There’s some odd, very defensive posts here.


Methinks they protest too much? — Banno

There's some very odd posts here without any reasoning behind them - just wild accussations, generalizing people based on the color of their skin, etc. with no evidence.

Not to mention how a racist majority that makes the rules could end up making rules promoting equality without first abandoning their racism.

So you have a causation problem.

How does a society that is inherently racist make rules that aren't racist if it inherently racist?

How does one attain an equal society without first admitting that skin color has no bearing on a person's character?

Mmm. But isn't this your first post in reply to me? — Banno

Nope.

Define privilege. Its a privilege to accuse someone of racism and not have to supply any evidence other than the color of one's skin.

An oddly self-negating construct: "all we need is the rules we already have, but they don't work". — Banno

But what have you provided as solution? More unenforcable rules?

And how is the rule, "treat people equally or there will be negative consequences" not working?

It would only not work if you wanted special treatment instead of equal treatment.

right so what point is therein in discussing the macro? It's akin to a discussion about whether a person is attractive or not. There's not much utility in reasoned discussion about that. So just as I avoid such discussions so I avoid the macro normative discussions. Hence the lesser engagement in life. — dazed

You and I seem to have different views of what entails the "macro". I typically avoid discussions involving morals/values precisely because values are subjective. What reason would you have to talk about what is subjective as if it were objective? That is a category error. The lesser engagement would be to engage in discussions that are meaningless.

The macro for me is simply what science explores - the universe, the brain, etc.. Those topics are worth discussing because we all exist in the same universe and we all have brains (most of us I think).

It's the privileged who can afford to ignore minority status. The European who cannot see colour, the male who cannot see the need for feminism, the Cis who cannot see the need for gender pronoun reform, the able who cannot see disability. — Banno

Yeah, I don't see a need for reform when reform has already happened, or that there are rules in the books for treating people equally. When there are already rules for treating people equally or else you get punished, what else could you want - special treatment instead of equal treatment? It seems to me that you don't need more rules - just enforce the rules you already have. Good luck with that. How can you prove that someone rejected another person for a job because of the color of their skin or that someone doesn't want to associate with you because of the color of your skin?

Do you accept the possibility that someone can be falsely accused of racism - that racism is applied when it isn't applicable? If so, then shouldn't it be it be the responsibility of the accuser to prove racism happened instead of the other way around, especially in a country where "you are innocent until proven guilty"?

Racial colour-blindness (sic.) is a conceit for the privileged. — Banno

What is your point - that whites recognize the color of skin and then do what - treat others with different color skin equally? I don't see how one is suppose to recognize someone as different yet treat them equally. What is the point in recognizing the differences? Is it just to recognize a difference in the color of one's skin or something more? I keep asking that question, but you all keep avoiding it. It seems pointless to be forced to recognize the difference in the color of our skins when they all come in different shades, yet ignore the other differences that we have. What makes a difference in skin color more special than a difference in eye color? What about our similarities that we share? We have more in common than we don't because we are all part of the same race - the human race. Why are we focusing on one difference that doesn't really matter? Or does it? I say it doesn't. You say it does. So you must think that blacks are more different than whites beyond the color of their skin.

What does "different but equal" mean other than the fact that the differences don't matter when it comes to how you treat people? Is that not what color-blindness means?

I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be funny.

We’re feathers on the wind,
— I like sushi

I think Kansas wrote a song about that. — Terrapin Station

That was Dust in the Wind.

With the above in mind, and such, do you feel as if the question itself is overwhelming or doesn't make sense? One might just as well ask what would a universe without anything in it be like? A nonsensical question, I suppose... — Wallows

I don't understand the problem.

What would be the purpose of asking what a universe without anything would be like? What questions would you be trying to answer?

Exactly the same reason I value those particular bits of paper with the complicated design that say "£20" on them. What a munchkin eh? Good job there are some rational folk around that just throw them away. — unenlightened

You didn't give a reason (in other words - you aren't reasoning). You just gave another example of bandwagoning.

Amazing how we can recognize social realities without necessarily condoning their effects. Mind. Blown. — Baden

LOL. What is the point in recognizing differences when there is no purpose in recognizing them? Seems like a category error.

It seems to me that both you and unenlightened are saying that blacks and whites are more different than the color of their skin regardless of where they live. So it seems to me that you both are saying it is biological, not social.

Maybe if you'd both supply some reasoning behind your claims instead of trying to get a gold medal for mental gymnastics, we could get somewhere.

And if we were all just socially blind, nothing ever happened. — Baden

No, it's about being blind to the differences that don't matter. Eye color has no effect on your behavior. But it seems to me that both you and unenlightened are saying being black or white has an effect on you behavior regardless of where you live - where blacks are majority and white are a minority. What is the difference - other than the color of our skins - that you are referring to?

Racial colour-blindness (sic.) is a conceit for the privileged. — Banno

Minorities can be privileged. Define "privileged".

None of you seem to realize the difference between racism promoted by some government (The U.S. in 1800) and racism that isn't promoted by the government (the U.S. today). The minority has gone from not having any freedom to participate in the system to being part of the system , that you claim is still racist. It's irrational. In not recognizing the difference, you are playing down the moral error that existed in the U.S. prior to the 1860's.

An even deeper engagement would involve caring about causes, positive societal change, the greater good. I used to be engaged and care about trying to better things (when I was a theist). Now I have no interest in those things because I can't define what positive or good would really mean on a macro scale. I just stick to the micro where it is usually more easy to define what is good for those I actually interact with. — dazed

That's because what is positive and good is subjective. You can't define what is positive or good on macro scale because there is no such thing.

So, it seems to me that your continued confusion is the result in believing in things that don't exist.

I repeat, you can deny it all you want and I might even agree with you in one sense. but in another sense there really are differences of skin colour, and they really do make a significant difference to one's chances of surviving the KKK lynch-mob. — unenlightened

Wow. Some people are still living in the 1950s.

There are differences in eye and hair color as well, but most people seem to be focused on skin color. Why? Probably because of how you were raised.

Or are you saying that there are real differences in the behavior of people with different skin colors? How do those differences come about - culturally (how you were raised) or genetically (how you were born)?

Yes this is pretty much my approach, I rely on my positive emotions and try to be good to those I care about. But my deeper engagement with life is still lacking, it just all seems like a big mess that no one has any really clue about. — dazed

What would a "deeper engagement with life" mean? How is being good to those your care about, and therefore creating your purpose with them, not a deeper engagement with life?

That's like saying 'Rape is a type of fucking - not something separate.' :brow: — 180 Proof

That's your response to my post? :lol:

Absolutely, well said. As if the taxonomy of the thing was the most important issue! — Isaac

That wasn't the issue, but 180 wants to make that the issue to avoid what was said in the rest of the post they quoted.

But at a deeper level, there is an underlying chaos of thought that robs me of true engagement in life. My brain was set up with judaeo-christrian structure of meaning and purpose. I have lost those structures and have yet to replace them. This has led to a corresponding underlying sadness, since the world was a much more beautiful place when I had a heavenly father who had made me for a clear purpose and who loved me. When I knew that I would see those I loved again in eternal life. Now I am a biological process, a stream of consciousness that will cease to exist once the brain that I am a product of stops working. It all does seem rather hollow in contrast to my prior world view. — dazed

So my approach to all this is to retreat from the macro. I don't think about it and don't talk about it. I have no opinions on macro questions about what is right or wrong or what "we" should do.

I stick to the micro, I rely on my positive emotions and treat my partner, friends and family with love and care. I do things I enjoy, practice mindfulness. I am overall pretty functional one might say. — dazed

I had a similar experience growing up in a Christian home and becoming more aware of the wider world and all the other beliefs that correlated to where you grew up. The basis of my questioning and subsequent abandoning of my beliefs was my love for astronomy. Growing up, space fascinated me. It was the unknown - the "final frontier". I also loved animals, and nature in general, which eventually led me to an better understanding of natural selection and the power of the theory. It was science, or the close investigation of the macro and the micro, that led me out of the delusion. The "just do it" for me is the investigation of the unknown (the macro/micro).

One of the quotes that I often reflect on when I begin to feel those feelings of losing the nostalgia of being young and naive is from Arthur C. Clarke's, "Childhood's End". Jan Rodrick's curiosity allowed him to be the only human to see the Overlord's cities and to glimpse the Overmind. He returns to an Earth devoid of humans and eventually dying himself when the Children destroy the Earth as they unite with the Overmind. Before he dies, he begins to question his meaning and purpose. The Overlord responds, "You exist[ed].", as if the mere fact of his existence counted for something. But "counted to who"?

Isn't that really what we mean when we travel down these nihilistic roads in our minds? Isn't it really a selfish notion that we want to matter to important people - like an all-powerful superhuman that can do you favors if you please it? What do you want your actions (your meaning and your purpose) to matter to? You? Your partner and family? The human species? Then do things for them and let that be your purpose and meaning.

Typical. :roll:

1. To help you oppress a great number of people at once, without too much effort. 2. To help you make people behave in certain ways that you want them to. 3. To get their monies and to get them to serve you in other ways. 4. To help you explain unexplainable phenomena you encounter in your life (this is historical) 5. ETC. — god must be atheist

So the definition of god is "mass delusions propagated by the elites in culture"?

For the same reason or mental process which enables humans to create fiction. — god must be atheist

Exactly. Now what does "fiction" mean?

Is there a difference between Zeus being a god and being fiction, or not? If there is, how do you show it?

To me, any definition will do.
— god must be atheist

How about Zeus?

Because we have no evidence of god, we have no evidence of god's alleged quality, quantity, capability, wishes, demands, if any and if they exist in the first place.

You ask me to define something that we have no reliable evidence of. "Define the thing that nobody has seen, heard, eaten, touched, was touched by, etc etc".

So... this is not a request I could fulfill, and I assert, that nobody else human can define god with any degree of certainty. — god must be atheist

Then how could a human even come to have the concept of "god" in their head if there is no reason (evidence) for them to have it?

Reasoning entails using reasons to support some claim. If there isn't a reason to claim something, why claim it?

My working formula:
Prejudice (e.g. "racial"-color stereotypes/biases) +
Power (i.e. majority/over-Class) =
Racism (i.e. modes/strategies of discrimination against "racial" minority/under-Class) — 180 Proof

Racism is a type of prejudice - not something separate.

You seem to have missed my post about the differences between cultures in which systemic racism exists (Nazi Germany) and cultures that don't (the U.S.). Do you know what "systemic" means and did you know that blacks are part of the system? It seems to me that Barak Obama, among many other blacks in the U.S. hold more resources than I do and therefore has more power than I do. So according to your formula, I couldn't be racist against Obama, but he can be racist to me.

It's much simpler (and consistent) to say that a particular type of prejudice, or any kind of treating people differently based on the color of their skin, is racist, and it can come from anyone regardless of their power - as we all have some kind of power over one another.

Show me evidence that god does not exist. It is the same amount that god exists -- zero. — god must be atheist

You have to start with defining god so that I may show the incoherence of the concept.

Actually, that is how all "God Exists" thread should start - in defining the "god" they are talking about. There have been countless versions throughout human history. Which one are you talking about?

There is a difference in cultures where racism is promoted by the state (Nazi Germany) and cultures where racism isn't promoted by the state and is rather promoted by individual families or groups, but it's not systematic (The U.S.). How you are raised in a culture that is more open and doesn't apply racial rules (rather it promotes equal treatment which is difficult to enforce), then your parents are going to supply the rules that the rest of society isn't. Is this your "black"/"white" friend, your "black/white" girlfriend, your "black/white" teacher, etc., or just your friend, your girlfriend, or your teacher? How did things get defined for you and categorized for you growing up? Who did the defining?

That's not going to happen. Given [insert local history here] it simply is the case that people of ethnicity X are liable to be in danger from people of ethnicity Y in the places where people of ethnicity Y rule the roost and there is a history of conflict. This applies to honkeys in the South African townships, and blacks almost anywhere in the US or Europe. Only if you are of ethnicity Y that rules the roost can you afford to ignore the obvious facts of life on some theoretical principle.

One comes to assume these things because they are true, not because genes or skin colour make it true, but because social forces make it true. Just as Germans tend to speak German despite there being no gene for speaking German and no distinct race of Germans. It is a wonder to me that seemingly educated folks hereabouts cannot get their heads around this. — unenlightened

If you are so sure that racism is just a fact of life for cultures that have a majority/minority dichotomy, then what is the purpose of complaining about something that can't be changed? What's the point?

It comes down to how you are raised. Did your parents make it a point to distinguish between the color of peoples' skin? Did they categorize people as "black" and "white" and then treat people differently based on the color of their skin, or raise their children to believe that the other race is out to get them?

Mine didn't. So I grew up thinking that the color of one's skin wasn't a defining property of people - just as eye color or hair color aren't defining properties of people. Their actions are. Skin color is just another variable to being human. When you are raised to see everyone as human and not black and white, it has an effect on how you view others when you become an adult.

Now if you are raised to believe that there is a difference, and that the other side is out to get you, or hold you down in some way, then of course that is the mentality you are going to have as an adult. It's really that simple.

There is difference in cultures that racism is promoted by the state (Nazi Germany) and cultures where racism isn't promoted by the state and is rather promoted by individual families or groups, but it's not systematic (The U.S.).

Clearly, you're responding to what you've read into what I wrote and not to what I wrote. — 180 Proof

Clearly you don't understand what you wrote. To assume that others think or act a particular way based on the color of their skin is racist. That is what you proposed that the minorities should do - assume that all whites are racists - which is racist. It's "fighting" racism with racism. It seems that you are blind to your own racial discrimination against "whites".

In other words, how descendents of poor Euro-immigrants became American In-Groupies, thereby privileged enough to (eventually try to) blind themselves to still prevalent racial color-discrimination with kumbaya "racial color-blindness". — 180 Proof

You seem to be confusing blindness to race with blindness to race discrimination.

If one is blind to race. It means that they don't categorize people based on the color of their skin - just as we don't categorize people by the color of their eyes. Being blind to the racial discrimination is another thing. I can't be blind to my own racial discrimination if I'm not racially discriminating. I can however be blind to others treatment of others. But that's the thing isn't it - that not all white people are racist?

If you don't know what the hell you are arguing about, then why are you arguing? — god must be atheist

Because I'm not the one making the claim that some thing exists! If you are, then define that thing if you expect me to believe in it too. If you can't define it, then how do you expect to prove it to me? Do you understand how "Making a claim and proving it", works?

If I made the claim that Smelshlops exits, and then told you if you didn't know what Smelshlops are then you don't know what you're arguing about, and that you need to accept that they might possibly exist without defining what it is, then you'd think I was nuts. :roll:

I say this, because objectivity / subjectivity has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of god, or the non-existence of god. It is not a matter that can be true one way (objectively / subjectively) but wrong the other way (objectively/ subjectively). So that's why I said you must think philosophically, for you to consider that the existence of god is such a proposition in philosophy. — god must be atheist

I never said objectivity/subjectivity has to do with proving or disproving god. I said it has to do with being consistent in thinking about and accepting claims that have the same amount of evidence - none. You aren't being consistent in your acceptance of claims that have the same amount of evidence. Smelshlops are just as likely to exist as Gods, yet you only accept the existence of Gods.

How the universe came to be is a scientific matter, not a philosophical one.

In many public and most professional situations if one is a racial minority - member of an out-group or caste - one doesn't have the luxury of "racial color-blindness" because a racial minority's daily prospects, even life, more often than not depend on vigilance - one quickly, correctly, seeing how 'race & color' are seen (i.e. signified) by some members of the racial majority e.g. white cops (US) - and thereby conducting oneself accordingly. — 180 Proof

So minorities assume that the majority is thinking in terms of race, rather than how the OP is explaining that everyone should look at race. It racist to assume that a particular person thinks a certain way, or views others a certain way, simply based on the color of their skin.

How does someone come to assume what others think, or how they behave, because of the color of their skin? Most likely how someone was raised. If your folks were raised in a different time, then they're going to raise you as if there times are still relevant today. They aren't. We have, and are still trying to move past racism and the only way to do that is to stop dividing people and making assumptions about them based on the color of their skin.

Are you saying order is subjective, it's more like an impression and not objective, a truth about reality? — TheMadFool

Yes.

If yes then reality should be frequently countering the "perceived" order and it should be impossible to plan anything. — TheMadFool

Not necessarily impossible. Like I said, your concept of time is limited - as if this small span of time that humans exist in is the goal of some designer - while ignoring the huge expanses of time where there appears to be no goal.

You also point out flaws in the design - heat death - but I don't think eternal existence is part of the plan as such. Even the best stories have an end. — TheMadFool

Right - so your claims are unfalsifiable. The hoof-prints in the sand are evidence that unicorns exist.

What are the odds that human beings exist in some universe without a designer? How do you know? Answer the question.

True, but what I meant was the rest of the body, ie, not the brain. A body is more than a brain and nervous system. — NOS4A2

But the brain is part of the body, so in studying the brain, you are studying the body.

I am not aware that neuroscience is at odds with biology or the theory of natural selection. I would be interested in seeing the source you have for that.

The thing i that neuroscience and biology shouldn't be at odds, just as philosophy and science shouldn't be at odds. We should be integrating our knowledge from all domains of investigation into a consistent whole.

I am speaking about the idea that mind or consciousness is localized in the brain, rather than extending throughout the entirety of the organism. — NOS4A2

I feel that it is localized in the nervous system, not just the brain. The nervous system runs through the whole body. I feel the extended aspect of my mind when I focus on the feelings in my extremities. When I stub my toe, I feel it in my toe, not my brain.

So is the claim that a god does not exist. Or some gods do not exist. If you don't believe me, prove it to me. — god must be atheist

You don't seem to understand what unfalsifiable means. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist, or that I'm not Elvis reincarnated. It's not the responsibility of others to prove or disprove some claim. You are making the claim - you prove it. I didn't make a claim. You are. It is up to you to prove it to me. One can only reject the existence of some thing AFTER a positive claim for it's existence is made. One can't make assertions that some thing doesn't exist before some claim is made for it's existence. I never made a claim. You did. Now you prove it to me. If I reject your claim, then I'm doing so based on your lack of evidence, not any proof that I need to supply.

I personally believe that there are no gods or god. But I allow the possibility that they do exist. We just don't have any evidence either way. And we certainly don't have any knowledge what they are, what they want, what they want of us, what they can do, and what they will do. This is unknown to humans at this point, on the odds that there are actually gods (or god). — god must be atheist

What the hell is a "god". Just replace "god" with "aliens" in your post and we should be good to go. I can accept the possible existence of aliens, but not "gods" as I don't understand the concept, or how "gods" would be different from "aliens".

You should think about it more objectively.
— Harry Hindu

And you must think about it more philosophically. — god must be atheist

LOL - so thinking philosophically is not thinking objectively? That would seem to be the case for some people on this forum.

Philosophy of mind and neuroscience tends to do away with the body, focussing instead on abstracted parts of the body, ie. brains and nervous systems, — NOS4A2

This is a contradiction.

as if mind or consciousness ends and begins where the brain and nervous system does. This seems like a sort of Cartesian materialism, or materialist dualism. — NOS4A2

But that was my point - that mind is a process. I never mentioned the incoherent dichotomy of materialism/idealism, physical/mental, etc. That would indeed be dualism. I am proposing a monistic view of the body and mind - a scientific view.

There is nothing to know about god. I am on the opinion that there is nothing humans can learn or know about god until things in this world fundamentally change, furthermore, it is not even guaranteed that there is a god or there are gods, it is a belief that there are gods, not knowledge, much like the opinion that there are no gods is not knowledge, but opinion. — god must be atheist

It's not. You should think about it more objectively. Claiming a god exists is a positive assertion without any evidence. It is an unfalsifiable claim.

There are many unfalsifiable claims - probably more than falsifiable ones. Why would you put weight into any unfalsifiable claim while rejecting others if they all (religious, scientific, etc. claims) have the same amount of evidence - none. The existence of unicorns is just as likely as the existence of gods, but I'll bet your reject the existence of unicorns without being on the fence. That would be inconsistent.

What I do is throw all unfalsifiable claims in the same heap and they all hold the same amount of weight - none - until someone can provide some kind of evidence or make a falsifiable claim in regards to their belief. I am an a-unfalsifiable-beliefist, not just an a-theist.

Correct but order definitely involves an agent with intent or a plan if you will. — TheMadFool

No, it doesn't. That was my point - that we need to reject this notion that order and design go hand in hand. It is the goal that we need to determine as the goal is the design.

Order is simply how minds categorize information. Minds look for patterns so that they can make predictions which make it easier to survive. Not only that, but limited perspective of time would make us think that this "short" period of "order" that we live in is how the universe is all the time and forever. It is predicted that the universe will die a slow cold death where eventually all matter breaks apart. Does that sound like design to you?

The fact that we exist is not evidence that there is design. Its' like saying that winning the lottery was designed because how could I win such a randomly determined contest with enormously low odds? The universe isn't random, nor is the emergence of life a low-odds event. It is very possible that life is an inherent property of the universe as much as space and time are - not because of it being designed, but because that is just how things happened and are.

It's like you are claiming that you know that universes can't exist with life without there being design. How do you know that? How do you know the odds of life evolving in this universe, or any other?

I claim that an all-knowing mind that is capable of creation would not create. It could know instantly what would happen when in this universe. So why go through the effort of making a model, when you know precisely what the model's state and vectors will be at any time in the infinite expanse of time? — god must be atheist

How would one know that one is all-knowing? Would that even qualify as "knowledge"? It seems to me that "all-knowing" is an incoherent term and doesn't make sense to apply that to an entity. It makes more sense to just say the "god" IS the universe. If that is the case, then I prefer to use the term, "universe", and not "all-knowing god", as that includes all sorts of unnecessarily loaded implications.

This thread should be renamed, "Replies That Don't Follow".

Is anyone aware of any philosophy of the body? — NOS4A2

Mind is a bodily process - no different than your breathing or digesting is. Philosophy of mind would fall under the category of philosophy of body, which is really a scientific, not a philosophical, matter.

As a matter of fact, philosophy is a science.

You have a point but if order is insufficient to prove a designer can you give me a counterexample? — TheMadFool

It seems to me that disorder doesn't necessarily mean that their isn't a designer either. People leave messes and are disorganized themselves. If I saw your desk in disarray with papers all over, was it you, or some whirlwind that came in and left your desk in that state? When you look at your child's room and it is a mess, was it the children or a earthquake that caused the mess?

So, it seems to me that in order to establish a designer/non-designer, as opposed to order/disorder (because you can have order or disorder with our without designers) you'd have to establish what the designer's intent/goal was.

What would be the intent/goal of the designer? Why would it create an enormous universe that is mostly inhospitable to life? What's the point?

And it seems to me that in proving the existence of a designer, we aren't proving the existence of a "god" - whatever that is, we would be proving the existence of extra-dimensional aliens.

I still don't understand your point. And after reading your replies to others, I dont understand why they still try to engage you and participate in this thread. Oh well, I guess people are that bored.

I humbly disagree. There is order in the universe. From whence this order? Surely an intelligent being of some sort. — TheMadFool

Are "order" and "design" equivalent terms? Can you have order without design?

Yeah I get it... deplorable! But I would say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either! — 3017amen

Yeah, I dont get what this has to do with what I said.

Why are you people in the minority — 3017amen

At one point in history monotheism was a minority view. A view becomes a mass delusion when the elites in a society propagate and enforce the belief by imprisoning and killing anyone who says otherwise. Over centuries of doing this, eventually you weed out the kinds of people who think originally, or for themselves, and end up with a society of sheep who follow orders without question.

I notice everything has such elaborate infinite detail. It doesn't matter if you increase or decrease the scope - the universe is detailed with solar systems and leaves are detailed with cells. What is the point of having so much detail?

It's all very strange if you think about it.

So why is detail necessary? — Fruitless

Its strange to ask why something natural is necessary. I dont think "detail" is an adequate term for what you are asking either. It seems to me that what you are asking is why reality appears to have infinite information. Information is the relationship between cause and effect. So essentially your asking why are there seemingly an infinite amount of causes for a seemingly infinite amount of effects?

The answer to that question is, "it just is".