More Dawkins idiocy...

[outhouse]

What from human history says you are right and I am wrong?

Its fact religions contain mythology

 

[outhouse]

Humanity came from religion, you are buying into the myths you mock me for believing.

I'm not mocking you at all.

Why cannot some grow past ancient mens mythology, and learn to accept what is real, and what men created in the past because they had little understanding of reality?

 

[outhouse]

Jesus wept.

Non sequitur.

Its avoidance by you, to not address the topics I brought up.

 

[leibowde84]

What is the evidence that:

a) Humanity exists as an 'evidence based' reality?
b) We have the ability to progress, rather than progress and regress depending on environmental characteristics. That history is teleological, not cyclical?
c) informed conviction is a better phrase than "desperately need to believe, despite the evidence being overwhelmingly against us"?

And a bonus thought experiment: What will happen to our 'moral progress' when overpopulation and pollution cause the ecosystem to collapse?

a) "Humanity" is defined as "the human race" or "human beings collectively" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanity). I'm not sure why you asked this question, as there is no doubt that a plethora of evidence exists showing that human beings exist.
b) The evidence that humanity has "progressed" is all around us. Sure, there are certain (relatively small) groups that try to "regress" humanity, but it rarely ever works. If you look at the treatment of black people, homosexuals, and women in most of the world, acceptance has truly improved. I for one think this is pretty proof positive that humanity has progressed constantly (obviously not consistently) throughout history. So, I would strongly argue that there is a plethora of scientific evidence to show this.
c) I'm not sure that I understand specifically what you are inquiring here. Can you please rephrase this question?
d) (Bonus Thought Experiment) We don't know with certainty that this will happen, but, if it does, I think that our moral progress would be evident in the way that we react. Honestly, I don't know what that would look like, but I truly believe that we would, for the most part, do what we could to be decent to each other.

Imho, organized religion has been the worst dividing factor in recent history. While I am a theist/Christian, I have disgust for the way that my own Church (raised Catholic) has conducted itself secretly. I feel for people like Dawkins who are just fed up, and think it more beneficial to focus on human progress rather than pleasing some subjective idea of God. God can take care of himself, and, the only thing we do KNOW, is that we are here for each other on earth. I think it would be a step in the right direction to ignore God and God's will, focusing instead on what will make life easier for human beings here and now.

 

[outhouse]

Humanity came from religion, you are buying into the myths you mock me for believing. Ironically, I don't believe in them but you do.

OH!!!! so when ancient people said lightning and thunder and volcanos and earthquakes comes from man made gods, because they did not know how it actually happens being scientifically ignorant, WE SHOULD ALL hang on to the mythology????????? is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Useless2015]

No, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Intent, when it comes to military action, is important. Pointing out that biased parties who have lost loved ones in this struggle doesn't change this fact. There is a difference between targeting civilians and civilian collateral casualties.

Matter of opinion, as for me i value every human life equally and i wish justice would take place against the terrorist organisation that is called NATO. I don't call millions of lifes 'accidents' as you do.


PS: Atleast you agreed to what Lyndon said about 'dead is dead'.

 

[outhouse]

As regards 'not true', you are aware of the 20th C I assume. see if you can guess 3 important things that happened in 20th C Europe that support my argument. They are so obvious that they need absolutely no 'sources' to support them.

Can you provide sources or not???????????????


I didn't think so.

 

[Augustus]

False.

Humanity arose with mythology.

I can live with that, mythology/religion all the same to me. I'm not the one arguing that it is based in objective reason.

[It is a product of universal monotheism though]

Its fact religions contain mythology

An the Oscar for stating the obvious goes to...

Non sequitur.

Its avoidance by you, to not address the topics I brought up.

Non sequitur means the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

I made no argument and actually had neither a conclusion or a premise. For a phrase you use so often, you should understand what it means.

I was expressing exasperation at you missing the point again.

OH!!!! so when ancient people said lightning and thunder comes from man made gods, because they did not know how it actually happens being scientifically ignorant, WE SHOULD ALL hang on to the mythology????????? is that what you are trying to say?

Either you are trolling or you really don't get it. Hopefully you are trolling. Either way, I'm bored of not discussing the topic I raised. There is no potential to progress as you just don't get it.

Can you provide sources or not???????????????


I didn't think so.

Academic convention doesn't expect you to cite common knowledge.

Google WW1, WW2 and Soviet Communism if you are unfamiliar with them.

Anyway, I give up. Go read what Olinda said, she understood the point. Instead of me needing to reply, you can just re-read her post each time. Saves time and effort.

 

[outhouse]

Academic convention doesn't expect you to cite common knowledge.

YOU made a statement. Now back it up or admit your just making garbage up as you go.

 

[outhouse]

Either you are trolling

Says the person who wont back his own statements

 

[Augustus]

a) "Humanity" is defined as "the human race" or "human beings collectively" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanity). I'm not sure why you asked this question, as there is no doubt that a plethora of evidence exists showing that human beings exist.

Human being 'collectively' is a concept drawn from universal monotheism. It is an anthropocentric view of the world, in which we all are linked through our humanity. It is not scientific in any way.

We are animals. We don't talk of ants collectively, or dolphins, or pigs collectively.

There are people and societies and cultures, but not 'human beings collectively'.

Nothing except universal myths apply to 'human beings collectively'

b) The evidence that humanity has "progressed" is all around us. Sure, there are certain (relatively small) groups that try to "regress" humanity, but it rarely ever works. If you look at the treatment of black people, homosexuals, and women in most of the world, acceptance has truly improved. I for one think this is pretty proof positive that humanity has progressed constantly (obviously not consistently) throughout history. So, I would strongly argue that there is a plethora of scientific evidence to show this.

WW1, WW2, Naziism and the final solution, Soviet Communism, Maoist China, the Khmer Rouge.

This is the last 100 years.

Progress?

Only by looking at an arbitrarily selected short term snapshot can you argue about 'progress'.

c) I'm not sure that I understand specifically what you are inquiring here. Can you please rephrase this question?

"we believe we are progressing because we ignore the evidence that the 20th C was the most murderous in history, if we didn't ignore this we couldn't use the phrase 'informed conviction'"

d) (Bonus Thought Experiment) We don't know with certainty that this will happen, but, if it does, I think that our moral progress would be evident in the way that we react. Honestly, I don't know what that would look like, but I truly believe that we would, for the most part, do what we could to be decent to each other.

Evidence shows we wouldn't. Only utopianism says we would.

Even ISIS understand this (see my management of savagery thread), the 'rational scientific' humanists seem unable to.

Imho, organized religion has been the worst dividing factor in recent history. While I am a theist/Christian, I have disgust for the way that my own Church (raised Catholic) has conducted itself secretly. I feel for people like Dawkins who are just fed up, and think it more beneficial to focus on human progress rather than pleasing some subjective idea of God. God can take care of himself, and, the only thing we do KNOW, is that we are here for each other on earth. I think it would be a step in the right direction to ignore God and God's will, focusing instead on what will make life easier for human beings here and now.

Nationalism has been far worse.

Other than that, I don't disagree. I just know that it is based on a subjective concept of virtue rather than representing a scientific truth about humans.

The values of humanism I agree with, just not the utopian mythology that goes along with it. People like Dawkins have to believe that all of their views are based on scientific reasoning, so they end up swallowing myths to cure their cognitive dissonance.

If you jettison this 'rationalist' mythology, then you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter where your values come from. What matters is the values themselves.

When you remove the belief that your beliefs are 'scientific', it matters not if your ally is Muslim, Christian, atheist or whatever. If they share your values they are your ally. When you see your own views as representing 'truth', the people who should be your allies, become antagonists. So Dawkins is critical of 'moderate' religious people and sees them as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

This is why I see him as part of the problem.

 

[leibowde84]

Matter of opinion, as for me i value every human life equally and i wish justice would take place against the terrorist organisation that is called NATO. I don't call millions of lifes 'accidents' as you do.


PS: Atleast you agreed to what Lyndon said about 'dead is dead'.

I agree that "all life is equal", and I have never claimed otherwise. That is nothing but a cheap straw-man argument. Again, my point was that intent matters. When civilian deaths are collateral, and they aren't intended targets that is a terrible thing. But, when civilians are targeted and killed specifically, without any military target in sight, that is worse. That is my only point.

If you disagree, I would like to hear your reasoning ... and please don't lower yourself to straw men like "all lives are equal", as I wholeheartedly agree with that point.

 

[leibowde84]

Human being 'collectively' is a concept drawn from universal monotheism. It is an anthropocentric view of the world, in which we all are linked through our humanity. It is not scientific in any way.

We are animals. We don't talk of ants collectively, or dolphins, or pigs collectively.

There are people and societies and cultures, but not 'human beings collectively'.

Nothing except universal myths apply to 'human beings collectively'

"Humanity" is the same as saying "Human Beings". We do speak of "pigs" in the same way when we say "pigs". There is merely not another word for "pigs" collectively, nor does there need to be. And, there is plenty of evidence that human beings as a species exist, is there not?

 

[Augustus]

"Humanity" is the same as saying "Human Beings". We do speak of "pigs" in the same way when we say "pigs". There is merely not another word for "pigs" collectively, nor does there need to be. And, there is plenty of evidence that human beings as a species exist, is there not?

Humans is the same as pigs or dogs.

Humanity is generally used in a different context suggesting they are a singular unit rather than a particular biological taxonomy.

 

[outhouse]

WW1, WW2

Of which Americans saved more lives then took.

We stopped genocidal maniacs and barbaric practices against humanity, YOU KNOW humanism

 

[outhouse]

Maybe you do not agree that bad people need to be stopped every now and then.

 

[leibowde84]

Humans is the same as pigs or dogs.

Humanity is generally used in a different context suggesting they are a singular unit rather than a particular biological taxonomy.

Can you provide support for this?

 

[Useless2015]

I agree that "all life is equal", and I have never claimed otherwise. That is nothing but a cheap straw-man argument. Again, my point was that intent matters. When civilian deaths are collateral, and they aren't intended targets that is a terrible thing. But, when civilians are targeted and killed specifically, without any military target in sight, that is worse. That is my only point.

If you disagree, I would like to hear your reasoning ... and please don't lower yourself to straw men like "all lives are equal", as I wholeheartedly agree with that point.

Well looking at it from your point of view. I would ask myself the question..Is it worth killing 50 innocent humans to kill one terrorist? The facts are the facts and one fact is that NATO killed far more civilians than terrorists.

 

[icehorse]

None of this is relevant to the point I am making.

The point is not which ideology is better, it's that humanism has no basis in objective fact. All evidence points against it being 'true'. It may be desirable, but only because it matches a specific kind of subjective morality.

Anyway, dealing with your point.

The West rose to power on the back of the industrial revolution that happened when they were very much Christian countries. America still is. They then colonised most of the rest of the world putting others at a disadvantage.

They then were primarily responsible for the most violent century in history and some of the worst crimes. Human history is a long process, looking at the present and last 50 years only and drawing far fetching conclusions is folly.

Now it is seen that Europe has 'passed' these dark times, that they could happen again is impossible because of 'progress'. This myth is hubristic nonsense. After rise comes fall.

The West wins the 'murder count' easily over the past 100 years, so what is that evidence of?

Is the West more wealthy because of its moderate culture, or has a more moderate culture because of it's wealth?

What will happen in the West when it loses its power and wealth?

Too much ambiguity and too short a time frame to start making assumptions that are scientific rather than anecdotal.

Anyway, you didn't answer my questions about humanism. The whole thread has been about people sidestepping my point and wanting to discuss other topics unrelated to what I said.

Hi Augustus,

I'm not trying to side-step, but I disagree with some of the premises that you build your questions on. For example, I disagree that humanism has no basis in objective fact. So before I can talk to your later points, I feel it's appropriate to discuss the foundations of those points.

As another example, the reason I brought up relativism was to see whether we could find a starting point of agreement from which we could build. This was not meant to side-step, it was meant to find a common starting point.

So if you're not a relativist, then you must be able to evaluate the morality of certain behaviors. For example, can we agree that skinning people alive is morally bad? If so, we have a starting point from which to determine whether humanism does or does not lead to better morals and more successful societies.

 

[outhouse]

Hi Augustus,

I'm not trying to side-step, but I disagree with some of the premises that you build your questions on. For example, I disagree that humanism has no basis in objective fact. So before I can talk to your later points, I feel it's appropriate to discuss the foundations of those points.

As another example, the reason I brought up relativism was to see whether we could find a starting point of agreement from which we could build. This was not meant to side-step, it was meant to find a common starting point.

So if you're not a relativist, then you must be able to evaluate the morality of certain behaviors. For example, can we agree that skinning people alive is morally bad? If so, we have a starting point from which to determine whether humanism does or does not lead to better morals and more successful societies.

He knows if he admits to anything you propose, his philosophy is cornered in where it can criticized, and shows his whole OP is built on personal definition.