Life After Death

[SexMachine]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Did I say we invented electricity?[/quote]

Do you know what an analogy is?

While we didn’t invent it, we invented implementations to utilize it so we can do with it what we desire.

Correct.

Music is the same thing.

[quote]We may not have invented ears or sound, but we invented music.

Are you going to tell me God made music and electronics?
[/quote]

sigh… If you weren’t so busy being preoccupied with your elevated sense of self worth and accomplishment you could take the 3 seconds it would require to see my point.

Like electricity, music wasn’t invented, it is just sounds. All we did was invent an instrument to arrange the sounds that already existed into a pattern.

We didn’t invent current, we invented a tool to use it. We didn’t invent sound, we invented a tool to use it.

EDIT: were v weren’t[/quote]

Music is not “just sounds”. Music involves aesthetic value judgements. Plato’s concept of “Forms” is an interesting way to look at aesthetics; the idea that things such as “beauty” exist distinct and extrinsic from man. Plato considered poetry and music to be so powerful as to be subversive and a danger to the state. In The Republic he advocates that music and poetry should be illegal. This is a kind of radical response to cultural threats - ban culture altogether; problem solved.

[Diddy_Ryder]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You say you’re open minded to “the existence of things we cannot understand” yet you “try not” to believe in God? That’s a pretty unusual position to take.
[/quote]

I’m not satisfied with any of the arguments for the existence of god that all basically end in faith. However, I think that there’s enough anecdotal evidence of strange, “supernatural” goings on that there is either more to the universe than we can clearly perceive (“receive” in my original post, a typo) with the means currently at our disposal, or there are common glitches in the human psyche.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Some scholars have speculated that the Levites were runaway slaves who had been in Egyptian captivity for several generations and that the other tribes had not actually been slaves. This is of course theologically heretical.
[/quote]

From what I remember of the article (read a good few years ago), that was its standpoint. I would check but it’s behind a paywall. Here’s a link: A progressive manifesto - Prospect Magazine

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You acknowledge that law needs to be based upon theology(natural rights) - that’s a good start.
[/quote]

No, I acknowledge that the 10 Commandments/Judeo-Christian ethics are one possible sound basis for a modern, peaceful society (perhaps the best to date?). I am doubtful that their origin is any kind of god, but rather a pragmatic solution to community living.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But I contend that ethics also need to be based on theological grounds; that man can only relate to the Other via a mediator(God).
[/quote]

Who/what is the other?

Modern neuroscience is offering insights into how men relate to each other, if that is what you meant.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
This is demonstrable and can be shown via the absurd results of any ethical construct that is not based upon theology - essentially, a reductio ad absurdum. This is widely recognised in the philosophy of law hence the dominance of natural law philosophy.
[/quote]

Come on: it’s not as if there’s nothing absurd in religion if you followed it without applying any common sense. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

I suppose this begs the question, “where does common sense come from”?

I contend that it comes from a kind of group interest, but based in the type of nomadic groups formed by early humans, of around 25 members. I would argue that all subsequent ethical constructs, including ones that depend on faith in a deity, are humanity’s “best effort” to apply the evolutionary ethics of small groups to large scale societies. Clearly, it doesn’t scale up perfectly, hence the debate and any absurdities.

You chose not to address my point about inalienable rights that can be waived to suit strategic objectives.

[countingbeans]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Music is not “just sounds”. [/quote]

Sure it is. sounds arranged in a pattern. Like I said.

Music involves aesthetic value judgements. Plato’s concept of “Forms” is an interesting way to look at aesthetics; the idea that things such as “beauty” exist distinct and extrinsic from man. Plato considered poetry and music to be so powerful as to be subversive and a danger to the state. In The Republic he advocates that music and poetry should be illegal. This is a kind of radical response to cultural threats - ban culture altogether; problem solved.

This, isn’t relevant to what I said unless I’m missing something, but I see no need to argue it on it’s face either.

[Diddy_Ryder]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

As for rape and murder and what not, surely this would be easy to prove “immoral”, or wrong, from an evolutionary perspective. Human’s are social creatures (indeed, we wouldn’t be so successful as a species if we were not), and it is easy to see the deleterious effect of such actions on the cohesion and success of a group and, by extension, the species.[/quote]

No, it is impossible to prove rape and murder wrong from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, those “crimes” can easily and only be proved “right” if evolutionary processes are deemed fundamental. One who argues otherwise can be effortlessly trounced in a debate on the subject.[/quote]

How is it impossible?

My reasoning was something like this:

A child born of rape is less likely to receive adequate care from the mother (post natal depression, hatred of progeny, etc.), and therefore survive.

A raped woman is less likely to want to engage in reproduction in the future

Both of those factors affect the propagation of the species.

To play devil’s advocate, I can also think of extreme scenarios where rape and murder would be right from an evolutionary perspective.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

As for rape and murder and what not, surely this would be easy to prove “immoral”, or wrong, from an evolutionary perspective. Human’s are social creatures (indeed, we wouldn’t be so successful as a species if we were not), and it is easy to see the deleterious effect of such actions on the cohesion and success of a group and, by extension, the species.[/quote]

No, it is impossible to prove rape and murder wrong from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, those “crimes” can easily and only be proved “right” if evolutionary processes are deemed fundamental. One who argues otherwise can be effortlessly trounced in a debate on the subject.[/quote]

How is it impossible?

My reasoning was something like this:

A child born of rape is less likely to receive adequate care from the mother (post natal depression, hatred of progeny, etc.), and therefore survive.

A raped woman is less likely to want to engage in reproduction in the future

Both of those factors affect the propagation of the species.

To play devil’s advocate, I can also think of extreme scenarios where rape and murder would be right from an evolutionary perspective.

[/quote]

First, evolution doesn’t work on propagation of the species, at least not primarily. Second, it isn’t about how many kids die, scientifically speaking, it’s about how many live. The rape kid dying is no evolutionarily worse than there never being a kid. Lots of animals evolve into the volume approach.

BUT regardless, look at what your moral compass is reduced to. You aren’t even claiming rape is wrong because violating a woman is bad, you are saying that statistically reproduction may not be best served that way so you shouldn’t. You are in effect saying it’s not the pain and suffering that are bad, or the egregious violation of the woman’s body, it’s the possible genetic repercussions that are undesirable (and you are even wrong about that).

[SexMachine]

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

I’m not satisfied with any of the arguments for the existence of god that all basically end in faith. However, I think that there’s enough anecdotal evidence of strange, “supernatural” goings on that there is either more to the universe than we can clearly perceive (“receive” in my original post, a typo) with the means currently at our disposal, or there are common glitches in the human psyche.
[/quote]

I just thought “try not” to believe is a strange way of putting it. Do not believe? Okay. Try not to? Hmm…not sure what to say about that one.

No, I acknowledge that the 10 Commandments/Judeo-Christian ethics are one possible sound basis for a modern, peaceful society (perhaps the best to date?). I am doubtful that their origin is any kind of god, but rather a pragmatic solution to community living.

Whether or not the origin of “natural rights”(not the 10 commandments) is God was not the point I was making. The point was that law based upon natural rights is the only system that doesn’t lead to unsavoury results. “Legal positivism” is inherently dangerous and has served as justification for democratic Caesarism.

Who/what is the other?

The Other(capital O) is a philosophical term and its meaning extends beyond the simple concept of “other” as in “other people”. The Other is an ontological way of understanding subject and object in the context of identity and normalcy.

Other

Modern neuroscience is offering insights into how men relate to each other, if that is what you meant.

Come on: it’s not as if there’s nothing absurd in religion if you followed it without applying any common sense. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

You misunderstand me. Firstly, I’m not in any way suggesting that religion is rational. Secondly, by “absurd” I’m referring to the concepts of randomness and nothingness/nihilism.

Absurdism

I suppose this begs the question, “where does common sense come from”?

“Common sense” is of course an oxymoron. Sense is exceedingly uncommon.

I contend that it comes from a kind of group interest, but based in the type of nomadic groups formed by early humans, of around 25 members.

If by “sense” you mean logic and if by “comes from” you mean how did humans end up with it then I would disagree. Simple logic developed by a kind of trial and error process; by experience. Higher level logic developed by a deeper level of reflection and constitutes man’s “awakening” and becoming self aware. From an atheist perspective this awakening was arguably the time when man became distinct from animals which was roughly 3000 years ago.

I would argue that all subsequent ethical constructs, including ones that depend on faith in a deity, are humanity’s “best effort” to apply the evolutionary ethics of small groups to large scale societies. Clearly, it doesn’t scale up perfectly, hence the debate and any absurdities.

You chose not to address my point about inalienable rights that can be waived to suit strategic objectives.

I’m not sure I understand your point about choosing to waive rights. Waiving one’s rights is an element of social contract theory and does not say anything about the origin of rights themselves.

Edited to fix quotes

[Diddy_Ryder]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

As for rape and murder and what not, surely this would be easy to prove “immoral”, or wrong, from an evolutionary perspective. Human’s are social creatures (indeed, we wouldn’t be so successful as a species if we were not), and it is easy to see the deleterious effect of such actions on the cohesion and success of a group and, by extension, the species.[/quote]

No, it is impossible to prove rape and murder wrong from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, those “crimes” can easily and only be proved “right” if evolutionary processes are deemed fundamental. One who argues otherwise can be effortlessly trounced in a debate on the subject.[/quote]

How is it impossible?

My reasoning was something like this:

A child born of rape is less likely to receive adequate care from the mother (post natal depression, hatred of progeny, etc.), and therefore survive.

A raped woman is less likely to want to engage in reproduction in the future

Both of those factors affect the propagation of the species.

To play devil’s advocate, I can also think of extreme scenarios where rape and murder would be right from an evolutionary perspective.

[/quote]

First, evolution doesn’t work on propagation of the species, at least not primarily. Second, it isn’t about how many kids die, scientifically speaking, it’s about how many live. The rape kid dying is no evolutionarily worse than there never being a kid. Lots of animals evolve into the volume approach.

BUT regardless, look at what your moral compass is reduced to. You aren’t even claiming rape is wrong because violating a woman is bad, you are saying that statistically reproduction may not be best served that way so you shouldn’t. You are in effect saying it’s not the pain and suffering that are bad, or the egregious violation of the woman’s body, it’s the possible genetic repercussions that are undesirable (and you are even wrong about that).
[/quote]

Effortlessly trounced lol

I was thinking of the behavioural repercussions on subsequent reproduction rather than adaptive genetic variations, so the inaccurate language is my bad. I was just thinking of reasons why rape would be wrong without appealing to the divine.

[SexMachine]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Sure it is. sounds arranged in a pattern. Like I said.

[/quote]

No, it’s more than just a “pattern”. As I said, the process of making music is not just creating patterns. It involves aesthetic value judgements.

[quote]
This, isn’t relevant to what I said unless I’m missing something, but I see no need to argue it on it’s face either. [/quote]

Okay. But yes, you are missing something.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But even using your own reasoning where norms (though non-absolute and non-universal) inform you of what goals we should pursue, it will lead to really messed up things. Rape, murder, theft, lack of human rights and on and on are all normalized in many cultures and at many times.
[/quote]

These sound like great reasons to invent the concept of god-given natural rights.

[Depression_Boy]

You mean you dare challenge the pimptastic superiority the hyper-intellectual Severiano enjoys over you God fearing peasants?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]We may not have invented ears or sound, but we invented music.

Are you going to tell me God made music and electronics?
[/quote]

sigh… If you weren’t so busy being preoccupied with your elevated sense of self worth and accomplishment you could take the 3 seconds it would require to see my point.

[/quote]

[countingbeans]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Sure it is. sounds arranged in a pattern. Like I said.

[/quote]

No, it’s more than just a “pattern”. As I said, the process of making music is not just creating patterns. It involves aesthetic value judgements.

[/quote]

I mean, I understand “art” but choosing one pattern over (or even the total lacking of a pattern) another doesn’t make a pattern not a pattern.

I’m not looking to drill down music into the simplest of terms for the sake of disparaging music, or what it takes to arrange it. (And note you do arrange music.) I’m simply trying to point out the undue credit Sev gives mankind, and using his own example to do so.

Irrelevant if every woman, man and child thinks Jingle Bells is the best song on Earth or not, doesn’t change the fact we didn’t invent the sounds, just the instruments to regurgitate them, and arranged the sounds in that manner because we found it pleasing.

There is a distinct and important difference. One puts people at the apex, the creator, the being that brings into our world something, the other puts people as the being that exists in the environment around it.

[Diddy_Ryder]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I just thought “try not” to believe is a strange way of putting it. Do not believe? Okay. Try not to? Hmm…not sure what to say about that one.
[/quote]

I’m a lapsed Catholic mate it’s complicated It’s hard to express. Consciously, I don’t believe in god but it’s such a deep-rooted concept in my upbringing that I haven’t managed to purge the belief completely. Not sure that’s any clearer. I suppose I’m a wishy-wahsy agnostic.

Thanks for the links. Always good to clearly define what’s being discussed. By reductio ad absurdum I thought you meant, for example, how utilitarian ethics can be used to show that genocide is “right”, etc. (Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia)

I trust that the 3000 years is a typo.

As for the waiving rights: you argue that we have inalienable rights that are granted by god and used to form our ethics, but then argue that in war these ethics can be suspended to meet a practical objective. It’s not that I disagree with suspending ethics in this way, but in my view it clashes with absolute right and wrong and inalienable rights.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
You mean you dare challenge the pimptastic superiority the hyper-intellectual Severiano enjoys over you God fearing peasants?

[/quote]

lmao yes.

Side bar: While I do believe in a Grand Architect, call it God if you want, I do not fear it, not even remotely close do I fear it.

[countingbeans]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But even using your own reasoning where norms (though non-absolute and non-universal) inform you of what goals we should pursue, it will lead to really messed up things. Rape, murder, theft, lack of human rights and on and on are all normalized in many cultures and at many times.
[/quote]

These sound like great reasons to invent the concept of god-given natural rights. [/quote]

If you take out “God-given” the rights are still there.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But even using your own reasoning where norms (though non-absolute and non-universal) inform you of what goals we should pursue, it will lead to really messed up things. Rape, murder, theft, lack of human rights and on and on are all normalized in many cultures and at many times.
[/quote]

These sound like great reasons to invent the concept of god-given natural rights. [/quote]

I believe murder is wrong, therefor the supernatural is necessary. And like wise, if you believe things like murder and rape are wrong, you are acknowledging the divine. It isn’t necessary to invent the divine after rights, it’s already part of the invention “murder is bad”.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But even using your own reasoning where norms (though non-absolute and non-universal) inform you of what goals we should pursue, it will lead to really messed up things. Rape, murder, theft, lack of human rights and on and on are all normalized in many cultures and at many times.
[/quote]

These sound like great reasons to invent the concept of god-given natural rights. [/quote]

If you take out “God-given” the rights are still there. [/quote]

From what source and in what way are they “still there”?

SexMachine and DoubleDouce have pretty much convinced me of a few things: (1) I’m not as well versed in meta-ethics as I need to be to really challenge them; (2) rights are either god-given and external to us or they aren’t; (3) there is no way to prove or disprove point 2; and (4) the consequences of disproving 2 would be bad.

But, again, I really need to read up on meta-ethics to fully evaluate their positions.

[Diddy_Ryder]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

But, again, I really need to read up on meta-ethics to fully evaluate their positions. [/quote]

x2

[SexMachine]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I mean, I understand “art” but choosing one pattern over (or even the total lacking of a pattern) another doesn’t make a pattern not a pattern.

[/quote]

Of course it’s a pattern. I didn’t suggest otherwise. My point was that fundamentally it’s more than just a pattern. To say it’s “just a pattern” misses the whole point of what music is. Perhaps a diversion from the point you were making but I thought it was worth pointing out.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

I’m a lapsed Catholic mate it’s complicated It’s hard to express. Consciously, I don’t believe in god but it’s such a deep-rooted concept in my upbringing that I haven’t managed to purge the belief completely. Not sure that’s any clearer. I suppose I’m a wishy-wahsy agnostic.

Thanks for the links. Always good to clearly define what’s being discussed. By reductio ad absurdum I thought you meant, for example, how utilitarian ethics can be used to show that genocide is “right”, etc. (Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia)

[/quote]

By reductio ad absurdum I mean natural law can(arguably) be shown to exist by virtue of the fact that any other system leads to absurd results.

I trust that the 3000 years is a typo.

No typo. From an atheist perspective it could be argued that man did not become distinct from animals until the pre-Socratics began to ponder the “nature of being” and existence.

As for the waiving rights: you argue that we have inalienable rights that are granted by god and used to form our ethics, but then argue that in war these ethics can be suspended to meet a practical objective.

Not exactly. I’m saying in the Hobbesian “state of nature” - ie, in war - man has a right to defend his natural rights by any means necessary. This is not “setting aside” my ethical system.

[quote]
It’s not that I disagree with suspending ethics in this way, but in my view it clashes with absolute right and wrong and inalienable rights.[/quote]

On the contrary, warfare by definition is existential so you have a right to use any means necessary to safeguard your life, liberty and property. And keep in mind by "any means necessary I’m not suggesting you can do whatever you want. I just mean that by absolutely necessary I mean just that.