Also keep in mind, some 95% of Nazi Germany were Christians. — jorndoe

But from same article: "Many historians believe that the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after victory in the war.[17]"

"Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment whose legitimacy did not spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state.[38] Although the broader membership of the Nazi Party after 1933 came to include many Catholics and Protestants, aggressive anti-Church radicals like Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler saw the Kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-Church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[39"

This is an example of an atheist dogma, certainly an example of the enforced secularism and not a religious evil.

If you guys are interested in Hitler's religious beliefs, you can read them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#:~:text=In%20Hitler's%20eyes%2C%20Christianity%20was,the%20survival%20of%20the%20fittest.

They are, as I have said, inconsistent and varying over time. He was not a religious ideologue or zealot. It's just not a credible argument to make that Nazism was just yet another iteration of religion gone wrong. He is known for genocide, the murder of those based upon their genetic heritage without regard to belief. A fully devout German Christian, sworn to uphold the ideals of Nazi ideology, lock step in every way with Hitler, willing to lay his life down for the German God, whoever that might be, would have been murdered alongside the Chasidic rabbi if he were born of a Jewish parent.

I've often wondered if Mormons are protestants. They were born out of the early 1800's American rise in religion, but they were also ultimately driven out by protestants too. Accepting them back into the fold of Christianity, which does seem to have happened from my vantage now, is a relatively recent phenomena -- I recall Christians handing out anti-Mormon literature growing up. — Moliere

Did you grow up in the U.S. South? Mormons have historically been especially disfavored in that region, although that is changing.

Mormon theology is unusual enough to wonder where it should be properly placed. I guess it goes under the general heading of "Protestant" just because it's Christian and not Catholic and it's doubtful it could have emerged without the Protestant Reformation.

Their acceptance of Jesus as savior places them in the Christian camp I'd think, but I agree, they are an unusual lot.

But there are some interesting associations in this space. — Tom Storm

I still think placement of Nazi nationalism as a religious movement is a specious argument, fully understanding Hitler's use of whatever was available to him to promote his brand of nationalism.

The first line of Luther's writing you cited states, " First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians." That is not something that would uttered by Hitler or that is part of Nazi ideology.

In reference to Kristallnacht, that erupted over the murder of a German diplomat by a Polish Jew in retaliation for the displacement of Jews of Polish descent from Germany. That had nothing to do with showing the world "we are Christians."

Like I said, the thesis that all organized social evil is somehow traceable back to religion is just not supportable, and it seems quite a stretch to apply it to Nazi Germany. I also can't see how you could extend it to the various other oppressive governments over time, especially communist ones that considered themselves atheist. It just seems an attempt to force the facts to fit the conclusion that religion is inherently evil, which I see as an ironic turn in and of itself. It's a black and white good/evil dichotomy positing a Satanic force, much like you'd expect to be argued from a religious perspective.

In a way, the Holocaust was part of a wretchedly long (sub)culture, an abominable "tradition", that you could hope ended, though it doesn't quite seem like it. :/ — jorndoe

Anti-semitism predates the Protestants and Christianity itself.

As to whether Hitler used prior prejudices against Jews to his advantage, he did, but the argument that Hitler himself was religiously motivated is not supportable given his clear views on Aryan ethnic superiority and his classification of Jews based upon genetic lineage and not upon belief.

This attempt to present him as a misguided Christian soldier seems pretty strained to make the point that it is religion that leads to all evil.

As to his personal religious views, Hitler was not clear or consistent and debate remains over exactly what they were. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

He wasn't a nuanced thinker obviously, and it is clear that religious ideology was neither central nor even a piece of the puzzle informing his actions.

I'm not discounting moments of religious terror like the Crusades, but the Holocaust wasn't one of them. The argument that religion is the source of all evil is just not a reasonable thesis, and that is what motivated this line of conversation.

Take psychopathy. On the extreme end, you get arsonists, rapists, and bloody murderers who don't feel much. — BC

But I see the question to the individual to be a subjective inquiry, in terms of what he prefers as opposed to what society prefers.

If I think my ethnic nose more an annoyance than a point of pride, and we have a cure for such things, it's my call to make, no apologies.

If through diligence and commitment to our cause we once and for all eradicate the unsightly noses of the world with perfect button noses (think Peter Cottentail), the world might suffer from lack of diversity, but I impose martyrdom on no one, and do not require anyone suffer for the greater good by being keeper of the nose.

But should you want to keep your elephantitic honker as is, let your freak flag wave proudly in the sneeze.

I just got a copy of The Will to Believe in old school paperback. I'm either getting really old, or it's the microfiche version.

You're kidding right? — Darkneos

Not really. You presented the question starkly enough that the response seemed unavoidable. If it's nothing but trouble, like a broken leg, then why wouldn't you cure the fracture? This isn't to condemn those with broken legs, but it's not to humor those with broken legs either by suggesting broken legs are as good as unbroken ones.

I'm also very open to the idea that autism offers some advantages, even if it's just a certain pride in uniqueness, but I defer entirely to those in the know on that as to whether it is worth it for the individual to protect.

This is to say, if you tell me you've got a problem, real or perceived, and there is a cure, why would I intervene on that decision? By the same token, if you have what I think to be a problem, but you don't think it that way, why should I intervene there either.

My point is should there be an option to cure it for people who have had it be nothing but trouble for them? — Darkneos

Yes.

Why would we not cure something that is only trouble, as if we should respect and protect the existence of trouble?

An interesting and paradoxical thing about many fundamentalists I have known is that they are not particularly familiar with the Bible - apart form a few frequently recycled quotes. Pastors may in theory have the same status as others in the congregation, but generally hold a degree of power over interpretation and the culture of their church, often through charisma or personality. — Tom Storm

This is Protestantism in general, not just fundamentalism. It’s why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. — Jamal

An interesting fact about many of the churches of Southern Appalachia is that they're entirely unaffiliated with any denomination. Unlike major denominations with founding theologians and stated ideologies, these rural churches lack that. They were formed by traveling pastors, often with limited education, with fire and brimstone speeches in their distinctive barking voice, with the powers of heaven causing wild gyrations, speaking in tongues, and protecting them from the serpents they handle.

The religion of the common man.

This is Protestantism in general, not just fundamentalism. It’s why there are thousands of Protestant denominations — Jamal

I offer the Mormons as a counterexample of a Protestant denomination with a hierarchical structure, with its President afforded the status of prophet, much like the Catholic Church, thus providing an authority outside its sacred texts.

Branch Davidians being another, but that didn't end well.

tradition. (Add extra negative epithets to taste.) I think it is clear that it is reactionary, and specifically reacting against science, particularly evolution. — unenlightened

This article addresses this question, making the interesting point that literalism as we know it today, has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. It was then that the power of the Church was supplanted with the power of the Bible because they took away the Church's authority in offering any clarifications. Once the Bible became the final word, it's word couldn't be questioned.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/21/biblical-literalism-bible-christians

This explanation also offers an explanation to who pointed out that a priest friend of his suggested looking to be Christlike as opposed to applying a strict adherence to the text. The priest was obviously Catholic and would not have been as influenced by the Protestant traditions.

It is a peculiar fact about the Christian fundamentalists that they deny their clergy special elevated status (as you might see in the Catholic Church or even among orthodox rabbis), but everyone is offered the same status in the eyes of the community in their ability to interpret scripture, with everyone with the same right to go back to the text and argue their point. I see that here as well among the religious critics, where they ask how in the world can a particular passage be interpreted in such a way when it says what it says, trying to decontextualize a thousands of years conversation to just looking at a few limited words on the page.

The majority of negative events in human history can be traced back to religion. The current trend of homophobia for one, nazi Germany, etc. — Darkneos

You really do seem to be ignorant about human history. — Darkneos

The Nazis didn't murder the Jews because of religious differences. A Jew who disclaimed his Judaism was no safer than a devout one.

Nazi Germany is a good example of a war that was not about religion. It was about ethnicity.

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Putin, all devotly religious folks I suppose, trying to impose their brand of religion on the masses. I'll have to read up on that. I wasn't aware of that.

This just sounds like making excuses for the text or religion. Never mind that the text itself contradicts itself multiple times and makes exceptions for followers that it doesn’t for others. Not to mention preach some awful things. — Darkneos

This objection is irrelevant to my point, which is that the intepretation is what is relevant, not the text. I highlighted that point in my last post.

That you can show me the text is contradictory says nothing of the interpretation, which is where humans are deciphering meaning. If your point is that the text in inconsistent, vague at points, and clearly the result of a cobbling together of many ancient documents, I know that.

also the problem with interpretation of a text is that people can use it to justify just about anything they want to so you’re not really helping your cast but more illustrating a huge problem with religion. — Darkneos

Interpretation necessarily involves imposing some sense of wisdom and logic upon the text in order to obtain palatable results. Do you not impose your wisdom and logic when describing your ethical conclusions? Can't you manipulate whatever secular means you use in determining your ethical conclusions to justify whatever result you want? It's not like religion has a monopoly on justifying bad acts.

This reminds me of my friend John (who is a priest) who says 'Forget Jesus, be Christlike!' Is this the kind of thing you mean? — Tom Storm

That approach I think works for any religion, and I think it adds tremendous depth to the religious text and it removes the simplistic objections from the atheistic camp.

Taking what you say further. If you ignore the physical, actual Jesus, but instead focus on what he represents, you have to ask yourself what to do with all the theology surrounding his existence. That is, God supposedly literally gave his only son to assist humankind in cleansing itself from the original sin of Adam eating from the tree of knowledge, a rejection of which results in eternal damnation.

This changes the discussion from a simple tale of snakes in a heaven like Eden to an elusive metaphor, asking why consuming knowledge casts one out of Eden, and why the possession of knowledge without an acceptance of an object of absolute love from a creator would lead to such a condemnable existence.

And this story I've just told is uniquely Christian. Jews, reading the same text, don't place signficance on the fall of man, continue to believe humans are born into perfection, believe atonement for sins occurs by asking for it and not by accepting any Jesus like messiah, and they have no theology of eternal damnation, traceable to inherited sin, personally caused sin, or otherwise.

So this is the same story, but with very different results, begging the question of what the text actually means. And this is where I think the atheists miss the point. They either say the text is absurd in its literal sense in that it demands the acceptance of talking snakes or they think the text is meaningless because it means whatever anyone says it means.

Thousands of years spent analyzing a text through different contexts is certain to yield varying results, but the point is that everyone is using it to consistently find meaning applicable to their existence, which is how the interpretation should be judged, not the literal words of the text. So, when you say "be Christlike," what you mean at a more meta level is to search for our purpose and meaning, whether that be through figuring out the metaphor of Christ, figuring out the necessity of following the legalistic rules of Judaism, or understanding the metaphor and underlying purpose of any religion.

My grandma, who was born in the 1880's, was a typical European Christian of her time. In the 1970's she told me no one had ever gotten to the moon because God and heaven 'are in the sky and people can't get there until they die' — Tom Storm

I don't place Granny outside the time period described by @unenlightened in his reference to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. It's dated to beginning in the late 1800s, so Granny doesn't serve as an example of more long standing fundamentalist tradition.

Wiki offers support for this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#:~:text=In%20its%20modern%20form%2C%20it,theological%20liberalism%20and%20cultural%20modernism.

The Christian fundamentalist movement, which is a naive literalism that tries to limit interpretation to the actual text, specifically denying that it requires special understanding, is a new idea.

Using Judaism as its ancient predecessor in interpreting religious text, even though they did believe the Torah the inerrant word of God, never took such a simplistic literalism for interpretation.

Midrashic interpretations are far (far far far) from literal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

The basic movement then would be from Religion/culture to science (as "religion") + religion + "culture". And from Selves to "selves". But "selves" always long to be Selves and in order to do that there must be a movement back to Religion/culture (fundamentalism). — Baden

I take this analysis as possibly descriptive of Western social secular evolution, but I don't know how applicable it is to Near East, Far East, African, South American, and maybe even some even European countries as well. I don't know if you meant it more generally, or whether you were trying to describe just one idiosyncratic system.

I also don't necessarily see religious thought as dominated by secular reasoning as you do, as if it became generally subservient to it, but I see an emergence of separate cultures (religion vs the state) to greater and lesser degrees at odds over time. I also think there have been religious cultures that never wavered and never embraced secular reasoning within this Western culture you describe.

I like the metaphor of the divergent roads of thoughts, one attributed to Athens and the other to Jerusalem. Philosophy versus faith.

I don't deny attempts at melding these positions over time, but I don't accept the notion that the roads ever fully merged but then later diverged again. I see two separate roads with the travellers of each having varying levels of political influence over one another over time, often imposing their values over the other.

My humanity and my empathy towards my fellow humans and my support of standards such as the golden rule. — universeness

How is this not subjectivism?

The judgement of your fellows who hopefully would label you a selfish, nasty individualist who only cares about himself and you would also be wrong, imo, as the result could be that you are more ostracised from your community. — universeness

Yes, IMO, in your opinion. You're just asserting your subjective morality, which you acknowledge here isn't universally accepted, as there certainly are "nasty individualists."

Hypothetical projections can be useful, especially in leading edge science when 'brain storming.'
Hypotheticals on the issue of human morality are almost utterly useless. Judgement on a case by case basis is the best approach imo. — universeness

Nothing precludes the consideration of hypotheticals when judging someone on a case by case basis.

A religious judiciary is utterly vile. Would you like to be judged based on biblical or sharia codes? — universeness

Why are you asking me this? I don't recall offering support for a biblically based court. I also don't think you know what you're talking about in terms of comparing various secular courts with various religious based courts. That is, why do you suggest a Chinese court would be more just than a beth din, for example.

In any event, I prefer the American court system, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

YOU mostly avoid offering ANY worthwhile detail, regarding these questions. — universeness

I've indicated that I am a theist who believes as theists to, that there is a creator and that creator has a plan and purpose. That I don't subscribe to a particular theistic set of doctrines isn't a requirement to be theistic.

? If you do feel that way about your children, do you not extent that to the children of other humans and other humans themselves? Do you need conformation from your god, that you are being moral, if you value your children in this way or can the conformation of secular humanists such as myself, replace any need you have for supernatural conformation (which you will never receive anyway!)? — universeness

What I need is to understand why my opinion is correct that I value my children. Not everyone values children and many do assert that their murder is justified. I believe they are wrong. I believe that if the world were composed entirely of those who believed in the murder of children, then murder would still be wrong. That is, morality is not relative to time or person or individual opinion. It is absolute, which distinguishes it from the relative or subjective.

Unless I am willing to accept that a standard exists outside of humanity that determines right and wrong, then that standard will be dependent upon whatever state humanity happens to be at the time and place.

Yeah, especially for the nefarious elite! and those who wish to become one of them. Capitalism certainly does not work, at all, for the vast majority of the currently over 8 billion stakeholders on this planet. — universeness

And so we have a dispute. I say capitalism is morally correct, leading to the greatest advancements humankind has ever known and that you are morally corrupt. What to do? We have no standard to apply.

Sorry but some of your responses are just absolutely absurd and perhaps even sinister. — universeness

It's not absurd or sinister to suggest someone has moral beliefs that vary from your own. It's just true. My question is how do you tell the rapist they are wrong no matter how many believe the way they do?

it seems to be declaring that purpose, sacredness and objective morality exist because god exists. — Tom Storm

I'm saying that morality cannot exist without God. Within God's definition is the moral. So it's not that morality exists because God exists; it's that if God exists, morality exists, and if God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist.

If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm?

I like the smell of a kindle. Something about being able to touch the pixelated screen, getting funny colors when you smash your fingers against the letters, the glow in the dark room that helps you find your way to the bathroom. All those things.

That's how people are going to romanticize ebooks in 50 years when the technology will entail injecting the words into our retinas.

Grounding ethics in the real world problems – facticity – of the flourishing (contra languishing) of natural beings. To wit: 'Why be morally good?' is nearly synonymous with 'Why be physically & mentally healthy?' or 'Why be ecologically sustainable?' or 'Why be socially & politically just?" Answer: In order, as natural beings, to cultivate the flourishing (contra languishing) of as many natural beings as possible. — 180 Proof

I appreciate the effort in grounding the ethical in the empirically measurable because that would seem a logical approach for someone who desires a scientifically based ethic, but it would seem to fail on a couple of grounds.

First, it over prioritizes the moral significance of personal behaviors that have typically been falling out of favor to be considered of moral value in Western culture. Things like drug use, sexual freedoms, risk taking behavior and the like are generally well accepted as moral, and considered immoral to restrain, despite many of those decisions being obviously unhealthy.

Second, I'm not convinced that an unjust decision must result in reduced societal flourishing. It's a nice thought to think, for example, that brutal honesty will lend itself to greater happiness, but it doesn't always seem the case. We can hypothesize that in the end things will be better if we're moral, but such takes a certain amount of faith.

As a rabbi joked with me, he told me that in the end, everything will work out, so if things are bad, be happy it's not yet the end.

False dichotomy. — 180 Proof

My question wasn't rhetorical, as if to argue either an absolute ethic or nihilism. I was asking why it's not a dichotomy.

Anyway, as I discern it, answering a mystery with a greater mystery actually isn't intelligible. — 180 Proof

What then makes ethical realism intelligible? Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?

Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.” — universeness

This doesn't follow. Why couldn't the plan be we are created perfect and will die perfect?

This seems an attack on the doctrine of original sin and the concept of eternal damnation. It's not applicable against theism generally, but just certain religious belief systems.

But maybe Hitchens' quote here is better elaborated upon contextually to whatever else he was saying because this seems so obviously incorrect as a general comment.

Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you? — universeness

And upon what basis don't you support it, and upon what criteria would I be wrong not to agree with you. Why is your basis applicable to me?

By way of example, the tree is either there or not. My opinion is irrelevant. Is the true for the immorality of the rapist?

Your point that they would be immoral even if every person in existence declared their actions moral is a nonsense question as such a state of affairs has never happened and never will. — universeness

This just shows an inability to understand how to reason through the use of a hypothetical. It is logically irrelevant that the hypothetical hasn't occurred. Whether a tree, for example, would exist if the world denied it, isn't meaningfully answered by denying such ever occurred, but it is answered by recognizing that an object's existence isn't dependent upon a person's admission it exists.

No it's more than that, it's a supernatural significance which has NEVER been demonstrated as having an existent. — universeness

This is really just more of your inability to abstract. I'm saying that that your elevation of humanity to special status makes it logically indistinct from what the religious do with God. If you have no supernatural basis for the holiness you decree for humanity, why did you choose humanity over plants?

Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior, — universeness

Why?

No it's more important, it's a powerful survival instinct. — universeness

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Capitalism seems to work, but I don't know that I'd call it intrinsically cooperative. This just seems your idiosyncratic view of morality

Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day. — universeness

They cooperate with rapists so the rapists can get their lot of raping in and the non-rapists can get a little of what they want? I thought we locked rapists up without concern for their wishes.

The two quotes above should make my reasons for commenting on my personal happiness, crystal clear. — universeness

But it doesn't.

Humans can cooperate and agree on a moral code to live by on a small tribal basis or a global basis. — universeness

OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral?

We can establish a moral code based on a goal of providing well-being for all stakeholders — universeness

What about those you imprison? How does that promote their well being?

There is no such a state as an absolute morality. Murder is judged on a case by case basis. — universeness

Absolute morality doesn't imply that you don't judge on a case by case basis. It says for a specified event, it is immoral every time you evaluate it. That is, either Pol Pot (or Hitler or the rapist next door) is immoral or he isn't, regardless of who is the judge. If he is judged by all the world as moral, then all the world is wrong. Do you disagree?

Now who is employing special pleading? I do agree that humans seem to be the most able creature we know of when it comes to demonstrating meaning, purpose, cause, legacy etc, etc but words like 'holy,' and 'sacred' are absurd and irrational. — universeness

That which is holy is set apart from all else as having special significance. Since your position is secular humanism and not secular botanism I assume you're holding that humans are of ultimate significance. If not, why do they get named in your theory?

and in what way are they different from my aspiration to be 'humanist'/benevolent in my dealings with other humans on a cooperative basis? — universeness

Because cooperation isn't an ethical theory. It's sometimes appropriate and other times not. You don't cooperate with rapists, for example. You need some ability to assert a moral realism in order to avoid having to admit to a subjective morality. A morality that exists without human beings is per se violative of secular humanity. That is, you cannot tell me rape is wrong if we all agree it is. That is the problem.

can make little sense of your first point as the term 'universal subjective truth' is meaningless to me.
A subjective truth that applies everywhere in the universe???? — universeness

How is it meaningless if you just defined it?

without your god anchor, I will simply go on demonstrating that I am enjoying life, immensely, and I need no notion of a supernatural carer, to BE who and what I am. I own me, I don't assign my life to the gift of some esoteric, scrutineer, who seems utterly unable to make it's existence an irrefutable fact, very very probably, because it has no existent. — universeness

How is your personal happiness relevant to this question? Are you trying to prove to me that a belief in God isn't necessary for happiness, as if someone argued otherwise?

think I have made my beliefs quite clear in my postings. Perhaps you should be more forthcoming in the details of your theism, unless you are scared that the details of your theism may come across to others as too irrational. — universeness

You didn't ask the details of my theism and I didn't ask the details of your epistemology. You asked which God I believed in and I asked which truth you believed in. Your question implies there are multiple gods and my question implies there are multiple truths. Our questions are similar in that they both inaccurately describe the other's position.

Your assumptions are imbedded in your posts, as if you have a list of gods, like the Muslim God, the Christian God, the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, etc and you want to know which I pick. This isn't a debate over religion. It's a debate over theism.

My theism requires a creator. That's it. With it comes the power to create. From it, derives purpose, meaning, and a basis for morality missing in secular humanism. You cannot have an absolute morality without something anchoring it beyond human reason, which means murder is wrong unless I think it's not. It also establishes humanity as holy, sacred, and separated from all else. Those sorts of designations aren't scientific but just muddle a definition of God as being that ideal good that advances humanity's meaning and purpose so you can avoid admitting to theism.

You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: (1) accept a subjective morality but chase the elusive idea that your there are universal subjective truths (which there aren't), (2) use secular terms to appease yourself that you're not actually a theist, or (3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position.

Which one? — universeness

This question is as coherent as mine to your question.

The truth is important to me — universeness

Which truth do you believe in?

Being Jewish does not mean you follow Judaism and the words in the Torah and Talmud, does it?
I know atheists who still call themselves Jewish. — universeness

Different Jews have different definitions.

my secular humanism needs no supernatural input to function. — universeness

If you posit special significance for humanity, you're not concerning yourself with truth. You're just lying to yourself for some pragmatic reason.

So why not just be a secular humanist, who have a similar goal of creating a better existence for humans on Earth — universeness

Because I believe in the existence of God.

Why don't you become a theist so that you'll have an underlying reason to promote humanity?

Wow! But I thought you considered yourself a Christian — universeness

Why did you think that?

I only said I was a theist. A thousand times I said I was Jewish as well.

Far as I'm concerned the vast majority of disagreements on this thread would simply dissolve if we all recognised that the term "incel" signals a specific ideology of hatred and misogyny that goes beyond a difficulty establishing romantic relationships. I don't know how more evident this needs to be or why it's such a block. — Baden

"Much of the knowledge of incel ideology has been derived from observational analysis of online forums which may not represent all or even most incels. There is a question around which posts should be considered and filtering based on popularity and effect compounded by prevalence of deliberately posting for controversy. Some researchers have tried selecting posts for a period of time rather than based on popularity. The attitudes of those who post in forums and those who read but do not participate can be different. In in-person interviews with a female interviewer, incels were found to be more interested in discussing their lived experiences than in discussing anti-feminist
ideology.[75]: "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

It's like you're the definition police that says your definition must control even when others tell you they're using a different definition.

We'll call your icels "Aincels" and mine "Bincels."

I sympathize with Bincels, not Aincels. Does that make us all happy?

It's not as if there is an International Incel Foundation that sets forth a mission statement and clearly defines their ideology. An incel at his base is an involuntary celibate, meaning someone who desires female interaction, but does not receive it.

It is undeniable that many in that group are extereme misogynists. It does not appear though that all those malicious attributes are essential for an incel to exist. Some may just be sad sacks, worthy of some degree of sympathy.

The steelman position here is in defending the incel who lacks the malicious attributes and seeing just the lonely socially incompetent person as someone who might do better if the dating system and relationship rules du jour were different.

I am not convinced that today's online swiping system is the best we've got.

As to the meta conversations about what sympathy ought be afforded the devil, I break the tension with a musical interlude:

I'm wondering why the topic of incels, this legion of unattractive toads, is so popular a thread on TPF. — BC

I saw this video by Jordan Peterson, who I'm not terribly a fan of, but his videos have become ubiquitous and I stumbled upon it the other day. It got me to thinking that perhaps these guys we've scoffed off as losers might be suffering more than we considered. I'm not talking about those who are attacking women and are horrible people, but I'm referring to those who have personality flaws that interfere with their happiness to such a degree.

I just think what I take for granted, the ability to form and keep relationships, and the central role that plays in my life, to have an inability to do that. And even worse, to have an instinct to react in a way that makes the formation of those relationships all the more unlikely.

Probably the most succinct way I can put it is that sympathising with incels--in their developed online form--is akin to sympathising with white supremacists because black people won't be their slaves or with neo-Nazis because they can't put Jews in concentration camps. There is a point where compassion is not the appropriate response. — Baden

I really wasn't aware of the organized effort of this group in celebrating their failures and then blaming it on women, but I took the term "incel" to more so identify with the disenfrachised male. I researched it some to learn they are more a malicious group than I realized. To the extent an incel is the group identified more formally, fuck them. To the extent they are more just a group of disenfranchised males unable to find a partner, that's what my posts are meant to reference.

My Internal Twitter is screaming at you for this.

Ensure success? What, like women finding partners is a matter of men performing a role? Where is their agency and choice! Male entitlement belongs in the dustbin of history, this is not a good look.

I don't believe my Internal Twitter. My only reason for telling you what it says is to highlight what happens if you say things like that in public. You get uncharitably shat on... — fdrake

Incels demand vaginas like wheelchair users demand ramps, and parents of infants demand changing facilities, and black people demand fair policing. If one felt great sympathy with this deprived group, one might suggest state funded sexual social workers, to fill their needs. No one seems to have suggested that here , though. — unenlightened

@BC

Heterosexual men are of course not entitled to women, but, for the vast majority of men, they do require relationships with women for more meaningful, fulfilled lives. That is both a social and biological reality. The question then is how to best structure society for that to occur.

The flip side, not being discussed because this is a thread about the incel, a male creature, is what women may need for happiness, which is the matter for another thread. But, I will say that women tend to be more emotionally expressive toward other women than men are to men and they may feel less isolated because of that, but I'll wisely defer to women to speak for women.

Dating is a social construction that is obviously informed by biology, but the human mating dance isn't like the peacock's in that it is all biology, but it is also a social construct. What that means is that we can look at different cultures over different times and see how dating has occurred and then we can ask ourselves which has been most effective. These social constructions are not created as @unenlightened points out through state sponsered committees, but they emerge through different means.

How they date in traditional Indian society versus how they date in the rain forest versus how they dated in middle America in the 1950s versus how Muslims, Mormons, Jews, the royal family, the underclass, etc. varies greatly, and it constantly changes. What we're used to in secular Western culture has also seen great change recently. A dating culture typical in my lifetime involved finding a large room that could house available men and women, playing rhythmic music, and dousing it with alcohol. Compare that to what the Southern Baptists might have been doing in their planning an ice-cream social, certain Indian cultures in employing a match-maker, or even those that might purely arrange a marriage.

In Western society, in the past not so many years, we've moved to an online dating culture, which likely advantages some and disadvantages others. In the catalog dating world, you can be assessed on black and white credentials, which helps some and others not. This swipe right / swipe left world may not be the best one in terms of assisting the greatest number in finding happiness.

It is an interesting phenomenon that you can have literally tens of thousands of men and women
ostensibly looking for the same thing, yet so many are unable to find what they seek. That points to a poorly constructed dating culture at least for some.

This isn't to suggest that we should blame the women for not just being more willing to satisfy men because the women are no more to blame for the social constructs than the men. This is just to point out that dating culture is a social creation, and it may just be we're in a particularly challenging time for many men to succeed in it. My expectation is that some creative soul will arrive at a way to assist the incel in their pursuit of happiness. Typically when there is a demand, someone arrives at a way to fill it.

But, sure, an incel doesn't have the right to be a dick to women for his failures, and a woman has nothing to apologize about for in rejecting these men, but I do think there might be a systemic problem if there is a growing number of guys who are stuck in what they feel to be an impenetrable (unintended double entendre) lonliness.

guess there's something latent there. Like you and others, I've been through periods without sex and had the common sense to blame myself for it. — Baden

I think any heterosexual male who's being honest will admit to the frustrations, challenges, pressures, and stresses of all sorts with interacting with women.

Some sympathy must lie with those who can't seem to figure it out or who are missing the ingredient for success. The consequences are significant. The difference between being single and having a family is tremendous .

The healthy way to deal with that lack of success is to try harder, seek help from friends and professionals, join social groups and other such things. But many aren't healthy and many lash out.

I can't sympathize with those who victimize others, but I do see a not entirely healthy structure in place to assure greater happiness on the relationship front. Some religious subcultures condemn the secular methods used for mate seeking and present their own, but their methods aren't always exactly wonderful substitutes.

But to the question as to why the incels? It's because our system doesn't assure success for too many people.

Incorrect. Definitions are of course constructed by human subjective observation of reality, but for them to be of most use, they must be able to be objectively used. For example, if I define a tree as a "Thing with branches and leaves", its not very useful for details in a world with brushes and shrubs. A botanist wouldn't hold to such a definition because clarity and accuracy of definitions are important when discerning between plants as a profession. — Philosophim

There can be disputes as to what constitutes what, including what objective criteria are to be used for that determination. Whether Pluto is a planet or not is one such question. Obviously nothing ontologically changed about Pluto over time, but that it one day was considered a planet and another day not is based upon convention and whatever purposes the people using the term are trying to fulfill.

If a Reform Jew and Orthodox Jew have definitions for their own branch of Judaism, that is fine. But then this needs to be objectively matched to the definitions to say, "That person is a Reform Jew, and not an Orthodox". — Philosophim

If they live in isolation from one another, then there is no pragmatic effect for their distinct uses of the term Jew, but where it matters is when the term "Jew" (or in your case "woman") is afforded certain rights in the community at large. So, if the rule is that "Jews" have the right to instantly become citizens should they immigrate to Israel, then a decision as to who is a Jew becomes important. Who gets to decide that question is one of politics and authority. If the Orthodox control the Knesset, then certain people the Reform would allow in would be excluded. That would then result in a political dispute by those disenfranchised.

Now turning toward the question of what is a woman. If women are permitted to play on certain sports teams, use certain pronouns, and use certain bathrooms, the question then becomes who gets to decide who is a woman and be afforded those right, and that is a political dispute. I'm not suggesting I disagree with the decision to disallow transsexual woman the right to play sports with biologically born women, but I am saying that there is no absolute right one way or the other dictated by biology. What value society wishes to afford biological distinctions is up to the society.

What I am saying is if you have a definition of gender, and a definition of sex, gender does not change your sex. Vice-versa, sex does not change your gender. Thus if we separate people according to sex, and the limitations of the body that sex entails, saying you identify with a gender that matches another sex does not entail you entry into areas divided by sex. — Philosophim

It's obvious that one's mental state does not change their biological state. It is also obvious that it is the accepted orthodoxy that we seperate men and women on the basis of sex (not gender). It is also obvious that there is a notable group of people arguing against that orthodoxy and demanding that seperation occur on the basis of gender not sex.

What this means is that you're not making an argument. You're simply restating the accepting orthodoxy and stating it shouldn't be challenged. That is, you're just telling me that we've traditionally separated men and women on the basis of sex, not gender identification, so we can't start changing things just because someone has changed their gender identification. My point is, says who? Why is that a dicate of reality that things be done tomorrow the way they were done yesterday?

"I identify as a Reform Jew, even though I don't meet your birth criteria for it." This is not a battle over authority. This is a battle over people trying to say that gender equates to sex. — Philosophim

It's entirely a battle of authority. The Reform Jew isn't saying that his mother is Jewish even when she's not and so therefore he's Jewish. He's saying his mother is Christian, but he's insisting that he's still Jewish because parental religion is irrelevant to his analysis. It's directly analogous to what we're talking about here. A MtF transsexual isn't saying she was actually born a biological female so she's therefore a woman. She's saying she was born a biological man, but identifies as a woman, so she is a woman to be afforded all priviledges afforded women, and she doesn't care about your definition of what a woman is and how it relates to sex.

Objective considerations trump subjective considerations. The desire for subjective considerations to take precedence over objective considerations results in prejudice or sexism. — Philosophim

All ideological identities are subjective because they relate to thought processes and they will only correlate to objective criteria if the subjective ideology requires it.

For example, an Orthodox Jew defines a Jew as having a mother who is Jewish and he defines Judaism as a very specific set of beliefs and behaviors.

A Reform Jew allows that a Jew be the child of a Jewish mother or father and he defines Judaism quite differently than the Orthodox Jew.

Should the Orthodox Jew be required to accept the way the Reform define Jews and Judaism? No, but neither should he have the authority to deny the Reform Jew his right to call who he wants a Jew.

Let us then add another problem, which makes this analogy all the more apt. Suppose "Jews" have certain rights to citizenship in Israel that non-Jews don't? Who gets to decide who receives these rights, the Orthodox Jew or the Reform Jew. This debate over terms now has political consequences and the two sides will have to fight over authority.

Back to transsexuals. If gender, as you define it, is a subjective belief, isn't it also a subjective belief that that belief must correlate to an objective criterion like sex? Why do you get the authority to demand that gender must correlate to biology anymore than an Orthodox Jew has the authority to demand that religious affiliation correlate to biological factors?

This battle you define is therefore one over authority, meaning it is a political battle between the progressives and the orthodox (lower case), but it is not, as you claim, just a foolish error by the transexuals in not appreciating the old rule that sex and gender correlate. They wish to overthrow that old rule

I don't believe that climate change is a threat at all. — Varnaj42

Here is my opinion about our future. Earth changes are natural and normal. — Varnaj42

I have solar panels for lighting and computers in my home — Varnaj42

You say three things here:

1. Climate change poses no threats to humanity.
2. Climate change occurs as part of a natural process.
3. Even if #2 is false and humans cause climate change, you're doing what you can to stem it by choosing non carbon based sources of energy.

My questions:

1. If climate change poses no threats, then why bother playing junior scientist and hazard an opinion as to its cause? Whether it's caused by humans or sun spots, you've just declared it no big deal, so why worry about what's causing it? Why this need to protect the reputation of humans?

2. If carbon based emissions are not the cause of climate change, why are you telling us about the cost savings measures you've found for your energy needs? Are you just giving us wise consumer advice?

Generalizing even further, philosophy is—or is part of—enlightenment, a means by which humans are freed from domination, whether by nature, myth, religion, governments, whatever it happens to be: — Jamal

So I watched the video, and my thoughts were as yours to the extent one could continually pull back the focus to greater generalizations, to where we don't just say philosophy is the tool to challenge "religion" as we define that term specifically, but as to any prevailing ideology. If, for example, the ideology du jour is wokeness, we use philosophy to challenge that to assure ourselves of its validity.

Consistent with this was his 2nd reason for why philosophy is of value, and that was it coined concepts. This would therefore allow for some timeless truth to emerge, as in whatever it is that we learn from realizing that wokeness, for example, had certain negative characteristics, that could now exist as a newly understood concept we could use elsewhere.

The problem I see is that he is defining the value of philosophy in terms of philosophy. That is, he explains, perhaps without realizing, not how philosophy is used as a tool on other disciplines, but how it internally works.

That is, wokeness (our example) isn't something outside philosophy that philosophy subjects to criticism, but wokeness is itself a philosophy. Being a philosophy, it must adhere to philosophical challenges, like coherence, logic, empirical testing, etc. That is to say, was the video really just saying that ideologies of whatever particularity are fundamentally belief systems founded in human rationality, and if they can't survive intellectual challenge, they necessarily fail in their attempt to be a philosophy in the first place?

This is bad news because exploitation discourages future cooperation, destroys those potential benefits, and eventually, everybody loses. — Mark S

I'm not entirely following this. In legal parlance, we refer to cooperation within a criminal enterprise as "conspiracy," something no one would suggest is moral simply because teamwork was involved.

In your Nazi example, do you suggest the cooperation among Nazis was immoral because it would not result in return cooperation from the Jews? I think it would, albeit involuntary (coercive) cooperation. Draconian laws typically result in compliance.

It would seem we must identify a moral end worth achieving if we wish to judge the morality of the means. The way I've read your OP, you seem to be judging the pragmatic efficacy of the cooperative effort in yielding future cooperation as your basis for morality.

Are you suggesting that cooperative murder would be moral if it enhanced future cooperative efforts, or do you refuse to entertain that hypothetical because you think it logically impossible that murder could enhance future cooperation? If so, why?

Or have I gotten lost in misunderstanding here?