Do you have schizophrenia?

In fact this quote itself looks dubious. I'm beginning to suspect Terrapin Station and Matias are in fact the same character with different masks on?

Also I disagree with Yuval on

"As Yuval Noah Harari rightly pointed out: Humanism, be it in its socialist, liberal of evolutionary variety, is a kind of religion for modern people who cannot subscribe to any of the traditional versions of religion."

No it's not. Humanists don't believe in divine beings, magic and other fantastical things. It's a philosophy. Humanism has nothing to do with some mythical being up in the skies. It's a secular thing. What the hell is he talking about?

You're quoting a non-existent sentence. Please take your medication. Bye.

Up has run five bluish.

Yes, because Matias never wrote "'Evolution means . . . the absence of morality " as you quote. He simply said he evolution was blind to morality. Evolution means the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Your fallacy here is:

Socrates did not like to read poetry.
Hence, Socrates means the absence of poetry.

Go to sleep.

I completely disagree with you.

— Devans99

Hmmm...When we say divide by 2, we mean make two of that. Or cut once. 2-1. But had our convention been that divide by 2 meant cut two times, then to divide by 0 would mean to cut 0 times or leave it as it is which is 1 piece. So then to get 0 piece you would have to cut i) negative number of times which is impossible ii) an infinitesimal number of times, which is impossible, not just because of the unreal nature of infinitesimal numbers, but also because you cannot cut at a fractional number of times iii) and infinite number of times so that every piece is so small as to be the same as nothing, which is impossible, not just because of the unreal nature of infinite numbers, but also because you'd never get to the end of it even at infinite speed of cutting and forever in time.

You're out of your element, man. Of course drug use can sometimes be immoral. What if a pilot took cocaine and crashed a plane? What are you smoking?

What does this mean to you?
" All we need is a practical difference that a belief one way or the other makes, whatever all the details. "

Who would disagree with that? That a mother addicted to heroine is worse for a child than were she sober?

All humans have both good qualities and bad qualities. Perhaps they have more of one than the other, perhaps not. All humans do both moral and immoral things, some more so than others. Morality and immorality themselves are subjective things.
In prehistory this meant both co-operation and murder, sharing and theft, worship and cannibalism, trading and war. But after civilization, we raised the standard of morality. The very word "civilized" requires some form and degree of morality. Of course this varies from culture to culture and geography to geography. But then again the past century showed us that perhaps we're not all as moral as we'd like to think.

He said that evolution is blind and impartial to such things as morality and only cares about survival and reproduction. He didn't say evolution discriminates against morality, so it'll happily accept morality (or immorality) if that means increased chances of survival and reproduction. For humans it was being moral that was advantageous, or in other words, those that were moral and helpful to each other survived while others perished.
Helping ones kind is not even an exclusively human thing, many other social animals do that, especially herd animals. I don't think buffalos help each other and their offsprings because they read some Greek philosopher on virtue, so it must be an evolutionary thing. Likewise, I don't think lions fight with other visiting male lions in their vicinity because they don't like the newcomer's face. They're built by evolution to do that, because those of their ancestors that did survived and passed on their genes, while those that didn't perished.

I'm sorry this is indecipherable to me.

Precisely the opposite of that. He is saying that evolution shaped humans to be very social, and that required what we would call morality. So it was a sort of byproduct. But I suppose it's not so black and white like that. Being strong, dominating and aggressive might've been often times even more advantageous than just being good to each other and helping each other. But perhaps that is where immorality and savagery came from?

You forgot to mention the bit that Betty lived with her parents so she didn't have to pay rent, but Bill lived alone so he did. That's economics, where freedom is a commodity and philosophy is a luxury.

Here's an even better one:


Muslims should not eat pork.
All pork is meat.

Therefore Muslims should not eat meat.

If Socrates said it then yes. But if the S stands for someone else, I suspect it to be a kindergarten teacher or a magician, so pedagogy or wizardry perhaps?

Insane Denial of Conscious Experience LOL

Or,

Puritans should not engage in Satanic music.
Musical Instruments are used in Satanic music.

Therefore, Puritans should not engage in music that uses musical instruments.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/12/evolution-of-morality-social-humans-and-apes/418371/

"Nearly 150 years ago, Charles Darwin proposed that morality was a byproduct of evolution, a human trait that arose as natural selection shaped man into a highly social species—and the capacity for morality, he argued, lay in small, subtle differences between us and our closest animal relatives. “The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind,” he wrote in his 1871 book The Descent of Man."

What is your argument that is didn't?

That would work if the church agreed with abortion being an exclusively political and not a religious and moral issue.



"For your final essay, you can only choose any topic that belongs to Category A."
Student can write a paper of subject X.

"For your final essay, you can choose any topic that belongs to only Category A."
Student cannot write a paper on subject X.



I don't know what exactly it's called but might I term it linguistic/grammatical fallacy? The "only" was in the wrong place in the sentence.

How do you prove anything tangible exists?
What do you mean Canada? The surface of earth and things in it controlled by the Canadian government? The people of Canada? The government of Canada? All the biodiversity of Canada? Does it include the hyrdopsphere and atmosphere?
If you just mean Canada, you know, that place, then you have two options. You can either take the word of most other people in this world, or you'll have to fly to Canada yourself to experience that beautiful country in person.
God on the other hand does not accept visitors, not alive ones at least.

Philosophy is the love of knowledge.

I think I get it. Do we have free will? Free will to do what?

lol

I laughed so hard at this LOL

You have better chances of survival on scenario I (modern medicine, less accidents, no wars), but you might have a shorter but better life in scenario II because of higher standards of living caused by a drastically decreased population.

Where's the love, man?

Do you grow your own food?

The recitation of the fact that more than 7 billion people exist.

When a society becomes truly socialist it would already have become communist.

A heroine addict mother wouldn’t be good for her child hence it can be immoral?

“Is a major conflict imminent in the Middle East?”

A major conflict is ongoing in the Middle East, and for many years now.

Hmmm..I doubt it but ok.

For me freedom is to not be pointed at by lesser men.

I’m joking of course. Freedom for me is a word related with economics. It is the state of being free from poverty and other cares of life that having money solves.

Oo

Not to mention things like culture, religion, upbringing, gender, age and genetics.

On the original question, I’m not sure what exactly you’re after, but I believe one line of the explanation for humanism is that human nature is good because it was evolutionarily advantageous to be so. The premium was in cooperation rather than in competition.

Yes, I should've tried reading the whole thing properly before constructing an elaborate response. I apologise, but I think what came out is also interesting nevertheless.