I take ignostic to mean apathetic agnostic - doesn’t know, doesn’t care. Organized religion’s worst enemy…

Fairy Tales

Les-  You haven’t disproved the existence of Diminutive Underwear Trolls in your dresser, merely thrown doubt on the existence of Giant Diminutive Underwear Trolls there (assuming they can’t beam themselves under another pair of underwear, which they might well be able to do).

Ellie- you say (I promise to learn how to quote blue someday!):

“The problem I see with (I)Gnosticism as a basis for proving evil people to be unscrupulous is that the source of scruples is you & your brain.  People are NOTORIOUS for NOT CARING what anyone else things unless that someone else has a direct effect on them & what they want.

The only way to prove that all have access to this knowledge that cruel behavior is wrong is natural law, which must have some source. (Why is Lordklegg’s mention of the golden rule better than Machiavelli?) (Romans 1) This is why I say that intelligent (I)Gnostics have ignorance of Christian beliefs.  My Christian beliefs are based out of my heart & experience, not my mind”

Atheists have given a lot of thought to the source of right and wrong in the absence of a God to tell us what to do, too.  The best explanation of this I know of is in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”, by Daniel Dennett.  To oversimplify, he says, as many have before him, that there is no perfect set of rules, and we must do the best we can with what we have.  Check it out.

My use of the Golden rule helps guide my interactions with my fellow citizens. Machiavelli’s thoughts were laid out as a guide for ruling over the masses and survival of state, not necesarily leading a happy life as one OF the masses.  So I am not sure that on is better than the other as much as different. (I have not read “The Prince” myself)  That being said if I knew an associate studied and believed in this thesis I may trust his motives less.

    Natural Law, I am sorry, how about reason, maybe a little logic.  I help you, you help me and we are both ahead.  When you are threatened we stand together and we are stronger. I choose to live my life with the intent of being a good person, neighbour, citizen, parent and making the small steps needed daily to help make my street, city, state, world a better more knowledgeable place for humankind.  The problem I have with religion (which always ends up organized, human nature) is that it is another tool for someone else to attempt to have power over myself and/or my thoughts and persecute those who are new/different and therefore a threat to the status quo.

I choose to think critically because it helps exercise that lazy muscle in my head.  I love this place because I was becoming mentally complacent and needed new chalenges and ideas.

    I agree there are no perfect set of rules we all muddle through and the universe cannot currently be fully explained at this time.  I still do not see the need for the Invisible friend in the sky.  I do not want to die, but I have no illusion that I will live on in some form.  I do not deny this unknown possibility but I have no proof either way.

  We are in it for the long haul.  We don’t know all the answers and 2000 year old information aimed at people who thought the world was flat, the center of the universe, etc.  may have some useful anecdotal information on people and the nature of man but as a reference on the nature of the universe I think not.

I was suprised no one attacked my use of the word “punishment” in refrence to Ananias & Saphira after saying they weren’t struck dead.  Just like fat is a punishment for eating too much…so extreme anxiety is a result of being caught in hypocracy & greed.

Lordklegg, the way I understand natural law is an explanation of why all of our collective human logic & reason seems to work generally the same way.  I would have to disagree that organization is human nature… as a teacher I’d have to say that it’s the EXACT opposite!  Lust for power is a part of human nature, & sometimes organization is a means to that end, but I see a difference between the 2.  I’ve studied the Prince a lot & the focus is to govern & take power, but he writes much about human nature & interaction for people on all levels.  Perhaps I should have made more reference to Nietzsche & Darwin as opposed to Machiavelli in contrast to the golden rule.  They used their human logic & reason to decide that the only ultimate good is power.

Ellie, this is at least the second time you’ve mentioned being a teacher. I’m still curious; what do you teach?

Fat is a RESULT of eating too much, not a punishment. Are you saying that God makes people fat?

Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and workout partner and you too will lose that embarrassing weight. Become born again beautiful now!*

*Just don’t your new svelte form go to your head or you’ll be struck dead.

You prompted me to make a membership profile.  Anyway, aren’t most punishments results, although not all results are punishments?  I eat bad foods & don’t exercise, laws of biology & physics say I get fat unless something unatural intervenes.

Perhaps I should have made more reference to Nietzsche & Darwin as opposed to Machiavelli in contrast to the golden rule.  They used their human logic & reason to decide that the only ultimate good is power

Uh, attributing that attitude to Machiavelli is far more accurate than attributing it to either Nietzsche or Darwin.

Darwin made no moral judgements about the “value” of selective adaptation.  Furthermore, the ‘golden rule’ is an adaptively beneficial meme, for reasons that many people on this board have discussed before. If you’re interested in seeing those discussions, they should still be around here somewhere, in the forums or something.  I think one is titled “oh, by the way.“  One has something to do with the Matrix, and the other one,

oh hell, I can’t remember, it was a -really- long time ago.

Nietzsche did worship power, but not in the way that many people believe.  A lot of people think his philosophy espouses some sort of incipient fascism, and nothing could be further from the truth.  Nietzsche despised force and power that were invested in the state, in religion, or in any organized unit of social control.  His works are about “self-overcoming,“ and the eternal return.  His emphasis was on personal power.  He was the ultimate libertarian, not the fascist that some people like to paint him as.  If anything, his philosophy is similar, in many ways, to William Burroughs’.  Odd bedfellows, to be sure.

Nietzsche’s philosophy certainly raises some troubling issues, but it is a profoundly moral philosophy, despite the fact that Nietzsche is constantly claiming to reject morality.

Lordklegg- what you said. The only disagreement I have is with this:

“The problem I have with religion (which always ends up organized, human nature) is that it is another tool for someone else to attempt to have power over myself and/or my thoughts and persecute those who are new/different and therefore a threat to the status quo.“

I, personally, would amend that to say “... is that is is OFTEN another tool…“  Religion is many things to many people, and has helped build the kind of society you and I want to live in, as well as hindered it.

Ellie: About Nietzsche and Darwin deciding the only ultimate good is power- what Nowiser said.  As far as Nietzsche goes, I’m no expert, not having read much beyond “Also Sprach Zarathustra”.  It’s true that he characteristically huffs and puffs about submission to power, but he heaps scorn upon Spencer, the founder of Social Darwinism.  Spencer and his deluded fans the Nazis are responsible for a lot of the bad press Darwin gets.

And about Darwin- them’s fightin’ words!  Here I can speak with a little more authority, having read not all of his works but quite a few, not to mention lots of his letters and a couple of biographies.  Darwin said zilch about ultimate good- in fact, the whole meaning of evolution is the inversion of teleology.  I’d be willing to bet that you have read not a single word of Darwin.  If you’re a teacher, you should know the meaning of doing your homework.

Darwin said zilch about ultimate good- in fact, the whole meaning of evolution is the inversion of teleology.  I’d be willing to bet that you have read not a single word of Darwin.  If you’re a teacher, you should know the meaning of doing your homework.

Ooo, zilch, if I misbehave will you spank ME, too??

GM- Um, I’ll consider it.  You’re in Texas, though, so you’re probably packing heat… better play it safe.

Thank you Zilch, I stand corrected.

I’ve only read “the Origin of Species,“ & I’ve read much more of Neitzsche.  Darwin just wasn’t compelling or interesting to me.  You’re right, he didn’t talk much about any ultimate good, but didn’t put any limits on that “survival of the fittest” bizznisss either.  Neitzsche did focus on the individual, & if a single person has the power to oppress others & they can’t fight him off, more power to him/her!  (Although I highly doubt he would have appreciated the latter.)  That’s why I see problems with raising a question without limits.  You don’t see Socrates, Descartes, Locke, Kierkegaard or Kant giving a foundation to Nazis.

You’re right, he didn’t talk much about any ultimate good, but didn’t put any limits on that “survival of the fittest� bizznisss either

It’s not his job to put ‘limits’ on the concept of survival of the fittest.  He wasn’t espousing a social philosphy, he was describing the principles of genetic variation over time.  Suggesting that he had some sort of obligation to cast his observations in moral terms is like suggesting that Newton establish that gravitational attraction was a “good,“ thing, because it “brought things together.“  Or that it was a ‘bad’ thing, because falling from a height can kill one.

if a single person has the power to oppress others & they can’t fight him off, more power to him/her!

You say you’ve read Nietzsche? According to his philosophy, it’s actually -less- power to him/her.  Pursuing power over others -limits- one’s personal process of self-overcoming, because one is forced, yet again, into dependence upon others.  One is locked into a relationship with the ones one seeks to dominate.  Why do you think Nietzsche is so fixated on the power wielded by ‘slaves’?  Granted, reading Nietzsche is not always easy, and sometimes he contradicts himself.  He also relies, in portions of Good and Evil, for example, on aphorisms that he -expects- a reader to reject, if the reader has been ‘properly’ understanding N’s work, anyway.

Nietzsche did point out that people who are powerful -will- gain followers, and that this would only -stop- when humankind had evolved to a point where everyone had ‘escaped’ from the ‘slave mentality.‘

You don’t see Socrates, Descartes, Locke, Kierkegaard or Kant giving a foundation to Nazis

  (Really?  Have you read the Republic?)  Also, Kant has been accused of nurturing fascism.  It’s not a new accusation, either.  I don’t think it’s supportable, but it’s certainly not unheard of.  My problem with the accusation is the conflation between the “fascist in my head,“ and fascism as a political movement.  Theorists like Foucault, Deleuze, and William Burroughs, would have you believe that they are one and the same—that the one springs from the other.  I have some issues with that assertion, but. . .

Again, that would be another whole thread, so I won’t even go there.

Kant and Fascism

If you can’t see Socrates and Kant as supporting fascist thought, than you can’t see Nietzsche doing so either; at least, you can’t ‘see’ it while still preserving any sort of consistency in your way of estimating what constitutes “support”. The Nazis talked a lot about their religious destiny/justification as well so, by the logic that you are apparently endorsing, Jesus also created a foundation for fascism.  Not surprising that the ‘Father’ plays such a big role in both fascism and Christianity, eh?  (I jest, although, in some ways, I think that -is- one of Nietzsche’s arguments.)

I’m not some Nietzsche fan-boy, by the way.  I think his philosphy is deeply flawed, and far too idealistic.

Whatever.  I don’t agree with much of what you say ellie.  In fact, I think you’re frequently dead wrong, and have a tendency to cite ‘supporting evidence’ that, in fact, does little to support your assertions. 

But I have to admit that you’ve spurred me to think about things that I haven’t really considered much, recently.  And -that- has been somewhat entertaining. 

(These exercises always end up becoming somewhat solipsistic for me.  Hmm.  I guess that reveals something a little nasty about my character.  Maybe I should see someone about that!)

“you’ve spurred me to think about things that I haven’t really considered much, recently.  And -that- has been somewhat entertaining.“

All I was praying for

I couldn’t necessarily say the same, as I think about & discuss these ideas & thinkers a lot.  What y’all have provided me with is more like real views rather than imagined arguments from imagined disagreement…

Nowiser- Nail-on-the-head what you said.  One niggle- Darwin wasn’t really

...describing the principles of genetic variation over time

because he knew nothing of genetics- that came later.

Ellie- if you read “The Origin of Species”, you didn’t read it very carefully…

he didn’t talk much about any ultimate good

He didn’t talk at all about any ultimate good.  Ultimate goods are a specialty of religion, not science.

The whole idea of evolution, as I said, is an inversion of teleology- “good” evolves too, from the bottom up; it is not handed to us on a platter from the Top down.  That’s what evolution is.  If you don’t find this “compelling”, I guess I can’t blame you.  For my money, the idea of evolution is the best single idea anyone has ever had, in terms of explaining our world.  Philosophising about ultimate good and meaning and free will is just so much wordplay, intellectual tennis without a net,  without at least a rudimentary understanding of evolution.

Zilch,

I realized that the second that I hit the send button.  But in this format, you can’t ‘unsay,‘your mistakes.  I suppose it keeps us honest. 

But, as for the rest of what I had to say, I doubt it is of any consequence.  Or that it has any effect on the opinions of readers.  Perhaps I am becoming discouraged.  I too, am a teacher—although I believe that my approach, and my philosophy, are probably diametrically opposed to that of ellie’s; I fear that her style—to assert “truth” with passion, may have a more lasting and dramatic impact on her pupils’ minds than my own approach has on my students.  It makes me wonder if I should really be continuing in this profession.  At least if I was digging ditches for a living I wouldn’t have to worry about someone following along behind me and filling them back in.

I shouldn’t care, really.  I’ll collect my paycheck either way.  But it does make me feel discouraged. 

By the way, have a   You do good posting here.  Keep it up.

nowiser- I know you just slipped- it’s obvious from your comments that you know your stuff.  I just wanted to call attention to it before some creationist jumped on it truimphantly.  I wish I could call back some of my posts for some serious editing too.

I know what you mean about being discouraged.  Passion does sway people more easily than logic.  Not that “we” have a monopoly on logic, or are not also passionate (and obstinate, etc.).  But I for one am glad there are teachers like you out there.  Otherwise, the ditches wouldn’t get dug at all.

Keep up the good work.

case in point- triumphantly.  I think the hanging chad devil, having lots of time on his hands now, is in control of my spelling.

Apropos unsaying - if you preview your comment, edit it again on the preview page, and then preview again, any changes made on the preview page will be submitted, but are not reflected on subsequent previews. Odd.

elwed- anyone who previews is a sissy in my book.  And “subsequent previews”?  How kinky can you get?

How kinky can you get?

Want to compare notes?

Elwed, I’ll check into that. I don’t use Preview a lot myself so it may be a missed bug.

Preview ?!?!

Just type as you talk, and cast caution to the wind, and just hit POST.  It takes a little practice, but good posts can be had, error free, without previewing nothin.

And, just so you know, you’re genetically enhanced grandchildren want need no preview.