there!

The result is malformed notions such as idealism and solipsism — Banno

Solipsism yeah, but idealism? Idealism offered and still offers great services to philosophy!

SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth". — Banno

Understand it? How could I ever understand something that is still unknown? A total mystery?
What I mean with Absolute Truth is simply the ultimate explanation of how everything works! How universe works and its purpose (if actual there is one). And yes, that Truth must be one and Absolute indeed.
I always distinguish it from Human Truth, which is by nature limited.And nothing to do with it.
It's one of the rare things in fact that I don't doubt about.

Doubt is overrated. — Banno

How so? Doubting about existential questions (death, purpose of life, God etc). Doubting about yourself. Who you actually are. What will happen even in your everyday routine (work, marriage, family, friends etc). All these are overrated??

Doubt is inherited in human nature. And for me, goes hand by hand with our natural curiosity. And these are what drives humanity as to find answers and the Absolute Truth. What fuels us.Doubt played a key role in our great humanity achievements.
So no it isn't overrated at all for me. In fact,it's the exact opposite .It's underrated!

But the arguments why logic should not be evil are not convincing yet. — FalseIdentity

Really??So the simple fact that this human a priori ability to search for truth can never be evil isn't good enough for you .How could ever an a priory human feature to be "evil"? Is our capacity of walking also evil then?

I guess it must sound too logical for your taste.

In fact, we live only in doubt.

How valuable is the help of those who do not actually care? Can a system that is based on salary replace genuine human kindness? — Wheatley

Why should they care in first place?? Is it immoral if they don't?? For me not at all. As long as they do their job properly and try to be good at it, it's fine with me. Can we expect from all people to care for all the others in the world?

An surgeon doctor should care about all of his patients? Does it mean that he can't be great at his job and save others life(help them) cause he is just excellent in surgeries?

Caring includes feeling bad also when someone who you care for, is in any kind of pain. Imagine all therapists feeling shit about each patient they have, we condemn them to have miserable lives then!

For me I don't care at all if any kind of therapist cares or not about his patients. But I extremely care about him being good at his job. And taking over his personal responsibility that his job demands over his patients! That responsibility requires to perform the best he can for them! That is the biggest and most important help that the patient needs.

If for example he also thinks that pretending that he cares about him, it would be good for the patient and more beneficial, then pretend also! Fine with me.

So my first complaint is that logic pretends to be something that it is not (a universal key to truth - this it is clearly not). — FalseIdentity

Logic is the main task for human mind. For me it's the most significant a priori function of humans. So if we ever be able to find the ultimate truth yeah it would be cause of Logic. As every development is made through logic.
Every human obstacle we overcame so far and every problem we solved it, was cause some person used that a priori human ability so well enough as to see the logical solution!

I can't understand how Logic cannot be seen as one of the main keys of our evolution. Not to say the most important one.So I'm really surprised when I see people underestimate Logic so badly! It rings bells to me really!!

the left brain side that is dedicated to logic is as well the the one which is dedicated to hunting). — FalseIdentity

And is it a problem cause??? Of course in primal people the first and most significant problem that they had to solve was food! And their logic dealt exactly with that most important thing for them! I don't see any paradox to that at all. It's only logical in fact!

When we do deductive logic we literally try to reduce options so that the truth (aka prey) can't escape anymore and only one option is left. — FalseIdentity

Not all problems have one solution only and some they don't have any at all. So realizing that, is Logic! And then no need to search for only one option. Cause you understand that's impossible.
You have a strange view of how Logic works.

2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good". — FalseIdentity

Yeah sure. As if everything we humans dealt and invented so far had to do with the survival and only that!

The " good"that you mention is nothing more than a human invention!! There is no good or bad in universe.
So what exactly you expect from Logic to understand?!? What a Non universal existing human" invention" is?!? Well probably our own Logic understands that, and that's why these terms can never be fully defined! It's impossible.

logic must be a prison that precludes us from seeing a lot of stuff around us. — FalseIdentity

Our senses are limited. And our Logic follows our senses.So what more you ask from it?? Even the fact we are able to realize that and understand that there might be more things that we can't perceive that's also logic's work!

You accuse our logic that it is too human-ish?? Well sorry but we are humans indeed!And our minds analyze specific data taken by our senses.
But cause of our mind's a priori ability to search for truth we can even create technology that can drive us see more of things that our senses can give us!!

In conclusion calling Logic as Evil is non logical at all on itself!
And that shows you have a wrong view of what logic is and how it should be performed.

Cause challenging our views and beliefs requires to challenge our own selves. To face ourselves. And, oh boy, that's a hell of a fight that not many are willing to give!

So we stick firmly to a dogma or beliefs or views and simply dismiss everything different that would put us in the awkward position of doubting for our own selves.
That would shake our world and even make it collapse and who has the courage to build a new world for himself from the beginning?? Who is brave enough? Not many.

So we choose the easy way : dismissing everything different as wrong, and everything we do - think as the right,excusing ourselves for everything and just maintain our fragile bubble we live in.

Facing ourselves deeply an challenge them all the time is the most difficult task so I can see the reason that most people avoid it.

one thing that I have gathered from this thread, is that I will have to remember you and dimosthenis9 as my go to guys for all things Nietzsche, providing contrasting opinions. — Michael Zwingli

Though I m really flattered by your comment. Please don't. It's true that Nietzsche is one of my favorites (not to say the most one), but I m far from considering myself as a Nietzsche expert.Trust me.

For me if you are interesting in Nietzsche's views (or any other philosopher), better to study it on your own and get your own outcomes out of it. Not surely the right ones but surely your own ones!
I have read academic opinions of Nietzsche's work and I strongly disagreed. But again since I can't have a chat with Nietzsche himself and ask him, I could never be sure that my view is the right one.

As for Will, imo, in Nietzsche Will of Power is just a "branch" from the tree of Will. And not Will itself. He gives Will a huge significant value that covers all human aspects and characteristics. Power among them for sure. But more as a Will in general for each person to Thrive spiritually.

I think each case is different. We can't make a rule out of that. In some cases philosophy might work better, in other cases psychology. It depends from the roots of the mental issue and each person's individual characteristics.In general even in psychotherapy, philosophy can play a crucial role. At the very end isn't psychology itself philosophy's child? For me sure it is, so both are connected.

Me personally I m using the philosophy method,but I guess that's because I m too egoist as to let anyone else tell me what I should do with myself and my life. And what's the right thing for me. I prefer to struggle discover it on my own even if it's a hard battle. Not sure that it's the best method though.
If we are still around here after years i will let you know how it goes.

He is not just another idealist toady aiming at ‘personal growth’. — Joshs

No he isn't just another one idealist. For me he is the Greatest one! He was believing so much in personal growth but his "method" included intense, hard, "painful" inner battle that each of us has to give individually. We need Will made of Steel for a battle like that! And Nietzsche believed that we do have that capability! That our Will can achieve that.

Nothing alike with the nowadays bullshit life coaching personal growth method.

But you’re not achieving real change and becoming until you learn to turn the frame on its head , to turn what seemed within the old scheme like evil into good and what seemed like good into evil — Joshs

Exactly. And that's a personal inner fight.Nietzche valued these battles the most! And that's why, imo, he did believe in people's "self" and individuality.
"Our fights with ourselves for changing matter! Cause that's how we prepare the path for the Ubermensch", he wrote.

Nietzsche rejects the r idea of a unitary self or thinking ‘I’. He viewed the psyche as a community of selves and a multiplicity of conflicting drives. He even broke up the act of willing into a a tension between a commanding and an obeying. This certainly isn’t the ‘self’ and the ‘will’ of an autonomous subjectivity — Joshs

You have written it again in another thread and I strongly disagree that Nietzsche was thinking like that. The way you describe it, is like Nietzsche didn't believe in person's individuality at all. And he was one of the greatest supporters of individual human spirit's power. And how eventually it is in our own hands.

For Will, imo, he was considering it as the most important "natural" power we have as to change ourselves and break our spiritual limits.Becoming Ubermensch eventually.