I believe I have answered, scientifically, why be kind

[1213]

Do you know what a doctor is?

Yes and by what I see, doctors don't actually heal anyone. Doctors sell drugs. And for that it is harmful if people are healed.

Do you believe the truth somehow does not get out?

I believe truth gets eventually out.

 

[ChieftheCef]

The internet is off course full of reviews of that text.

I was more looking for conversation, thank you for participating.

But I just read it myself and remember that I had quite a few cringe moments.

It was a long time ago though, so I can't give you many specific examples or analysis without reading it again.

One obvious thing I remember though, is how it argues for thought crimes with the whole "when you look at a women with lust, you have already committed adultery"

Oh, Jesus. See tits = pluck out eyes, that's what I'd say anyway, not that I disagree with you.

It's also incredibly hypocritical as it is basic human nature for men to notice babes.

You know what's funny about that? The science. Monkeys need to cum. If they don't they do it on their own, and if they don't their reproductive system ****s up because they've (the reproductive system) gotta do something with the sperm or egg, in otherwords: Monkey malfunction.

So it also ties into what The Hitch so infamously said: "created sick and commanded to be well".

I think that is true of the Christian god, who I believe to be just a lie, but not the God, ANimating Force, Polytheist Supreme God, Whatever-you-want-to-call-them that I believe in. I believe I have found it in Science. I believe in God a lot more like Spinoza than Jesus or Moses or Muhammad.

Regardless of all that though, it's literally arguing for thought crimes.
So yeah.... And I require just one example of an immoral thing to establish that this sermon isn't the epitome of morality.

None of monotheism is, it only pretends to be and says Nature isn't.

 

[ChieftheCef]

It's worth nothing that individuals with certain personality disorders will contradict much of what you suppose will happen with these sorts of anecdotal personal exercises. There are human individuals that lack empathy and consideration for other humans and do not become more stressed out when they are unkind. See:

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) describes an ingrained pattern of behavior in which individuals consistently disregard and violate the rights of others around them. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder may behave violently, recklessly, or impulsively, often with little regard...

www.psychologytoday.com

If you were in the know you would know why that doesn't disprove what I implied.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think that is true of the Christian god, who I believe to be just a lie, but not the God, ANimating Force, Polytheist Supreme God, Whatever-you-want-to-call-them that I believe in. I believe I have found it in Science. I believe in God a lot more like Spinoza than Jesus or Moses or Muhammad.

Meh.

Whenever I have a discussion with people who believe like you do (from what I understand anyways - forgive me if it misrepresents your religious views), it always turns out that what they actually call "god" ends up being something like the abstract of "nature" or "the universe". One time (admittedly after a few drinks waaay to late at the bar) some guy actually concluded that what he calls god is a "high energy photon" (lol )...

I see little point in such. We have words for all these things ("nature", "the universe", "energy", "photons", etc) and it seems to me to only be confusing to call those things "god" and thereby also drag all the baggage with it that comes with the label "god". It also gives the false impression that these things are entities with sentience or will or intention or alike.

But to each their own off course...

 

[ChieftheCef]

Meh.

Whenever I have a discussion with people who believe like you do (from what I understand anyways - forgive me if it misrepresents your religious views), it always turns out that what they actually call "god" ends up being something like the abstract of "nature" or "the universe".

It may actually be the case that you'd be interested to wonder at. It may actually be the REAL, not Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna, Mani or any others but what science reveals to us.

Like The Void, Space-Time, has gravity as a feature (it's everywhere space time is and always there) that shapes the entirety of everything as it is omnipresent. It's also in a more limited sense omnipotent in that The Void, mere Nothingness, is the first created thing but also the ocean generating us the wave with fluctuations in nothingness, Space-Time I.e. the Nothing that Created Everything. See it also created us both with an insemination of stuff but also with it's gravity. There's tons of echoes of God (whatever that is to you regardless of what religion you believe in, though I'm not unsatisfied with nothings wake) in Space-Time. But it's not a personification it's the real thing: big maybe. But I've found the thread and I want to see if it is. So I'm patiently waiting to here more of what science has to say over time

One time (admittedly after a few drinks waaay to late at the bar) some guy actually concluded that what he calls god is a "high energy photon" (lol )...

Sorry if this was like that.

I see little point in such. We have words for all these things ("nature", "the universe", "energy", "photons", etc) and it seems to me to only be confusing to call those things "god" and thereby also drag all the baggage with it that comes with the label "god". It also gives the false impression that these things are entities with sentience or will or intention or alike.

I wouldn't dismiss it so entirely, but yes it is very confusing without the right language.

But to each their own off course...

Hope my ship floated your boat

 

[MikeF]

I'm not sure what is scientific about any of this, but it's not as if being scientific is necessary or even desirable for addressing questions about conduct and ethics. Those issues fall squarely in the realm of philosophy, not science, because it entails value judgements not impartial observations about that-which-is.

Other than the fact that understanding why we have a set of values and how they may change entails understanding how the CNS functions in Homo Sapiens and how and to what degree external events and conditions affect the CNS. That, to me, seems clearly in the realm of science.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Other than the fact that understanding why we have a set of values and how they may change entails understanding how the CNS functions in Homo Sapiens and how and to what degree external events and conditions affect the CNS. That, to me, seems clearly in the realm of science.

'Tis! We incur serious bad health consequences when we (forgive the wording) be bad. It drains our happiness as well. I think the scientific reasons we should be good are more toward the end of incentives but there also are punishments for being amoral to your fellow human beings.

 

[MikeF]

Hah! Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

Without God you have no objective basis for being 'good' or 'kind.' Science is irrelevant here.

And hence there is no objective basis for being 'good' or 'kind'. Thus we turn to some other basis. What about mutual interest for example?

 

[ChieftheCef]

And hence there is no objective basis for being 'good' or 'kind'. Thus we turn to some other basis. What about mutual interest for example?

What do you mean by mutual interest?

 

[MikeF]

What do you mean by mutual interest?

If the prevailing ethical standard is she/he who is strongest takes/does what they want, there is a constant threat that somebody bigger or more clever than you will come along and take the fruits of your labor. Even the strongest is vulnerable to being temporarily ganged up upon. There is a constant current of insecurity. If everyone comes to agreement to say each is entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor unmolested and the group will punish those who transgress, then that source of insecurity has been addressed and resolved through mutual agreement.

 

[ChieftheCef]

If prevailing ethical standard is she/he who is strongest takes/does what they want, there is a constant threat that somebody bigger or more clever than you will come along and take the fruits of your labor. Even the strongest is vulnerable to being temporarily ganged up upon. There is a constant current of insecurity. If everyone comes to agreement to say each is intitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor unmolested and the group will punish those who transgress, then that source of insecurity has been addressed and resolved through mutual agreement.

Hmm I definitely am a fan of the Western system.

 

[Khabeni412]

All of biological and psychological traits in humans and other animals boil down to evolution.

We evolved the need to be kind because it increases reproductive success. If we killed everyone, we wouldn't survive long.

 

[ChieftheCef]

All of biological and psychological traits in humans and other animals boil down to evolution.

True, in a way, but not all ways.

We evolved the need to be kind because it increases reproductive success. If we killed everyone, we wouldn't survive long.

I think it's alot more complex than that but why I don't really care is because Science can only study certain parts of the universe in certain ways. Until we find other ways of discerning fact we won't know everything about that.

BUt I suppose you could also say that it's so we can specialize WITH our increased reproductive success. I.e more people can work on more things giving us things like clothes and firewood and berries and even the great spear because more people have the time to work on it.

 

[MikeF]

Science can only study certain parts of the universe in certain ways. Until we find other ways of discerning fact we won't know everything about that.

Science utilizes whatever means and methods are currently available that best suit the question or problem at hand. What distinguishes a scientific approach are the principles and standards established to mitigate the human error and bias inherent in any human investigator, regardless of discipline.

In this regard, any limitation on science to investigate a question or problem will be the same limitations on anyone. Once limitations are overcome, they will be available to everyone, including science, with science employing those newly available means and methods in a manner that mitigates human error and bias.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Science utilizes whatever means and methods are currently available that best suit the question or problem at hand. What distinguishes a scientific approach are the principles and standards established to mitigate the human error and bias inherent in any human investigator, regardless of discipline.

In this regard, any limitation on science to investigate a question or problem will be the same limitations on anyone. Once limitations are overcome, they will be available to everyone, including science, with science employing those newly available means and methods in a manner that mitigates human error and bias.

Yes and these bullet points were, other than two of each first two sets of bullet points, discovered by scientists and then taught to me.

Sorry if I sound rough I'm just perturbed that I have to go through the class and find the exact mechanisms. I suppose I get a chance to study though!