Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Leftism as Secular Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Not within human societies which require co-operation in order to survive and therefore social cohesion is paramount.

    Hence, we generally find that in human societies certain biological impulses are not condoned because such behaviours may strain that social cohesion. Furthermore, all human society has a culture and that culture, and its accepted mores, underpin law codes and/or social codes of what is deemed to be acceptable behaviour within each society.
    You do know that our primate cousins like the chimpanzee survive just fine with a great deal of forced sex. But are you suggesting that what fosters social cohesion is moral and what undermines cohesion is immoral? So I guess you would consider the protesters (who are undermining cohesion) to be immoral. And China must be the most moral country on earth, with their strong social fabric and cohesion.

    You are employing a morally subjective phrase i.e. "perfectly acceptable" which suggests some form of moral position on the behaviour you have outlined. I would also point out that organised warfare is a comparatively recent human phenomenon.
    Have you ever seen one group of chimpanzees attack another group of chimpanzees, fairly organized. And what do you mean by comparatively recent? Like all of recorded human history?

    However, at the biological level the behaviour you have described may be a necessary requirement to ensure the survival of one specific group, albeit at the expense of another, and of course individuals from the defeated group may be incorporated into the victorious group.
    It does not have to be a necessary requirement to be advantageous. The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes and create the most powerful and richest country on earth. Good evolutionary strategy.
    Last edited by seer; 08-03-2020, 07:35 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      You do know that our primate cousins like the chimpanzee survive just fine with a great deal of forced sex.
      That is a rather sweeping statement given the different aspects of sexual aggression by males towards females within a wide variety of social mammals.

      Furthermore, how does that relate to human society? Or do you take a strictly biological deterministic view and perceive behaviours such as domestic violence and sexual assault as simply the human corollary of the same conduct observed in our primate cousins?

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      But are you suggesting that what fosters social cohesion is moral and what undermines cohesion is immoral?
      I did not employ those emotionally charged terms.

      What is deemed socially acceptable behaviour in human societies is condoned and helps strengthen social cohesion; while socially unacceptable behaviour which might strain that social cohesion, is not.

      That social opprobrium is usually to be found in social codes and/or law codes.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      So I guess you would consider the protesters (who are undermining cohesion) to be immoral. And China must be the most moral country on earth, with their strong social fabric and cohesion.
      You are not overly consistent in your thinking are you?

      One moment you are writing about chimpanzee behaviours which operate at the biological level. The next you are trying to use extant events in the USA and a repressive political regime in China as an attempt to make comparisons with social cohesion and social opprobrium.

      I would recommend that you definitively set out what actual point are you endeavouring to make rather than engaging in these scatter-gun comments.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Have you ever seen one group of chimpanzees attack another group of chimpanzees?
      Unless you are a strict biological determinist what has that to do with advanced and complex human societies?

      I repeat that chimpanzees while having what we may term a “society” with what appear to be forms of social cohesion, operate at the biological level. I also repeat that at the biological level ethics and morality do not exist. Lionesses do not, as far as we know, display guilt or remorse after bringing down and killing a gazelle wondering if they have left a calf motherless, or whether their prey suffered unduly.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      And what do you mean by comparatively recent? Like all of recorded human history?
      The earliest evidence of organised warfare comes from Sumer so we are looking back to the fourth millennium BCE. Given the length of time Homo sapiens have existed, that is comparatively recent.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      It does not have to be a necessary requirement to be advantageous. The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes
      The intention of the earliest white settlers in the continent was not “to displace or destroy the native tribes”. From where did you receive that eccentric idea? The first Europeans to arrive in the Americas were the Spanish and they were seeking mineral resources. Violence towards the indigenous peoples followed as colonisation was enforced but that was not the primary reason for those Spanish voyages.

      The expansion of white settlers across what is now the continental USA [and of course Canada] was likewise for resources, initially this was land, and then when discoveries were made, minerals.

      Furthermore, you ignore the political implications that were paramount from the early seventeenth century. The establishment of colonies by Spain, France and England [later Britain] greatly benefitted the economic power as well as the political reach of those respective European countries.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        That is a rather sweeping statement given the different aspects of sexual aggression by males towards females within a wide variety of social mammals.

        Furthermore, how does that relate to human society? Or do you take a strictly biological deterministic view and perceive behaviours such as domestic violence and sexual assault as simply the human corollary of the same conduct observed in our primate cousins?
        Right in atheism what else there is but biological determinism? I believe I asked you in the past if you believed in libertarian free will. Do you?

        What is deemed socially acceptable behaviour in human societies is condoned and helps strengthen social cohesion; while socially unacceptable behaviour which might strain that social cohesion, is not.

        That social opprobrium is usually to be found in social codes and/or law codes.
        So again, the protests we see in the US should not be condoned? Correct? And China should be lauded for their social cohestion.

        One moment you are writing about chimpanzee behaviours which operate at the biological level. The next you are trying to use extant events in the USA and a repressive political regime in China as an attempt to make comparisons with social cohesion and social opprobrium.

        I would recommend that you definitively set out what actual point are you endeavouring to make rather than engaging in these scatter-gun comments.

        Unless you are a strict biological determinist what has that to do with advanced and complex human societies?
        No I'm not a strict determinism, but you are if you are an atheist. Because what else is there besides biology?

        I repeat that chimpanzees while having what we may term a “society” with what appear to be forms of social cohesion, operate at the biological level. I also repeat that at the biological level ethics and morality do not exist. Lionesses do not, as far as we know, display guilt or remorse after bringing down and killing a gazelle wondering if they have left a calf motherless, or whether their prey suffered unduly.
        Yet you are trying to tie ethics to social cohesion, which is foolish. North Korea has great social cohesion.


        The earliest evidence of organised warfare comes from Sumer so we are looking back to the fourth millennium BCE. Given the length of time Homo sapiens have existed, that is comparatively recent.
        And how do you know what the ancient Homo sapiens were doing concerning warfare before written history?

        The intention of the earliest white settlers in the continent was not “to displace or destroy the native tribes”. From where did you receive that eccentric idea? The first Europeans to arrive in the Americas were the Spanish and they were seeking mineral resources. Violence towards the indigenous peoples followed as colonisation was enforced but that was not the primary reason for those Spanish voyages.

        The expansion of white settlers across what is now the continental USA [and of course Canada] was likewise for resources, initially this was land, and then when discoveries were made, minerals.

        Furthermore, you ignore the political implications that were paramount from the early seventeenth century. The establishment of colonies by Spain, France and England [later Britain] greatly benefitted the economic power as well as the political reach of those respective European countries.
        That does not change anything I said.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Ana Dragule View Post
          John 3:9-11 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” So the people asked him, saying, “What shall we do then?” He answered and said to them, “He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.”
          The first thing to note, as is often pointed out in these discussions, and has been already alluded to in this one, is that most conservatives view "socialism" as a form of government of nations, and take the words of Jesus as instructions to the Church. So the giving would be voluntary obedience to Him, not legally imposed confiscation by the State.

          The second thing to note is that you are quoting John the Baptist, not Jesus, and are quoting from Luke's Gospel, not John's. This is somewhat of a nitpick that I note only because this part of the discussion deals with Firstfloor's claims about what Jesus would teach.

          The third thing to note is that the very post to which you responded shows that Scripture, and Jesus, do not speak in monotone. Disparate ideas can find support.

          The fourth thing to note is that indeed Jesus *does* firmly support generosity and sacrificial giving. In several such contexts -- Luke 6 and Mark 10 come to mind -- Jesus explicitly promises that the generous giver will in turn be rewarded with even more. The former passage suggests and the latter explicitly states that the reward will come in THIS life. Apart from "Prosperity" believers, most do not take that promise literally; in that case, the command also should not be taken literally.
          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

          Beige Federalist.

          Nationalist Christian.

          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

          Proud member of the this space left blank community.

          Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

          Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

          Justice for Matthew Perna!

          Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

          Comment


          • #50
            Relating to Prager's article -- In my experience, even most "Christians" are put off by the claim that people are not basically "good."
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Right in atheism what else there is but biological determinism?
              Pardon? I would suggest there are many things:, culture, food, wine, good friends, love, the pleasures of the natural world, compassion, empathy, and ethical behaviours.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              I believe I asked you [...]
              lauded for their social cohestion
              snipped for irrelevance. You are also confusing social cohesion with social repression.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              No I'm not a strict determinism, but you are if you are an atheist.
              Really? How very interesting. On what evidence are you basing that pronouncement?

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Because what else is there besides biology?
              See above.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Yet you are trying to tie ethics to social cohesion, which is foolish. North Korea has great social cohesion.
              See above.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              And how do you know what the ancient Homo sapiens were doing concerning warfare before written history?
              Apart from some recent isolated evidence, Sima de los Huesos [discovered 1984] which contains the remains of Neanderthal individuals from the Middle Pleistocene, a period ranging from about 781,000 to 126,000 years ago; and Nataruk [discovered 2012] which contains bodies dating to around 10,000 years ago; we have little conclusive evidence of what we would term ”organised warfare” among early humans..

              The skeletons at Nataruk appear to have been deliberately killed but we can never know the reasons behind that. Was it a conflict over resources?

              You might also like to read this https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...r-human-beings and this https://www.livescience.com/640-peac...s-behaved.html

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              That does not change anything I said.
              In point of fact it corrects your erroneous assumption that the earliest white settlers in the continent of north America went there “to displace or destroy the native tribes”.
              Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 08-04-2020, 07:19 AM.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Pardon? I would suggest there are many things:, culture, food, wine, good friends, love, the pleasures of the natural world, compassion, empathy, and ethical behaviours.
                Those are all driven by biology. If you don't believe in libertarian free will (which you refuse to answer) then you are a determinist.

                snipped for irrelevance. You are also confusing social cohesion with social repression.
                Actually I'm not confusing anything, you are. Social cohesion can be reached or supported by various means. And repression is one of those means. You do not get to objective unless you can offer a higher ethic than social cohesion.

                social cohesion
                noun, The bonds or "glue" that maintain stability in society.


                Really? How very interesting. On what evidence are you basing that pronouncement?
                Show me logically or scientifically how libertarian free will can exist in materialism?

                https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/


                Apart from some recent isolated evidence, Sima de los Huesos [discovered 1984] which contains the remains of Neanderthal individuals from the Middle Pleistocene, a period ranging from about 781,000 to 126,000 years ago; and Nataruk [discovered 2012] which contains bodies dating to around 10,000 years ago; we have little conclusive evidence of what we would term ”organised warfare” among early humans..

                The skeletons at Nataruk appear to have been deliberately killed but we can never know the reasons behind that. Was it a conflict over resources?

                You might also like to read this https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...r-human-beings and this https://www.livescience.com/640-peac...s-behaved.html
                The fact is that we don't know, but given that we see a semi organized warfare in our closet primate cousins it is not hard to see that bleeding over to early man.

                In point of fact it corrects your erroneous assumption that the earliest white settlers in the continent of north America went there “to displace or destroy the native tribes”.
                It doesn't matter what the early settlers thought, it matters what we eventually did. And it was a good evolutionary strategy for our tribe or ethnic group.
                Last edited by seer; 08-04-2020, 08:07 AM.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Those are all driven by biology. If you don't believe in libertarian free will (which you refuse to answer) then you are a determinist.



                  Actually I'm not confusing anything, you are. Social cohesion can be reached or supported by various means. And repression is one of those means. You do not get to objective unless you can offer a higher ethic than social cohesion.

                  social cohesion
                  noun, The bonds or "glue" that maintain stability in society.




                  Show me logically or scientifically how libertarian free will can exist in materialism?

                  https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/




                  The fact is that we don't know, but given that we see a semi organized warfare in our closet primate cousins it is not hard to see that bleeding over to early man.



                  It doesn't matter what the early settlers thought, it matters what we eventually did. And it was a good evolutionary strategy for our tribe or ethnic group.
                  All this is mere digression on your part to permit you to use the exchange to ride one of your hobbyhorses.

                  I also note your attempt to move the goal posts over your inaccurate comment that the earliest white settlers in the continent of north America went there “to displace or destroy the native tribes” which as I have pointed out was not the original intent.

                  To return to my remarks that led to your intervention.

                  There is no morality at the biological level. The strictly biological purpose of any living organism is to survive long enough to breed.

                  After that the biological raison d’ętre is over and the organism can die having passed on its genes to the next generation.

                  The remains then play their part in the nitrogen-carbon cycle. The various tissues will be broken down into their respective chemical constituents which will be recycled and then used to maintain and support new life.

                  That is all established fact and not my personal opinion.

                  Now if you want to contest the undeniable scientific reality underlining these facts then you are free to do so.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    All this is mere digression on your part to permit you to use the exchange to ride one of your hobbyhorses.

                    I also note your attempt to move the goal posts over your inaccurate comment that the earliest white settlers in the continent of north America went there “to displace or destroy the native tribes” which as I have pointed out was not the original intent.
                    Is English your first language? I never said that - I said: The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes and create the most powerful and richest country on earth.

                    I never said that the earliest white settlers came TO displace or destroy the native tribes, but that is what happened, what we eventually did.

                    There is no morality at the biological level. The strictly biological purpose of any living organism is to survive long enough to breed.

                    After that the biological raison d’ętre is over and the organism can die having passed on its genes to the next generation.

                    The remains then play their part in the nitrogen-carbon cycle. The various tissues will be broken down into their respective chemical constituents which will be recycled and then used to maintain and support new life.

                    That is all established fact and not my personal opinion.

                    Now if you want to contest the undeniable scientific reality underlining these facts then you are free to do so.
                    And if rape helps foster survival then that is simply how nature works. Overlaying your subjective moral objections on natural phenomenon is silly. Why do you hate nature so much?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Is English your first language? I never said that - I said: The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes and create the most powerful and richest country on earth.
                      Given that I have used "white settlers" on more than one occasion, it has taken you a while to notice that.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I never said that the earliest white settlers came TO displace or destroy the native tribes,
                      You wrote "The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes". They didn't.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And if rape helps foster survival then that is simply how nature works.
                      As I have already remarked;

                      Hence in strictly biological terms what we term "rape" may produce reproductive benefits for those animals involved. We also know that many male animals will kill the offspring of another male in order to bring the female back into oestrus. The behaviours of dolphins [another highly intelligent mammal] appears to include what we would describe as rape, infanticide, and, on occasion, incest.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Given that I have used "white settlers" on more than one occasion, it has taken you a while to notice that.
                        I didn't realize how badly you took me out of context, do you do that often?

                        You wrote "The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes". They didn't.
                        They didn't do what? Displace or destroy the native tribes? Are you joking?


                        Hence in strictly biological terms what we term "rape" may produce reproductive benefits for those animals involved. We also know that many male animals will kill the offspring of another male in order to bring the female back into oestrus. The behaviours of dolphins [another highly intelligent mammal] appears to include what we would describe as rape, infanticide, and, on occasion, incest.
                        I'm glad you agree that rape is a good evolutionary strategy, and that is all that matters in the end. You making up moral objections doesn't change that.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          I didn't realize how badly you took me out of context, do you do that often?
                          White Europeans became white settlers - my inference.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post

                          They didn't do what? Displace or destroy the native tribes? Are you joking?
                          Europeans did not go to North America with that primary intent.


                          Originally posted by seer View Post

                          I'm glad you agree that rape is a good evolutionary strategy,
                          I never wrote that I did. Kindly stop misrepresenting what I have written.
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            White Europeans became white settlers - my inference.
                            But I never said that the earliest white settlers came TO displace or destroy the native tribes, as you suggested.

                            Europeans did not go to North America with that primary intent.
                            I never said they did! Talk about misrepresenting...

                            I never wrote that I did. Kindly stop misrepresenting what I have written.
                            Yes you did: Hence in strictly biological terms what we term "rape" may produce reproductive benefits for those animals involved. Own it darling...
                            Last edited by seer; 08-04-2020, 12:57 PM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But I never said that the earliest white settlers came TO displace or destroy the native tribes, as you suggested.
                              I can only refer to what you wrote and you wrote,"The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes". " That was not the intention for coming to North America. Nor did they initially "displace or destroy the native tribes". Trade was established between New England colonists and local Native American populations and the Native Americans also assisted the white settlers with knowledge about what foodstuffs and materials could be utilised. As more Europeans arrived the settlements grew and from this came the initial problems. However, the case of Roger Williams shows that not all Europeans were intent on land grabbing at the expense of the indigenous peoples.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I never said they did! Talk about misrepresenting...
                              You never "said" anything.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Yes you did: Hence in strictly biological terms what we term "rape" may produce reproductive benefits for those animals involved.
                              Note my qualification "what we may term "rape".

                              At the biological level there is no concept of "rape". You are confusing human ethical constructs with biological imperatives.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                                I can only refer to what you wrote and you wrote,"The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes". " That was not the intention for coming to North America. Nor did they initially "displace or destroy the native tribes". Trade was established between New England colonists and local Native American populations and the Native Americans also assisted the white settlers with knowledge about what foodstuffs and materials could be utilised. As more Europeans arrived the settlements grew and from this came the initial problems. However, the case of Roger Williams shows that not all Europeans were intent on land grabbing at the expense of the indigenous peoples.
                                Are you misrepresenting me on purpose? We did displace or destroy the native tribes, that is what happened. But I NEVER said it was the INTENT of the early settlers. I mean really, do you have a problem with the English language or honesty?

                                You never "said" anything.
                                I said this:The white Europeans come to North America displace or destroy the native tribes.Nothing about intent. I was stating a fact.

                                Note my qualification "what we may term "rape".

                                At the biological level there is no concept of "rape". You are confusing human ethical constructs with biological imperatives.
                                No I'm not, sheesh what is wrong with you? I'm saying that our ethical constructs are secondary to biological imperatives, really meaningless. And rape is a biological imperative.
                                Last edited by seer; 08-04-2020, 02:04 PM.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X