Morality is about self-discipline, i.e. about what you feel that you should be doing. It is never about what other people should be doing. — alcontali

This is in diametical opposition to Kant's Categorical Imperative. The CI of Kant is precisely what one should do must be acceptable to one if all did the same. So K is INSTRUCTING US what to do.

You are saying instruction in morality is not morality.

You may retort that that's not what you said; you may retort that instruction is up for the student of morality to internalize or not, according to the student's own choice.

However, the very fact that we instruct, is a coercion; which is nothing else but trying to convince others how to behave. This coercion is successful in educating a large percentage of the population; therefore for practical purposes, people do what others tell them to do, and that is in opposition to what you are saying.

If you still insist on morality being ONLY what one feels one should be doing, and without outside influences or coercion or reasoning, then what one feels should be doing could potentially include murder, rape, theft, damaging public property, blasphemy, spitting in public places, throwing away trash, putting chewing gum under your theatre seat, pissing on toilet seats and fidgeting during sermons at church.

I would urge you to please consider that the entire history of morality in society has been based on instruction, and telling people what they must, ought, should, do, by moral consideration.

I am, by the way, a person degreed in English. So, fuck me. — Bitter Crank

Please don't get a cow. In my entire life cascade-strength successes happened only and always when I kept my mouth shut. By not saying something in those pivotal moments of my life, I always managed to change the course of my fate for the better by not saying something I really wanted to say, and which turned out to be completely stupid.

As an example, of the sort, but not quite the same: I was talking with my friend Paul, and I used the word "albeit" nonchalantly, and pronounced it the German way. All-Bite. He started to laugh uproariously, and said, he wondered how many job interviews I had blown by using that word with the wrong pronunciation.

If you think about it, it is quite... idiosyncratic.

This rings true to me. I actually don't like MOST fiction so when I read (or watch) a story that I like, I am happy to re-read. I found that with the books I like, I actually liked them even more, on the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th read. However, after the 5th or 6th read, I need like a decade off before I will get the same enjoyment again. — ZhouBoTong

This used to be precisely the case for me, too, until my mid- to late thirties, and it completely tapered off by 40. By forty, I refused to read almost any book.

One single solitary exception was Imre Kertesz's book on his personal experiences during the Holocaust, titled "Fatelessness". ("Sorstalansag" in Hungarian.) I started to read that book at nine o'clock in the evening, in bed, and said to myself, I will read like 10 pages, and then put it away for the next day. Next I knew, while still reading, was that I was 3/4 through the book, and it was 4:30 in the morning. I kept on reading that book to the bitter end non-stop.

Yeah, fuck. (Smucks his tongue.)

Well grammatically that seems easy. If yesterday's reality was different from today's, haven't we described multiple realities? — ZhouBoTong

No, sir, yesterday's reality being different from today's reality is still just one reality. If you need to work this out, I may not want to help you. If you can't see that reality is a continuum on a time scale, which is the fourth dimension of spacial reality, then I am sorry, I believe your ability to access the concept of reality is not complete.

This is not something I wish to argue for. If someone does not see this, then I consider that person lost to the world of sufficient insight which mutually comprises itself with philosophy.

No discrimination or exclusivity here; It is the farthest from my intentions to want to label you, @ZhouBoTong, or ostricise you, but with all due respect, I am also unwilling to teach you insight on such basic level.

I still call myself atheist, as the current generally accepted meaning is "not a believer in god(s)". I think those who coined this word were in agreement with this. How could they not be, when the greek source is "theist"- goddist, with the negation prefix "a".

While I believe in the power of knowing historical development and etimology of words, I think if someone goes by the current usage, irrespective of the meaning's development, then he or she has a greater chance of not being misunderstood.

My baby keeps me amused. She has orifice.

Kind of like picking out which porn video to watch. There seems like endless variety and options, but for some reason it was determined at the Big Bang that I would pick the redhead today. :grin: — Noah Te Stroete

You almost got it; the sad truth is that it had been predicated by events from prior to the Big Bang. In fact, if time and existence of matter in time is infinitely old, then the history of events by causation has never had a "beginning" point of determinant quality; it has been going on from the infinite past.

"there is only one reality" is a type of reasoning but a long way from actual evidence — ZhouBoTong

That there is only one reality is not a reasoning, but an observation. It can only be false if you can show me that there is more than one reality.

Please show me more than 1 reality. Please show me that reality is a multiplicity by and in itself. Evidence suggests there is only one reality.

Atheism has been invented by those who fear God, — Drazjan

It is not my contention that Atheists fear God. — Drazjan

These are two direct quotes uttered by you. The referencing is easily done.

So... you later say that the TERM atheism has been invented by those who fear the Abrahamic god, and the term is to mean those who are heathens.

I wish people would be more careful in composing their posts, and wish people would pay more attention to be not misleading by carelessness. I read what is written, and I understand what I read. If someone by mistake writes other than what they meant, they should clear it up. Thanks for clearing this up, Drazjan. I appreciate the effort.

I somehow figure you like to gaze into Crystal balls. Crystal eye balls, to be more precise. Crystal's eyes, to be incredibly precise.

Agree with what you wrote.

Please consider that third person singular possessive adjective in the neutral gender is written as "its", not "it's". This is THE most common spelling mistake made by degreed (but not in English or in journalism) people.

I appreciate your effort.
— god must be atheist

That’s what she said. — Noah Te Stroete

I live in an apartment building. The surrounding gardens on the premises are kept up by the tenants, on a volunteer basis. There is no contract with the landlord that we must do it; it's just that some of the tenants are keen on gardening.

One day I come home and Chuck was sweeping up the sidewalk. I told him, he is doing a good job. He thanked me. Then I screamed at him in an agry, ugly voice, saying it very abruptly, "BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH!"

We both laughed.

"I didn't say that anti-religious people are toxic to me" yes, you did say it by agreeing with Wayfarer, who stated this as a counter-claim to mine. I you read the texts carefully, you will see.
— god must be atheist
OK. I didn't recognize the phrase 'toxic to me' I can see now it's a reasonable paraphrase of what you originally wrote. Next time a direct quote instead of a synonym would be better. I intended to agree with the last part of you post that I thought he was referring to. I can see how you applied it to the whole post.

I hope that's clear to you now. — Coben

Dear Coben, thanks for clearing this up.

I read what is written, and I understand what I read. If someone makes a mistake by writing what they don't mean, then it is something they must fix later; and you came through with that. I appreciate your effort.

Do you think English is one of the hardest languages to learn as an adult? — Bitter Crank

All languages are hard to learn as adults. English, due to its simple structure of noun-verb agreement, practically non-existent adjective, noun, and verb conjugations, and a somewhat looser word-order than other languages, can be spoken almost immediately fluently (but in a broken way) once you acquire about ten words. In other languages the complexities of grammar make that impossible.

However, they say the more you know English, the harder it gets. Did you know that you use a different pronoun for two people as opposed to some people, and many people? "Neither of us finished grade seven" would be incorrectly said this way, if you only talk about two persons: "None of us finished grade seven".

Verb tenses are incredibly hard in English, if you are bent to use them properly. At least for a foreigner. "I went to school" and "I've gone to school" are different in usage not only as a rule dictates when to use perfect and when to use imperfect, but also as a difference in idiomatic meaning.

This is what it is: the rules of English grammar are replete with idiomatic exceptions. On the surface its grammar is deceptive simple; it's its exceptions the learning of which make or break a learner's success.

Then there is the lot of words to memorize. English had forty years ago one million words (according to some rough estimates); today the rough estimate is 2000000 words. A common man uses maybe 2000 words regularly and in extreme cases in his lifetime; a writer, about 10000 words; and Bill Shakespeare used I think something like 25000 different words. And you know how hard it is to read him.

The active (used by the self) vocabulary of an average adult native speaker of English is around 2000 words; the passive (not used but understood) vocabulary of the same person is about 10000-20000 words.

I quoted these figures from memory, I did not use a reference material. They are here for your scrutiny.

So because I can't know all the possibilities, they can't exist? I don't get it. — ZhouBoTong

I think it's more like: only one possibility exists, but you don't know what it is, therefore you imagine all kinds of different possibilities exist. (You meaning the general you; human.)

Re reading old books is great, it's like hanging out with close friends. You know exactly how good it is going to be-and you pick up on nuances you didn't catch the first time. Or maybe that's just me being autistic, and overrating the value of repetition and sameness. — Grre

Again I concur wholeheartedly. I just had re-read my favourites so many times in the past, that I expect no new nuances to crop their heads. Which is most likely a mistake. There are nuances everywhere that you hadn't before noticed, because appreciating art of any form is very much dependent on the mood you are in at the time.

But why couldn't the universe just have infinite possibilities in any given moment, but only some actually occur? — ZhouBoTong

because probabilities is a human-only oriented knowledge prediction. A mind could potentially foreknow or precognize all events in the future, but a human mind can't as its lack of ability to encompass all that is to know to know the future manifests in less and less accurate predictions with each iteration of the causation process; the further into the future, the less accurate the prediction, the less probable that a foretelling is precise. But it is only from the point of view or from the limited capacity of the human mind. In effect, the future is knowable, and precisely knowable, since there is no cause without an effect, and no effect without a cause.

Your opinion extrapolates from what is knowable by humans, to what is theoretically knowable. That is a mistake.

Now I (...) only delve into fiction when I want reread some of my favourites, — Grre

I think of re-reading some of my old favourites, but can't bring myself to actually read them.

all the short readings I do (this website, newspapers, magazines, wikipedia, email, etc) and I probably average an hour or two per day (to be fair, most of that time is probably spent proofreading my own posts :grimace:). — ZhouBoTong

I concur. I LOVE reading my own posts (and short stories, essays, etc.) It's equivalent to a person loving his or her own voice in speech.

Me? Me no read. Can't. Won't. But for some reason I have a profound understanding of the lanuage and beyond. I am a published author, with two short stories having won first prize each in international short story competiitons.

I can't read. It bores me. I lose my interest, I can't keep my attention focused.

My skills in philosophy I attribute to the huge lot of free time I have that I can devote to solitary, speculative thinking. I don't learn from books; I learn from myself. By thinking about things and figuring them out on my own.

I used to read up to about fifteen years of age. Then I read two two-volume books, one titled "Igy Irtok Ti" and the other, "Feljelentem az emberiseget". By Frigyes Karinthy. That did me in. Nothing compares in world literature to these two works in style, in parody, in satire. Woody Allen comes close albeit scantily, in parts of his written works. Of the old masters, Jerome K. Jerome, Stephen Leacock, Mark Twain and A.A. Milne resemble Karinthy, but from far behind him. In fact, Karinthy has himself translated works of these writers save for J.K. Jerome.

To be fair, Karinthy's insight was not as keen as Twain's, and his stories were not as wise and intricate as Milne's. He was, however, a master stylist of language. He completely spoiled me. And to be even fairer, his characterization was as keen, consistent and flawless as both of Twain's and Milne's.

Some literary critics argue that style is everything. I disagree, but not strongly. But Karinthy is such a tour de force, that he takes you by every element, every fibre of your existence to make you appreciate his humour.

Up to about five or ten years ago I was able to read articles in magazines. Now those are very difficult to do for me. I currently read all articles written by Will J. Bouman (spelling? Bouwman?) published in the magazine Philosophy Now. His articles come out about twice a year.

god must be atheist
429
Arguing with religious fanatics, I've noticed it on several philosophical websites, is like drinking a strong poison and not dying from it.

The best is to leave them alone. If you don't, you may blow up in anger or in frustration by seeing them claim so many fallacious, improper, stupid, and ignorant facts and arguments, and then sticking by them despite overwhelming evidence, both a priori and empirical.

Religions are no longer opiates that sedate... they have turned noxious. The shelf-life has expired a long time ago, and the followers of them still try to force them dow our throats.
2 days ago Options
Wayfarer
7.9k
↪god must be atheist This often also applies to anti-religious fanatics.
2 days ago — god must be atheist

This often also applies to anti-religious fanatics.
— Wayfarer

I'd say it applies to even to moderates of both camps.
a day ago — Coben

Wayfarer and Coben, you just proved my point.
— god must be atheist
Please show how I proved your point.
The fact is, that facts and reason support anti-religionism. You can't say "this applies to anti-religious as well."
— god must be atheist
You seem to be confusing the merits of a position with the behavior of the adherents. I was writing about the latter. Nothing I said is countered by what you say here.
You are right that we, the anti-religious are toxic for you, make you angry and frustrated,
— god must be atheist
I didn't say that anti-religious people are toxic to me nor that they make me angry and frustrated.
I agree with you, however, that the debates should stop. They are fruitless, they are vengeful, and they create a level of unnecessary frustration.
— god must be atheist
I didn't say the debates should stop.
Please don't include me in lists, if you are going to assign positions to me. — Coben

Coben: "I didn't say that anti-religious people are toxic to me" yes, you did say it by agreeing with Wayfarer, who stated this as a counter-claim to mine. I you read the texts carefully, you will see.

Coben: "I didn't say the debates should stop." Yes, you did say it, when you expressed your agreement with Wayfarer, who said my statements of the religious also apply to anti-religious fanatics. Wayfarer did not specify which part of my script applies, so the infernece is valid,that all my text applies. Therefore by agreeing with Wayfarer you agreed that the debates should stop.

I have included you in that list, because you voluntarily joined to be on that list. You voluntarily joined when you expressly stated agreement with Wayfarer, who expressily said "this applies" to all. And "this" in "this applies" was not specified, so I have the right to include all I said that Wayfarer reacted to, as included in "this".

It’s a myth that ‘science disproves religion’ in any general sense. — Wayfarer

The fact is, that facts and reason support anti-religionism — god must be atheist

Do you understand what ‘positivism’ is? Or ‘scientism’ Do you know why Dawkins/Dennett are accused of ‘scientism’? — Wayfarer

Why would i need to understand what the concepts are behind these expressions?

You don't understand a simple sentence. I wrote "Facts and reason support anti-religionism", and you read it as "science disproves religion". The two are not even remotely equivalent.

If you don't understand English, and you don't understand science, and you don't understand the concept of "proof," then you don't understand a lot more than what I don't understand, and your non-understanding is more basic than mine.

1. Science never proves anything. You claimed that science can prove things.
2. Your paraphrasing is way too liberal.

This shows a basic non-understanding on such a level, that I don't think I can penetrate your thinking with my reason and arguments.

That was written by Augustine, 430 AD De Genisi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis). One can assume he would take a dim view of today's fundamentalism. — Wayfarer

He was at the same time advocating to deny the truth claimed by the bible.

If one or more claims in a certain set of claims, which set comprises the truth because it is spoken by god, are proven to be certainly wrong, it establishes a valid doubt in the rest of the claims to be true.

Atheism has been invented by those who fear God, — Drazjan

Socrates did not fear gods. He just realized the god-concept is an unnecessary concept.

Most atheists I know don't fear god. If you believe something does not exist, then it's impossible to fear it. That is self-evident.

You seem to imply that atheism is born, or created, by a fear of god. That may be partly true, in some instances, but in most instances of atheism, people are raised without a god-belief and they simply follow the crowd, much like religious follow the crowd.

There is a slim stratum of atheists, who are the most vocal, and their atheism is stemmed from their realizing that religions are self-contradictory, and although they would otherwise accept it, they can't abide by a system that is ruled by logical self-contradictory tenets.

For an overwhelming majority of Europeans life now is understandable and science answers more and more questions now, which could only be answered by religious faith before. The need for religion is fading fast in western type democracies in the Europe.

And there are a lot of needs of humans and societies, that can be satisfied, while no prayer or other appeals to gods are needed-- so mankind can and does cast those practices away, along with the belief in the supernatural.

I don't think you are right in saying that atheists simply fear god and therefore they deny its existence. Many people do use denial as a defence mechanism against anxiety, but the atheists mostly don't, they instead chose a no-god world view because they can and because it is conducive to their lives. In fact, if anything, then it is the LACK of fear of god that enables the atheist to cast away or stay away from a belief in god.

Am I a venomous religious snake in your opinion? — Coben

I have no opinion on you. I just feel like all of a sudden I am the centre of attention, and since my posts were not responded to, IN A WAY I UNDERSTAND but people wanted to react, they decided to put a million-word posts in response to what I have written. Three very long posts buoyed up very quickly, and I don't see how they relate to my posts. A bit like being in the snake pit... look left, look right, you don't know where to look, there is danger by numbers.

Maybe I misunderstood the posters' intention. That's possible. I apologize if I did. I just did not understand and still don't why I need to read three very long posts.

Maybe because metaphysics is a complex thing, which can't be described in a few words? Maybe. But maybe not. I still think metaphysics is not a congruent set of thoughts, I think it is a collection of disparate elements that Aristotle thought of, and which could not be 1. discussed in other chapters and 2. together they don't form a whole. They are just put together in a container, called metaphysics, and the name has nothign to do with the contents.

It is possible, however, that the contents gave meaning to the name. However: the disparate diversity of topics in metaphysics would warrant, in my opinion, separate subsectioning. If that makes sense.

Okay, sorry. I apologize.

It looks like I just stepped into a nest of venomous religionist snakes.

Tactic: if you don't have a clear argument that makes sense, then use saliva, lots of saliva. I.e. drown the dissenter in a sea of words.

When I first read god must be atheist's post, I thought of a bumper sticker I saw recently - "Don't be a dick." — T Clark

Hehe. At least you did not call me a c**t.

What an improvement from the other philosophy forum I was active on.

Also, most people on forums are not professionals, or even learned in the topics they discuss. The participants are enthusiastic, but not trained or even smart. This applies to all specialized forums.

So the scientists you argued with may not even have been scientists, but avid reader of publications like "Popular Science", "Science", or "Sighans".

So for you to draw a general statement of what scientists are like or what they think, is a bit unfair if you base it on responses on a so-called science forum.

Scientists are individuals. They may or may not realize that science is performed within the structure of philosophy, namely, that they believe that the world operates on laws, and the laws can be learned by humans, and the laws don't change.

But most scientists don't worry about that... they just make sure they get passing or better grades in their training, and that their research finds a grantor, and that their research will uncover some publishable fact.

I always have thought that metaphysics itself was not a meaningful term, but a chapter heading that followed Physics in a book written by Aristotle.

So if there is a thing beyond physics... what is it? Why is it "beyond" and not "outside", "under", "above" or "beside" physics?

@Wayfarer and @Coben, you just proved my point. The fact is, that facts and reason support anti-religionism. You can't say "this applies to anti-religious as well." You are right that we, the anti-religious are toxic for you, make you angry and frustrated, and we also stick by our points like the religious do. These indeed apply to both camps. BUT there is a big difference: Facts and reason support anti-religionism more and more and more. This does not apply in reverse.

I agree with you, however, that the debates should stop. They are fruitless, they are vengeful, and they create a level of unnecessary frustration.

So, as an individual making these decisions- internally, what goes through your mind that makes you actually do these activities? — schopenhauer1

@Schopenhauer1, how old are you exactly? Three years of age? Four? That's the age when the "why" questions never stop.

What makes you do any particular activity throughout your daily life? — schopenhauer1

A propensity to avoid to have to answer questions like this.

Arguing with religious fanatics, I've noticed it on several philosophical websites, is like drinking a strong poison and not dying from it.

The best is to leave them alone. If you don't, you may blow up in anger or in frustration by seeing them claim so many fallacious, improper, stupid, and ignorant facts and arguments, and then sticking by them despite overwhelming evidence, both a priori and empirical.

Religions are no longer opiates that sedate... they have turned noxious. The shelf-life has expired a long time ago, and the followers of them still try to force them dow our throats.

I can foresee already the posts about me after I get banned. "He was like God to me." "The most intelligent, charming person who has ever graced the pages of these forums." "I cherished every word he wrote. Pearls to swine." "His sense of humour was legendary, and his love for mankind and womankind was kindness embodimented." ETC.

Wonder what s/he was selling, got the same thing...
— Wallows

I'll find out soon. I sent her my bank information and she said my surprise package would show up in a couple of weeks. Can't wait! — Hanover

I got it already in the mail. It's a chain-letter bomb. You get one letter bomb, and you're supposed to send it to ten different people. If you don't, you'll grow a hand out of your back, her letter promised me.

Yes. I only know his first name, which is Gerald. — S

I know a mouse
He hasn't got a house
I don't know
Why I call him Gerald.
He's getting rather old,
But he's a good mouse.

(Pink Floyd, "Bike")

Memo to everyone who feels a bit schitzoidal: Some of us are not good diagnosticians. Please be as blatant as possible. Mention your medications. Tell us your symptoms. DSM references are always helpful. Share your worst hospitalization experiences. were your parents a form of cruel and unusual punishment? Have you been cruelly jilted recently? Any really weird hallucinations? Is God talking to you a lot? All that sort of thing. — Bitter Crank

I am sorry. I can't do all this. I have a note form my doctor that exempts me.

But I can do magic circles on the ground*, backward sommersaults and pronouncing three words at once.

*these are done in P.

I mean, how much philosophy can a person grind through? It's a limited quantity of knowledge, and basically most of it is common sense. The problems start when my common sense suggests different answers to me from what your common sense suggests to you.