# Does science trump philosophy?



## neither

An answer at this website.  What do you think?

Edward O. Wilson Science Not Philosophy Will Explain the Meaning of Existence Big Think

"Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book _The Meaning of Human Existence, _knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:

What are we and why?

Where do we come from?

Where are we most likely to be headed?

Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere."


----------



## Sidekick

What or who is science? Is he/she/it a conscious being in his/her/its own right, such as an individual, natural person? Seems that people who believe in science don't really know the answer to that, or they really believe in something that should be called Sciencegod instead.


----------



## Boss

Actually.... Science IS philosophy. In fact, it was originally called "natural philosophy" in the days of Issac Newton. The scientific method itself follows a philosophical logic order to discover. This has often resulted in theories based almost entirely in philosophical presumptions and logical hypothesis. So to me, it's rather difficult to draw a clear distinction between the two. Science, I admit, seems to have more rigid control variables and supporting physical data, but many people call themselves "scientists practicing science" when they are nothing but glorified philosophers. (Neil DeGrasse Tyson come to mind here.) 

Science does not draw conclusions. That seems to be something a lot of so-called "science people" don't like to hear. Science can only predict a probability of possibility... HUMANS take that and draw conclusion. We often hear someone say _"it's a proven scientific fact"_ but that's really not true. There are no _"proven scientific facts"_ because Science doesn't conclude. There are things science supports with evidence and we believe are true for now but things can always change. Science never stops asking questions. Many things science once thought was the case have turned out to be totally wrong. So we have to always have an open mind with Science and understand that it can sometimes prove to be wrong. We don't have all the information, we'll never know all the information of all things in our universe. Yet... the human ego is quite arrogant about this, we always assume that we know everything there is to know.  Once you as a human have drawn a conclusion from Science, you have abandoned science for faith in the conclusion you've made. Science can do no more. Conclusion means the science has ended... it's down at the pub having a beer now, you are left with your faith. 

As many here know, I am not a religious person. My sister, the devout Baptist, refers to me as her "Atheist brother." I am not an Atheist because I do believe in a higher spiritual power, and I am alright with calling it "God" for sake of conversation. My God is not a religious one, it is spiritual in nature. It doesn't have a dogma, it doesn't possess human characteristics and emotions. It doesn't need to hate, love, sympathize, console, forgive, reprimand or punish. It certainly doesn't require pleasing by mortal human beings. Think of any force you can imagine that is greater than you... does it care about what you think or do? The omniscient and omnipotent Spiritual God certainly doesn't have such a need. 

Religions are the byproduct of human spirituality. They are the evidence that humans do make some kind of intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self. I believe this is responsible for all of human achievement and we could have never evolved so far without it. The drawback to religions is, as the source link points out, inherently flawed because they are created by man. Religions have done a lot of good and a lot of bad through history, and it's important we maintain that perspective. While we can categorize religions as philosophy, human spirituality predates religion by many thousands of years and it remains our most defining characteristic as a species. This makes spirituality more than just a philosophy. 

On the matter of what trumps what... I think neither can trump the other. Science is excellent at explaining to us HOW things happen, but only Philosophy can tackle the question of WHY things happen. Some 'god-haters' will lament how man obviously invented God to explain the unexplained but this is not true... that's why man invented Science. I personally believe that everything which encompasses Science, all the laws and physical principles, all the elements and compounds, all the constants of cosmology and properties, the sheer ability to predict reliably what will likely happen... all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine.


----------



## Unkotare

Posing the question suggests an inability to understand either.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

neither said:


> An answer at this website.  What do you think?
> 
> Edward O. Wilson Science Not Philosophy Will Explain the Meaning of Existence Big Think
> 
> "Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book _The Meaning of Human Existence, _knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:
> 
> What are we and why?
> 
> Where do we come from?
> 
> Where are we most likely to be headed?
> 
> Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere."



I believe Science is the development of a hypothesis and the research to prove it's truth.  I believe Philosophy is the worship of the mind without God - the discussing of truths, the pondering of truths without the least desire to follow through and take it into the heart to receive it and act upon it.  Therein reaping its rewards.  

I prefer to hear from a man who has sought God with all his heart and heard from heaven.


----------



## Unkotare

Jeremiah said:


> I believe Science is the development of a hypothesis and the research to prove it's truth.  I believe Philosophy is the worship of the mind without God -....




You're wrong.


----------



## neither

Unkotare said:


> Posing the question suggests an inability to understand either.


True, there are not that many of us who know everything, present company excluded.


----------



## PK1

Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
 "_all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine_."
You were imagining your testament.


----------



## PK1

*Does science trump philosophy?*

No, they complement one another.
One provides evidence, and the other attempts to explain the data patterns from a rational perspective that influenced the scientific data collection in the first place.

We have science, and we have philosophy of science.
We have different kinds of science, and different philosophical perspectives.
There is Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of Biology, Philosophy of Psychology, etc.


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
> "_all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine_."
> You were imagining your testament.



I don't need an explanation. Human spirituality exists and we have ample evidence of it which spans the history of human civilization. It is our most defining attribute as a species. You can certainly claim that you don't believe in anything greater than self but the vast majority of human beings have always believed in something greater and always will.


----------



## PK1

Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
> "_all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine_."
> You were imagining your testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need an explanation. Human spirituality exists and we have ample evidence of it which spans the history of human civilization. It is our most defining attribute as a species. You can certainly claim that you don't believe in anything greater than self but the vast majority of human beings have always believed in something greater and always will.
Click to expand...


Before.making an assumption like "_Human spirituality exists_", how about defining it?
Does it differ from a dog's "spirituality"?

Unless some rational clarity is presented, spirituality is an emotion perceived in your brain and does not exist outside your skull.


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
> "_all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine_."
> You were imagining your testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need an explanation. Human spirituality exists and we have ample evidence of it which spans the history of human civilization. It is our most defining attribute as a species. You can certainly claim that you don't believe in anything greater than self but the vast majority of human beings have always believed in something greater and always will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before.making an assumption like "_Human spirituality exists_", how about defining it?
> Does it differ from a dog's "spirituality"?
> 
> Unless some rational clarity is presented, spirituality is an emotion perceived in your brain and does not exist outside your skull.
Click to expand...


Does a dog have spirituality? Show me some evidence? 

Human spirituality is the intrinsic belief that humans have had since they became civilized creatures of something greater than self. It's not an emotion, it's an intrinsic awareness we have as a species and one that has always persisted in man. In fact, it is difficult to explain human spirituality as any kind of evolved emotion or imagination because there is no basis of origin found in nature. We didn't obtain this attribute from the monkeys because they would still have it and they don't. So where did it evolve from? We're the only creatures who actively worship something spiritual, or greater than self. Again.. it is our most defining attribute as a species. 

Now this is usually where BreezeWood chimes in with a picture of a pansy or praying mantis and claims that as evidence other living things are also spiritual in their own way. I don't reject that theory or idea, maybe he's right? Still, it doesn't fare well for the argument against a higher power or man's supposed invention of such a thing if it's happening elsewhere in nature.


----------



## PK1

Boss said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
> "_all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine_."
> You were imagining your testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need an explanation. Human spirituality exists and we have ample evidence of it which spans the history of human civilization. It is our most defining attribute as a species. You can certainly claim that you don't believe in anything greater than self but the vast majority of human beings have always believed in something greater and always will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before.making an assumption like "_Human spirituality exists_", how about defining it?
> Does it differ from a dog's "spirituality"?
> 
> Unless some rational clarity is presented, spirituality is an emotion perceived in your brain and does not exist outside your skull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does a dog have spirituality? Show me some evidence?
> 
> Human spirituality is the intrinsic belief that humans have had since they became civilized creatures of something greater than self. It's not an emotion, it's an intrinsic awareness we have as a species and one that has always persisted in man. In fact, it is difficult to explain human spirituality as any kind of evolved emotion or imagination because there is no basis of origin found in nature. We didn't obtain this attribute from the monkeys because they would still have it and they don't. So where did it evolve from? We're the only creatures who actively worship something spiritual, or greater than self. Again.. it is our most defining attribute as a species.
> 
> Now this is usually where BreezeWood chimes in with a picture of a pansy or praying mantis and claims that as evidence other living things are also spiritual in their own way. I don't reject that theory or idea, maybe he's right? Still, it doesn't fare well for the argument against a higher power or man's supposed invention of such a thing if it's happening elsewhere in nature.
Click to expand...


When you say things like this -
"_intrinsic belief that humans have had since they became civilized creatures of something greater than self. It's not an emotion, it's an intrinsic awareness we have as a species and one that has always persisted in man._" ...
- you are generalizing way way beyond your own experience & knowledge base to fit your subjective, rosy-colored view of man as a "_civilized creature_" ... when he is not killing other humans, taking advantage of them economically, or killing other animals for personal convenience. Yes, I understand there is variability in the gene pool & developed brains/minds, and therefore many exceptions.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, your so-called "spirit" is a subjective emotion-based belief that provides motivation for your future behavioral patterns. Once your brain dies, so too does your "spirit".


----------



## BULLDOG

Sidekick said:


> What or who is science? Is he/she/it a conscious being in his/her/its own right, such as an individual, natural person? Seems that people who believe in science don't really know the answer to that, or they really believe in something that should be called Sciencegod instead.




That's a really dumb question


----------



## Boss

PK1 said:


> When you say things like this -
> "_intrinsic belief that humans have had since they became civilized creatures of something greater than self. It's not an emotion, it's an intrinsic awareness we have as a species and one that has always persisted in man._" ...
> - you are generalizing way way beyond your own experience & knowledge base to fit your subjective, rosy-colored view of man as a "_civilized creature_" ... when he is not killing other humans, taking advantage of them economically, or killing other animals for personal convenience. Yes, I understand there is variability in the gene pool & developed brains/minds, and therefore many exceptions.
> 
> Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, your so-called "spirit" is a subjective emotion-based belief that provides motivation for your future behavioral patterns. Once your brain dies, so too does your "spirit".



No, actually... YOU are the one who is generalizing way beyond your own experience and knowledge to fit your agenda. Here, you are taking exception to "civilized creatures" with the admonition of "...when he is not killing other humans, taking advantage of them economically, or killing other animals for personal convenience." As if to say, civilization and spirituality are hogwash because we keep on killing each other or taking advantage of others. 

No one has argued that humans being spiritual makes them immune to wrongdoing. In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. But wars are a part of human civilization, as fucked up as that may seem to you. 

Now, you demand some kind of "demonstration" of spirituality.... but this becomes a problem because you expect a physical demonstration for something that is not physical in nature. It's akin to demanding some sort of physical proof of love... can you do that? Can you show me what percentage of love you have for your mother and how it may vary in percentage to the love you have for your sister or father? Of course you can't because "love" is not a physical property. 

Love is an emotion, but then... MOST of our emotions are driven by human spirituality in one way or another. You state that "Once your brain dies, so too does your spirit"... but how can this be possible if you've already determined there is no spirit and no physical proof of one? Where is your physical evidence that the spirit dies? How can a spirit die if it is never physically living? 

You want to argue that spirituality is simply emotion, but we can look to biology and we don't find any evidence elsewhere in nature of this phenomenon. You have no explanation for this because there isn't a good one. Anything you come up with is contradictory to what biology shows and even the theories of people like Darwin. We are blessed with an intrinsic awareness of something greater than ourselves. This is what makes us different and it's clearly our most defining attribute as a species of life. It has what has enabled us to climb down from the trees and come out of the jungles to create, invent, design, think, philosophize, push our boundaries of knowledge further and further.


----------



## Unkotare

Boss said:


> In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....




No, probably not.


----------



## Boss

Unkotare said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, probably not.
Click to expand...


Well you'll need to support that with more than your opinion.


----------



## Unkotare

Boss said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you'll need to support that with more than your opinion.
Click to expand...




Politics and greed are the real movers behind wars supposedly motivated by religion.


----------



## Jim ryan

Sidekick said:


> What or who is science? Is he/she/it a conscious being in his/her/its own right, such as an individual, natural person? Seems that people who believe in science don't really know the answer to that, or they really believe in something that should be called Sciencegod instead.



how many scientists report their findings to the general public?

Science is controlled by the government that pays most of the scientist or by private industry that pays most of those scientists and in which case, anything discovered must first go through channels and is only reported when mass media does the reporting.

There was one recent case about finding dinosaur DNA and a Mary Schweitzer got run over the coals because of it.

She was forced to recant her own findings.


----------



## Jim ryan

Unkotare said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you'll need to support that with more than your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics and greed are the real movers behind wars supposedly motivated by religion.
Click to expand...


 Actually mass media now plays the biggest role in wars, as it controls politicians and the hearts and minds of the general public, that were never taught to think for themselves.


----------



## Treeshepherd

neither said:


> An answer at this website.  What do you think?
> 
> Edward O. Wilson Science Not Philosophy Will Explain the Meaning of Existence Big Think
> 
> "Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book _The Meaning of Human Existence, _knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:
> 
> What are we and why?
> 
> Where do we come from?
> 
> Where are we most likely to be headed?
> 
> Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere."



I think it was E.O. Wilson who described the evolutionary argument for altruism, based on his theory of group selection. In social animals entire groups are subject to natural selection, in addition to individuals. Groups that contain self-sacrificing, sharing, and cooperating individuals are more successful, and therefore pass on more common genes than dysfunctional groups. So, even if an individual takes a self-sacrificing risk for the sake of his tribe and dies as a result, his close relatives pass on their genes and so his gene pool is promoted. 

If you strictly deal in biological/evolutionary terms, you might argue that science explained altruism and therefore trumped philosophy. I wouldn't go that far, personally, as someone who appreciates the value of philosophy and religion. But, that's one argument.


----------



## Jim ryan

Treeshepherd said:


> neither said:
> 
> 
> 
> An answer at this website.  What do you think?
> 
> Edward O. Wilson Science Not Philosophy Will Explain the Meaning of Existence Big Think
> 
> "Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book _The Meaning of Human Existence, _knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:
> 
> What are we and why?
> 
> Where do we come from?
> 
> Where are we most likely to be headed?
> 
> Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was E.O. Wilson who described the evolutionary argument for altruism, based on his theory of group selection. In social animals entire groups are subject to natural selection, in addition to individuals. Groups that contain self-sacrificing, sharing, and cooperating individuals are more successful, and therefore pass on more common genes than dysfunctional groups. So, even if an individual takes a self-sacrificing risk for the sake of his tribe and dies as a result, his close relatives pass on their genes and so his gene pool is promoted.
> 
> If you strictly deal in biological/evolutionary terms, you might argue that science explained altruism and therefore trumped philosophy. I wouldn't go that far, personally, as someone who appreciates the value of philosophy and religion. But, that's one argument.
Click to expand...


For someone who others might claim is Altruistic by giving his life for the sake of others, what if his mind was just impacted so hard that he could not take anymore, so he just exploded in rage and Did all the damage that he could, because he could take no more?

Philosophy demands that we seek the truth from all sides.


----------



## Unkotare

Jim ryan said:


> Sidekick said:
> 
> 
> 
> What or who is science? Is he/she/it a conscious being in his/her/its own right, such as an individual, natural person? Seems that people who believe in science don't really know the answer to that, or they really believe in something that should be called Sciencegod instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many scientists report their findings to the general public?
> 
> Science is controlled by the government that pays most of the scientist or by private industry that pays most of those scientists and in which case, anything discovered must first go through channels and is only reported when mass media does the reporting.
> ....
Click to expand...




You're a dim little weirdo. Take it to the conspiracy forum.


----------



## Unkotare

Jim ryan said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you'll need to support that with more than your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics and greed are the real movers behind wars supposedly motivated by religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually mass media....
Click to expand...




Which is motivated by politics and greed...


----------



## Jim ryan

some people simply offer nothing of value, so you just have to look past them.


----------



## Unkotare

Jim ryan said:


> some people simply offer nothing of value, so you just have to look past them.




Maybe if you got yourself even a little education before commenting people wouldn't keep looking past you.


----------



## amrchaos

What is Philosophy?
Is Science related to it? If so, How?

How does one subject matter 'trumps' another subject?  
What are the criteria to make such judgement? 

Come to think about it, I don't really understand the thread topic. When one talk of 'Philosophy' , which 'Philosophy'?


----------



## Jim ryan

amrchaos said:


> What is Philosophy?
> Is Science related to it? If so, How?
> 
> How does one subject matter 'trumps' another subject?
> What are the criteria to make such judgement?
> 
> Come to think about it, I don't really understand the thread topic. When one talk of 'Philosophy' , which 'Philosophy'?



 All are good questions. Now all you have to do is enter one question at a time and into your browser bar and hit go and start reading.


----------



## Unkotare

Jim ryan said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Philosophy?
> Is Science related to it? If so, How?
> 
> How does one subject matter 'trumps' another subject?
> What are the criteria to make such judgement?
> 
> Come to think about it, I don't really understand the thread topic. When one talk of 'Philosophy' , which 'Philosophy'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All are good questions. Now all you have to do is enter one question at a time and into your browser bar and hit go and start reading.
Click to expand...




= YOU haven't the first clue about the subject.


----------



## Boss

Unkotare said:


> Jim ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you'll need to support that with more than your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politics and greed are the real movers behind wars supposedly motivated by religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually mass media....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is motivated by *politics and greed*...
Click to expand...


Both 'spiritually-refined' attributes in the human species. 

It's difficult to escape our spirituality and the role it has played in our development.


----------



## Boss

Jim ryan said:


> Philosophy demands that we seek the truth from all sides.



And so does Science when you think about it. There is not a thing in Science that disproves God or Spiritual Nature. If anything, the more fascinated we become with the inner-workings of our universe down to the tiniest parts of atoms to the concepts of quantum multiverses, the more it suggests something extremely profound as the source. The less you can explain it away with random chance and happenstance. 

Science is a *never-ending* search for answers, it does not draw *conclusions*. People often use science to draw conclusions and all through history, science has made fools of those who proclaim their conclusions empirical. The moment you have drawn a conclusion, that literally means science is finished working, there is no more science can do. From that point of conclusion you have transferred from science to faith. You now have faith in a conclusion. Science does not share your faith. It remains silent... having a beer down at the pub... waiting for the next time you are ready for Science to ask questions and explore possibilities again.


----------



## HUGGY

PK1 said:


> Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
> "_all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine_."
> You were imagining your testament.



My thoughts exactly.  The "Boss" was far more interested in sharing his own philosophy and his relationship with his sister, whom he is obviously afraid of so defers to her in conversation than answering the question posed by the OP.

Clearly "Boss" is still hung up on the "daddy god".  He just can't define it.  He also has little use for science as he starts off attempting to label it is as it was at the time of blood letting with the earth at the center of the known universe.

There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.

The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires.


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise....




You should take your religious beliefs over to the religion forum.


----------



## HUGGY

Unkotare said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should take your religious beliefs over to the religion forum.
Click to expand...


I have no religious beliefs.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should take your religious beliefs over to the religion forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Funny... sounds like you do.


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should take your religious beliefs over to the religion forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no religious beliefs.
Click to expand...



Clearly you do.


----------



## midcan5

"If all the problems of science were solved, it would not touch any of life's problems."  Ludwig Wittgenstein


----------



## rdean

always


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> My thoughts exactly. The "Boss" was far more interested in sharing his own philosophy and his relationship with his sister, whom he is obviously afraid of so defers to her in conversation than answering the question posed by the OP.



I do like to share my philosophy and sometimes I will talk about my sister the Baptist who calls me her "atheist brother." We have a great relationship, we just don't talk about our beliefs in God. I feel like I answered the question posed by the OP. Is there anything specific you want to discuss? 



> Clearly "Boss" is still hung up on the "daddy god". He just can't define it. He also has little use for science as he starts off attempting to label it is as it was at the time of blood letting with the earth at the center of the known universe.



I have defined it in the past and have no trouble defining it again. The thing I define as "God" is Spiritual Nature. So what is Spiritual Nature? It's the constant cosmic wave of spiritual energy coursing through our universe. Our souls are a part of that. Science can't provide physical evidence of it because it is not physical, it is spiritual. BUT... That is NOT to say that Science won't ever be able to discover evidence in the future. Science never stops asking questions. 

I have absolutely NO problems with Science. I will not allow ignorant people to pervert Science and use it as some sort of weapon to do battle against Religion. Some people have chosen to abandon belief in God for a belief in Science as their God, and this causes them to start to think their "God" is infallible and perfect... because that's built-in human nature. But Science is far from perfect. It does not draw conclusions, it can only predict probabilities of possibility. 

Indeed, Every one of the biggest breakthroughs in science have come from those who challenged conventional wisdom, did not accept the scientific conclusions made by others, would not accept that we knew the entire empirical truth. 



> There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.
> 
> The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires.



Congratulations!  You have become a *faith-based believer! *


----------



## HUGGY

"There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.

The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires."

Congratulations! You have become a *faith-based believer!*

*Nonsense.*

Faith is a reaction to and equal to the size of the carrot offered.  I do not believe in any science that promises me anything more than the benefits I receive from the medications science has delivered that are extending my life and making what it cannot cure at least make more bearable. 

I believe that science has had a hand in the preservation of this country and our way of life.  I certainly do not have faith in those that have positioned themselves the gate keepers of the scientific discoveries care about me personally.   

We here in the USA have been fortunate to have ":won the lottery" in a sense.  But still our leaders babble on and on about God and their enemies babble on about their Gods all of which is just so much nonsense to me. 

If science was so beneficial to us as individuals we could have used this knowledge to radically reduce births of stupid people and really extend ours, those that understand that science offers more to us the living and our stays here on earth.  

Sure science has won many skirmishes against the true enemy of humanity which is disease.  Still we offer the drastically poor a benefit for spitting out more mouths to feed.  We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves.  When bad things happen to us our representatives say "pray" to God for the victims and their families.  I am just worn out on the nonsense.   I resent the exposing of the stupidity of faith as transference to some other "faith".  

Sorry, I have no other faith to substitute for the ridiculous faith of religion.  I do not step on cockroaches to make room for a different brand of vermin.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> "There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.
> 
> The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires."
> 
> Congratulations! You have become a *faith-based believer!*
> 
> *Nonsense.*
> 
> Faith is a reaction to and equal to the size of the carrot offered.  I do not believe in any science that promises me anything more than the benefits I receive from the medications science has delivered that are extending my life and making what it cannot cure at least make more bearable.
> 
> I believe that science has had a hand in the preservation of this country and our way of life.  I certainly do not have faith in those that have positioned themselves the gate keepers of the scientific discoveries care about me personally.
> 
> We here in the USA have been fortunate to have ":won the lottery" in a sense.  But still our leaders babble on and on about God and their enemies babble on about their Gods all of which is just so much nonsense to me.
> 
> If science was so beneficial to us as individuals we could have used this knowledge to radically reduce births of stupid people and really extend ours, those that understand that science offers more to us the living and our stays here on earth.
> 
> Sure science has won many skirmishes against the true enemy of humanity which is disease.  Still we offer the drastically poor a benefit for spitting out more mouths to feed.  We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves.  When bad things happen to us our representatives say "pray" to God for the victims and their families.  I am just worn out on the nonsense.   I resent the exposing of the stupidity of faith as transference to some other "faith".
> 
> Sorry, I have no other faith to substitute for the ridiculous faith of religion.  I do not step on cockroaches to make room for a different brand of vermin.



What you are expressing is your faith. 

*"...all of which is just so much nonsense to me."
*
That is a direct grammatical expression of YOUR faith. I highlighted it and pointed it out so that you can see, even when you are professing you do not have faith... you have faith. And by the way you actively express your faith in these threads when they always come up, is indicative of how much conviction you have in your faith. 

Now, I can't actually speak for you because I don't know you... but what people of your faith typically have done is... they switched a faith in religion and God to a faith in Science and themselves. Science has become their Religion and they are their own God. 

*...to radically reduce births of stupid people...
...We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves....*

These are jarring comments to me, someone who values life and believes all humans are created with God-given equality as humans. It is Freudian evidence of where the _Faith of Science and Thyself_ eventually leads with regard to ethics and morality.

(BTW... Eugenics has been tried before.)


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.
> 
> The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires."
> 
> Congratulations! You have become a *faith-based believer!*
> 
> *Nonsense.*
> 
> Faith is a reaction to and equal to the size of the carrot offered.  I do not believe in any science that promises me anything more than the benefits I receive from the medications science has delivered that are extending my life and making what it cannot cure at least make more bearable.
> 
> I believe that science has had a hand in the preservation of this country and our way of life.  I certainly do not have faith in those that have positioned themselves the gate keepers of the scientific discoveries care about me personally.
> 
> We here in the USA have been fortunate to have ":won the lottery" in a sense.  But still our leaders babble on and on about God and their enemies babble on about their Gods all of which is just so much nonsense to me.
> 
> If science was so beneficial to us as individuals we could have used this knowledge to radically reduce births of stupid people and really extend ours, those that understand that science offers more to us the living and our stays here on earth.
> 
> Sure science has won many skirmishes against the true enemy of humanity which is disease.  Still we offer the drastically poor a benefit for spitting out more mouths to feed.  We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves.  When bad things happen to us our representatives say "pray" to God for the victims and their families.  I am just worn out on the nonsense.   I resent the exposing of the stupidity of faith as transference to some other "faith".
> 
> Sorry, I have no other faith to substitute for the ridiculous faith of religion.  I do not step on cockroaches to make room for a different brand of vermin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are expressing is your faith.
> 
> *"...all of which is just so much nonsense to me."
> *
> That is a direct grammatical expression of YOUR faith. I highlighted it and pointed it out so that you can see, even when you are professing you do not have faith... you have faith. And by the way you actively express your faith in these threads when they always come up, is indicative of how much conviction you have in your faith.
> 
> Now, I can't actually speak for you because I don't know you... but what people of your faith typically have done is... they switched a faith in religion and God to a faith in Science and themselves. Science has become their Religion and they are their own God.
> 
> *...to radically reduce births of stupid people...
> ...We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves....*
> 
> These are jarring comments to me, someone who values life and believes all humans are created with God-given equality as humans. It is Freudian evidence of where the _Faith of Science and Thyself_ eventually leads with regard to ethics and morality.
> 
> (BTW... Eugenics has been tried before.)
Click to expand...


I don't believe I am an evil person.  Those comments are presented not as some political doctrine but only as an impression...a reflection.  

Humanity in general is heading into a period where we must look honestly at what we are doing to ourselves.  We don't have the luxury of acting irresponsibly.  IMHO religion is an irresponsible path.  We need to grow up.  There is no Santa Claus.  We cannot allow our future to be sabotaged by such obvious fraud.

When I see pictures of a woman with several starving children in a hovel among-st hundreds of like hovels my mind reels at the lack of duty she has shown to her first children.  She has literally murdered several human beings just by becoming pregnant with no thought to the outcomes for these people she has brought into her world and reduced the chances of survival to each of her children with each one she adds to her burden and RESPONSIBILITY.  This act of criminal willful ignorance egged on by organized religion must stop.  

It is NOT the responsibility of the more responsible societies on the planet to continue to attempt to save "the starving children" shown on our TVs at 3 in the AM.  I don't feel obligated to send 19 cents a day.  I feel like the mother should be arrested and put in prison for gross criminal child neglect. 

We need to start demanding that examples are made of this irresponsibility.  

As much as I detest the Chinese one must look at what they as a society have done and are doing to put a curb on irresponsible reproduction.  They too were a third world country destroying themselves from within by families intent on bearing sons as a means of elevating individual families sense of pride and in the process exploding the burden these desperately poor people had coping with feeding themselves let alone rising above just surviving and providing any means of these children having any meaningful life.

Now that the Chinese have gotten somewhat of a handle limiting the number of unwanted pregnancies they can start to develop the means to manage a possible meaningful future for the poorest of their population.

In any reasonable assessment China is a strong success in turning a disaster around.  Much of the poor third world in Africa, South America and other like regions of the planet would do well looking at how China has dealt with managing population as a most valuable tool in bringing their people out of grinding poverty.

The first and most important thing any society can do is abandon religion or any factor that subverts attempts to bring it's people into a more responsible place.


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> Humanity in general is heading into a period where we must look honestly at what we are doing to ourselves.  ....




As opposed to every other "period" in history?


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> As much as I detest the Chinese....




Why? Do you even know any Chinese people?


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> IMHO religion is an irresponsible path.  We need to grow up. ....




That prejudice puts you in a very tiny, confused, irrelevant minority.


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> When I see pictures of a woman with several starving children in a hovel among-st hundreds of like hovels my mind reels at the lack of duty she has shown to her first children.  ....




Because you are presumptuous and illogical.


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> She has literally murdered several human beings just by becoming pregnant....




That is obviously nonsense.


----------



## HUGGY

Unkotare said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I detest the Chinese....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Do you even know any Chinese people?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Sort of.  My family took in several Chinese families escaping Mao in the mid 50's.

My Karate sensai, Don Jackson, in the late 60's was a close friend with Bruce Lee.  I have known several Caucasian people that have been to China.  I have known several Chinese over the years, some that have lived in China..some that ave not.  My Kung Foo/Tai Chi instructor, Dr Jonas Liu, in the mid 70's was Chinese. 

I have to admit that I have not known any Chinese in the last 20 years.

Is there a minimum required number of personally known Chinese one must have encountered before qualifying to have the right to an opinion on China?

My comment "As much as I detest the Chinese" was probably not phrased as well as it could have been.  I meant to say that I detest the ACTIONS of the Chinese government more than I detest any individual Chinese people.


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> My Karate sensai, Don Jackson, in the late 60's....


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> I have known several Caucasian people that have been to China. ....


----------



## Unkotare

HUGGY said:


> My comment "As much as I detest the Chinese" was probably not phrased as well as it could have been.  I meant to say that I detest the ACTIONS of the Chinese government more than I detest any individual Chinese people.




That certainly makes more sense.


----------



## G.T.

Science trumps philosophy when the 2 have reached an opposing conclusion on the same subject matter, yes.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.
> 
> The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires."
> 
> Congratulations! You have become a *faith-based believer!*
> 
> *Nonsense.*
> 
> Faith is a reaction to and equal to the size of the carrot offered.  I do not believe in any science that promises me anything more than the benefits I receive from the medications science has delivered that are extending my life and making what it cannot cure at least make more bearable.
> 
> I believe that science has had a hand in the preservation of this country and our way of life.  I certainly do not have faith in those that have positioned themselves the gate keepers of the scientific discoveries care about me personally.
> 
> We here in the USA have been fortunate to have ":won the lottery" in a sense.  But still our leaders babble on and on about God and their enemies babble on about their Gods all of which is just so much nonsense to me.
> 
> If science was so beneficial to us as individuals we could have used this knowledge to radically reduce births of stupid people and really extend ours, those that understand that science offers more to us the living and our stays here on earth.
> 
> Sure science has won many skirmishes against the true enemy of humanity which is disease.  Still we offer the drastically poor a benefit for spitting out more mouths to feed.  We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves.  When bad things happen to us our representatives say "pray" to God for the victims and their families.  I am just worn out on the nonsense.   I resent the exposing of the stupidity of faith as transference to some other "faith".
> 
> Sorry, I have no other faith to substitute for the ridiculous faith of religion.  I do not step on cockroaches to make room for a different brand of vermin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are expressing is your faith.
> 
> *"...all of which is just so much nonsense to me."
> *
> That is a direct grammatical expression of YOUR faith. I highlighted it and pointed it out so that you can see, even when you are professing you do not have faith... you have faith. And by the way you actively express your faith in these threads when they always come up, is indicative of how much conviction you have in your faith.
> 
> Now, I can't actually speak for you because I don't know you... but what people of your faith typically have done is... they switched a faith in religion and God to a faith in Science and themselves. Science has become their Religion and they are their own God.
> 
> *...to radically reduce births of stupid people...
> ...We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves....*
> 
> These are jarring comments to me, someone who values life and believes all humans are created with God-given equality as humans. It is Freudian evidence of where the _Faith of Science and Thyself_ eventually leads with regard to ethics and morality.
> 
> (BTW... Eugenics has been tried before.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I am an evil person.  Those comments are presented not as some political doctrine but only as an impression...a reflection.
> 
> Humanity in general is heading into a period where we must look honestly at what we are doing to ourselves.  We don't have the luxury of acting irresponsibly.  IMHO religion is an irresponsible path.  We need to grow up.  There is no Santa Claus.  We cannot allow our future to be sabotaged by such obvious fraud.
> 
> When I see pictures of a woman with several starving children in a hovel among-st hundreds of like hovels my mind reels at the lack of duty she has shown to her first children.  She has literally murdered several human beings just by becoming pregnant with no thought to the outcomes for these people she has brought into her world and reduced the chances of survival to each of her children with each one she adds to her burden and RESPONSIBILITY.  This act of criminal willful ignorance egged on by organized religion must stop.
> 
> It is NOT the responsibility of the more responsible societies on the planet to continue to attempt to save "the starving children" shown on our TVs at 3 in the AM.  I don't feel obligated to send 19 cents a day.  I feel like the mother should be arrested and put in prison for gross criminal child neglect.
> 
> We need to start demanding that examples are made of this irresponsibility.
> 
> As much as I detest the Chinese one must look at what they as a society have done and are doing to put a curb on irresponsible reproduction.  They too were a third world country destroying themselves from within by families intent on bearing sons as a means of elevating individual families sense of pride and in the process exploding the burden these desperately poor people had coping with feeding themselves let alone rising above just surviving and providing any means of these children having any meaningful life.
> 
> Now that the Chinese have gotten somewhat of a handle limiting the number of unwanted pregnancies they can start to develop the means to manage a possible meaningful future for the poorest of their population.
> 
> In any reasonable assessment China is a strong success in turning a disaster around.  Much of the poor third world in Africa, South America and other like regions of the planet would do well looking at how China has dealt with managing population as a most valuable tool in bringing their people out of grinding poverty.
> 
> The first and most important thing any society can do is abandon religion or any factor that subverts attempts to bring it's people into a more responsible place.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to address most of what you wrote because I believe you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree  with you but I'm not here to do battle with your personal faith. There is one point I would like to address: 

*I don't believe I am an evil person.  Those comments are presented not as some political doctrine but only as an impression...a reflection. *

No rational person has ever believed they were evil. Hitler did not believe he was being evil.. he justified everything he did and thought it was for the betterment of mankind. So whether or not you believe you're an evil person is of no consequence to whether or not you ARE an evil person. 

I realize those were your candid musings and not a political doctrine... do you think that makes it okay? How do you think such political doctrines come to be a reality? As I said, it is a Freudian look into the mind of someone who has no moral foundation rooted in spirituality. It is through Science in place of Religion and assuming God's authority that men justify all kinds of atrocity. If anything, it is proof of why we need God.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Science trumps philosophy when the 2 have reached an opposing *conclusion* on the same subject matter, yes.



*Science does not conclude... EVER! 
*
The very instant you have drawn conclusion... you stopped practicing science and began practicing faith. Science can do no work on a conclusion. 

Science poses probabilities of possibilities. MAN takes those predictions and draws CONCLUSION.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.
> 
> The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires."
> 
> Congratulations! You have become a *faith-based believer!*
> 
> *Nonsense.*
> 
> Faith is a reaction to and equal to the size of the carrot offered.  I do not believe in any science that promises me anything more than the benefits I receive from the medications science has delivered that are extending my life and making what it cannot cure at least make more bearable.
> 
> I believe that science has had a hand in the preservation of this country and our way of life.  I certainly do not have faith in those that have positioned themselves the gate keepers of the scientific discoveries care about me personally.
> 
> We here in the USA have been fortunate to have ":won the lottery" in a sense.  But still our leaders babble on and on about God and their enemies babble on about their Gods all of which is just so much nonsense to me.
> 
> If science was so beneficial to us as individuals we could have used this knowledge to radically reduce births of stupid people and really extend ours, those that understand that science offers more to us the living and our stays here on earth.
> 
> Sure science has won many skirmishes against the true enemy of humanity which is disease.  Still we offer the drastically poor a benefit for spitting out more mouths to feed.  We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves.  When bad things happen to us our representatives say "pray" to God for the victims and their families.  I am just worn out on the nonsense.   I resent the exposing of the stupidity of faith as transference to some other "faith".
> 
> Sorry, I have no other faith to substitute for the ridiculous faith of religion.  I do not step on cockroaches to make room for a different brand of vermin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are expressing is your faith.
> 
> *"...all of which is just so much nonsense to me."
> *
> That is a direct grammatical expression of YOUR faith. I highlighted it and pointed it out so that you can see, even when you are professing you do not have faith... you have faith. And by the way you actively express your faith in these threads when they always come up, is indicative of how much conviction you have in your faith.
> 
> Now, I can't actually speak for you because I don't know you... but what people of your faith typically have done is... they switched a faith in religion and God to a faith in Science and themselves. Science has become their Religion and they are their own God.
> 
> *...to radically reduce births of stupid people...
> ...We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves....*
> 
> These are jarring comments to me, someone who values life and believes all humans are created with God-given equality as humans. It is Freudian evidence of where the _Faith of Science and Thyself_ eventually leads with regard to ethics and morality.
> 
> (BTW... Eugenics has been tried before.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I am an evil person.  Those comments are presented not as some political doctrine but only as an impression...a reflection.
> 
> Humanity in general is heading into a period where we must look honestly at what we are doing to ourselves.  We don't have the luxury of acting irresponsibly.  IMHO religion is an irresponsible path.  We need to grow up.  There is no Santa Claus.  We cannot allow our future to be sabotaged by such obvious fraud.
> 
> When I see pictures of a woman with several starving children in a hovel among-st hundreds of like hovels my mind reels at the lack of duty she has shown to her first children.  She has literally murdered several human beings just by becoming pregnant with no thought to the outcomes for these people she has brought into her world and reduced the chances of survival to each of her children with each one she adds to her burden and RESPONSIBILITY.  This act of criminal willful ignorance egged on by organized religion must stop.
> 
> It is NOT the responsibility of the more responsible societies on the planet to continue to attempt to save "the starving children" shown on our TVs at 3 in the AM.  I don't feel obligated to send 19 cents a day.  I feel like the mother should be arrested and put in prison for gross criminal child neglect.
> 
> We need to start demanding that examples are made of this irresponsibility.
> 
> As much as I detest the Chinese one must look at what they as a society have done and are doing to put a curb on irresponsible reproduction.  They too were a third world country destroying themselves from within by families intent on bearing sons as a means of elevating individual families sense of pride and in the process exploding the burden these desperately poor people had coping with feeding themselves let alone rising above just surviving and providing any means of these children having any meaningful life.
> 
> Now that the Chinese have gotten somewhat of a handle limiting the number of unwanted pregnancies they can start to develop the means to manage a possible meaningful future for the poorest of their population.
> 
> In any reasonable assessment China is a strong success in turning a disaster around.  Much of the poor third world in Africa, South America and other like regions of the planet would do well looking at how China has dealt with managing population as a most valuable tool in bringing their people out of grinding poverty.
> 
> The first and most important thing any society can do is abandon religion or any factor that subverts attempts to bring it's people into a more responsible place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to address most of what you wrote because I believe you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree  with you but I'm not here to do battle with your personal faith. There is one point I would like to address:
> 
> *I don't believe I am an evil person.  Those comments are presented not as some political doctrine but only as an impression...a reflection. *
> 
> No rational person has ever believed they were evil. Hitler did not believe he was being evil.. he justified everything he did and thought it was for the betterment of mankind. So whether or not you believe you're an evil person is of no consequence to whether or not you ARE an evil person.
> 
> I realize those were your candid musings and not a political doctrine... do you think that makes it okay? How do you think such political doctrines come to be a reality? As I said, it is a Freudian look into the mind of someone who has no moral foundation rooted in spirituality. It is through Science in place of Religion and assuming God's authority that men justify all kinds of atrocity. If anything, it is proof of why we need God.
Click to expand...


I beg to disagree.  One can develop a sound moral compass without using a God as a crutch. Science is certainly NOT a moral crutch.  

I dispute that Hitler had no clue he was doing evil.  My guess is that he JUSTIFIED what evil his leadership perpetrated as necessary.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> I beg to disagree.  One can develop a sound moral compass without using a God as a crutch. Science is certainly NOT a moral crutch.
> 
> I dispute that Hitler had no clue he was doing evil.  My guess is that he JUSTIFIED what evil his leadership perpetrated as necessary.



Hey, you're the one who opined about how we ought to kill off the stupid people... I just pointed it out. This is where the human mind takes you when there is no moral *foundation* to reel you back in. You can SAY any goddamn thing you please, it doesn't mean it's true because you convinced yourself. One _could potentially_ perform radical brain surgery without any medical knowledge whatsoever.... it's not recommended. 

Hitler believed in the Final Solution... he did not think he was evil. Yes, he JUSTIFIED his evil acts... Evil people most often do... just as you can justify why we ought to kill off all the stupids. People who have a moral foundation based on a belief in something greater than man, tend to not have that problem. They tend to recognize evil for what it is and stand up for righteousness. Mind you, not ALL people do this... some pervert their religions into incarnations of evil in order to justify the evil, like the radical Muslims.


----------



## G.T.

Oh great, boss the fake smart narcissist is here to quibble over minutia fallacy after fallacy.


----------



## G.T.

Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation.

Evolutionary instincts coupled with the ability to reason is all that it takes.


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation....




Is it easy? Think about what "morality" means.


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it easy? Think about what "morality" means.
Click to expand...

Yes, its quite easy.

Your instincts and your reasoning get you there.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation.
> 
> Evolutionary instincts coupled with the ability to reason is all that it takes.



Again... it is very easy to do radical frontal lobotomies without any neurological training or knowledge of medicine. A good sharp knife, a bone saw, and the ability to deal with large amounts of blood are all it takes!


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it easy? Think about what "morality" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, its quite easy.
> 
> Your instincts and your reasoning get you there.
Click to expand...



Instincts? What exactly do you understand morality to mean?


----------



## Unkotare

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis - Book 3


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Oh great, boss the fake smart narcissist is here to quibble over minutia fallacy after fallacy.



I didn't quibble over any minutia, I set your dumb ass straight about Science drawing conclusions. You don't have any other response because you know I am right. That's not narcissism, that's me being more intelligent than you.


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it easy? Think about what "morality" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, its quite easy.
> 
> Your instincts and your reasoning get you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Instincts? What exactly do you understand morality to mean?
Click to expand...

Right vs wrong. 

Let me know any moral that you dont believe we could arrive at with our instincts and our reasoning, and ill walk you through it.

Boss i wont engage. Hes an illogical cretin who is just a busy body of arguing. Dont expect me to address you, pippa.


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it easy? Think about what "morality" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, its quite easy.
> 
> Your instincts and your reasoning get you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Instincts? What exactly do you understand morality to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right vs wrong.....
Click to expand...



Objectively, right?


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it easy? Think about what "morality" means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, its quite easy.
> 
> Your instincts and your reasoning get you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Instincts? What exactly do you understand morality to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right vs wrong.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Objectively, right?
Click to expand...

Do you think objectivity cannot exist without a deity? 

I think objectivity can exist in a non contradictable idea.


----------



## G.T.

Btw unkotare....phones about to die but ill be swinging through after I leave the Studio tonight.....need about 4 more hours to mix this track


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it easy? Think about what "morality" means.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, its quite easy.
> 
> Your instincts and your reasoning get you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Instincts? What exactly do you understand morality to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right vs wrong.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Objectively, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think objectivity cannot exist without a deity?
> 
> I think objectivity can exist in a non contradictable idea.
Click to expand...



So that's a 'yes'?


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, its quite easy.
> 
> Your instincts and your reasoning get you there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instincts? What exactly do you understand morality to mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right vs wrong.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Objectively, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think objectivity cannot exist without a deity?
> 
> I think objectivity can exist in a non contradictable idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So that's a 'yes'?
Click to expand...

If it werent, the morals wouldnt be moral because theyd be contradictable. 

Murder is wrong because humans have reasoned that the best means to surviving is to cohabitate. This is proven - we have reached the top of the food chain and even now sort of hover outside of it. 

Your reasoning should tell you that since you dont want to die(instinct), that its wrong to unjustly kill others (murder)because if that is morally acceptable, you subject yourself to a much greater risk of fatality. Especially since theres always going to be someone more dangerous than yourself. 

Instincts. Reasoning. 

Phones on 1%


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Murder is wrong because humans have reasoned that the best means to surviving is to cohabitate. ....




That statement contains two propositions you have not proven.


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is wrong because humans have reasoned that the best means to surviving is to cohabitate. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement contains two propositions you have not proven.
Click to expand...

Thats a cut quote.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is wrong because humans have reasoned that the best means to surviving is to cohabitate. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement contains two propositions you have not proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a cut quote.
Click to expand...


*Thats a cut quote.*

^^^ You should make this your sig!


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Your reasoning should tell you that since you dont want to die(instinct), that its wrong to unjustly kill others (murder)because if that is morally acceptable, you subject yourself to a much greater risk of fatality....




If that's the only motivation then it is not morality.


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasoning should tell you that since you dont want to die(instinct), that its wrong to unjustly kill others (murder)because if that is morally acceptable, you subject yourself to a much greater risk of fatality....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the only motivation then it is not morality.
Click to expand...

Emotionalism also factors in. This is all common sense. People are sad when people die. Why? Because it reminds them of their own mortality and also we have empathy. 

Our fear of death = our understanding of another's same fear of death = wrong to kill them based on all of the above.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation. Evolutionary instincts coupled with the ability to reason is all that it takes.



Okay... so by THIS philosophy, we *should* be able to have voluntary prison.  We sentence you to a suggested time but you can commute your own sentence if you think you need to do so, we allow you to report to the prison whenever you're ready, with no bars or guards and do your time... because you have a moral consciousness which tells you that you have hereby been punished for a crime by peers of your civilization. This system can work because prisoners would know they did wrong and deserved to be there. Evolutionary instincts would kick in coupled with the ability to reason and that's all it takes, right?


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also - its very easy to have a moral foundation without believing in a greater entity grounding said foundation. Evolutionary instincts coupled with the ability to reason is all that it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... so by THIS philosophy, we *should* be able to have voluntary prison.  We sentence you to a suggested time but you can commute your own sentence if you think you need to do so, we allow you to report to the prison whenever you're ready, with no bars or guards and do your time... because you have a moral consciousness which tells you that you have hereby been punished for a crime by peers of your civilization. This system can work because prisoners would know they did wrong and deserved to be there. Evolutionary instincts would kick in coupled with the ability to reason and that's all it takes, right?
Click to expand...

Um, no.

Criminals are notorious for LACKING said morals. 

There are several peoven factors for this: brain malfunction, socio-economic status/desperation.


Oye vey youre fucking tedious. Thats why i wont respond to you any longer. Have fun mibbling at my heels


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is wrong because humans have reasoned that the best means to surviving is to cohabitate. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement contains two propositions you have not proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a cut quote.
Click to expand...



That's the part I wanted to address.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Criminals are notorious for LACKING said morals.



Ah... So it's _*very*_ *easy to have a moral foundation* but also kind of hard to have one unless you are moral and decent?  ...Gotchya!


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is wrong because humans have reasoned that the best means to surviving is to cohabitate. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement contains two propositions you have not proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a cut quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the part I wanted to address.
Click to expand...

But you cut out commentary which supported it, and then called it unsupported.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Criminals are notorious for LACKING said morals.



Couldn't we just ASK them if they are morally good people? The ones who told us they weren't, we could put them in old school prisons with bars but the ones who said they had morals... hey, they should be okay because their evolutionary instincts would kick in coupled with the ability to reason... you know? They don't NEED anything grounding said foundation... that's what you claimed... right?


----------



## G.T.

Hey Unkotare im exhausted from recording tonight and prepping my radio show for sunday.

Ill smack you back sometime in the near future.

Or if you wanna discuss this on the show, thats cool too we have callers/a switchboard and I have sole control of the content. 

Its Sundays at 6pm east coast time.

Gnite sir


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasoning should tell you that since you dont want to die(instinct), that its wrong to unjustly kill others (murder)because if that is morally acceptable, you subject yourself to a much greater risk of fatality....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the only motivation then it is not morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotionalism also factors in. This is all common sense. People are sad when people die. Why? Because it reminds them of their own mortality and also we have empathy.
> 
> Our fear of death = our understanding of another's same fear of death = wrong to kill them based on all of the above.
Click to expand...



If you could kill an innocent, vulnerable person with absolute certainty that there would be no physical or financial repercussions for yourself - and perhaps even a bit of a benefit - would you do it?


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasoning should tell you that since you dont want to die(instinct), that its wrong to unjustly kill others (murder)because if that is morally acceptable, you subject yourself to a much greater risk of fatality....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the only motivation then it is not morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotionalism also factors in. This is all common sense. People are sad when people die. Why? Because it reminds them of their own mortality and also we have empathy.
> 
> Our fear of death = our understanding of another's same fear of death = wrong to kill them based on all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you could kill an innocent, vulnerable person with absolute certainty that there would be no physical or financial repercussions for yourself - and perhaps even a bit of a benefit - would you do it?
Click to expand...

I cpuldnt foresee losing my empathy, which is a piece of the pie that makes up my morality.


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is wrong because humans have reasoned that the best means to surviving is to cohabitate. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement contains two propositions you have not proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a cut quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the part I wanted to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you cut out commentary which supported it, and then called it unsupported.
Click to expand...



You may take that as an indication that said commentary failed to prove the propositions in question.


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasoning should tell you that since you dont want to die(instinct), that its wrong to unjustly kill others (murder)because if that is morally acceptable, you subject yourself to a much greater risk of fatality....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the only motivation then it is not morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotionalism also factors in. This is all common sense. People are sad when people die. Why? Because it reminds them of their own mortality and also we have empathy.
> 
> Our fear of death = our understanding of another's same fear of death = wrong to kill them based on all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you could kill an innocent, vulnerable person with absolute certainty that there would be no physical or financial repercussions for yourself - and perhaps even a bit of a benefit - would you do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cpuldnt foresee losing my empathy, which is a piece of the pie that makes up my morality.
Click to expand...



And from whence comes this empathy? All these digressions merely avoid the fundamental question.


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murder is wrong because humans have reasoned that the best means to surviving is to cohabitate. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement contains two propositions you have not proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a cut quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the part I wanted to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you cut out commentary which supported it, and then called it unsupported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You may take that as an indication that said commentary failed to prove the propositions in question.
Click to expand...

Or failed to meet your standard I guess.

Im fine with it. 

Nobody convinces anyone on the internet of anything. Its all an ego show to flex their debate acumen to some self satisfying end. 

I try not to pay it any more mind than, say, whicj brand razors Im going to buy tomorrow...

In person its much easier to reach a consensus, and agreement to disagree or an enlightenment because people are more cordial, less flippant and are there to read body language and inflection.

This is why I offered you to instead flesh this out on the air.


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasoning should tell you that since you dont want to die(instinct), that its wrong to unjustly kill others (murder)because if that is morally acceptable, you subject yourself to a much greater risk of fatality....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the only motivation then it is not morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emotionalism also factors in. This is all common sense. People are sad when people die. Why? Because it reminds them of their own mortality and also we have empathy.
> 
> Our fear of death = our understanding of another's same fear of death = wrong to kill them based on all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you could kill an innocent, vulnerable person with absolute certainty that there would be no physical or financial repercussions for yourself - and perhaps even a bit of a benefit - would you do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cpuldnt foresee losing my empathy, which is a piece of the pie that makes up my morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And from whence comes this empathy? All these digressions merely avoid the fundamental question.
Click to expand...


Empathy is likely an evolutionary tool to protect the reproduction of your family - by protecting THEM.


----------



## Unkotare

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the only motivation then it is not morality.
> 
> 
> 
> Emotionalism also factors in. This is all common sense. People are sad when people die. Why? Because it reminds them of their own mortality and also we have empathy.
> 
> Our fear of death = our understanding of another's same fear of death = wrong to kill them based on all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you could kill an innocent, vulnerable person with absolute certainty that there would be no physical or financial repercussions for yourself - and perhaps even a bit of a benefit - would you do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cpuldnt foresee losing my empathy, which is a piece of the pie that makes up my morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And from whence comes this empathy? All these digressions merely avoid the fundamental question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Empathy is likely an evolutionary tool to protect the reproduction of your family - by protecting THEM.
Click to expand...



Seems you're not talking about morality.


----------



## IsaacNewton

I suggest a reading of The Golden Bough. You'll know where all the 'beliefs' and rituals in the human race came from, including the current major religions.

Its a long read, not for the squeamish or lazy.


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emotionalism also factors in. This is all common sense. People are sad when people die. Why? Because it reminds them of their own mortality and also we have empathy.
> 
> Our fear of death = our understanding of another's same fear of death = wrong to kill them based on all of the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you could kill an innocent, vulnerable person with absolute certainty that there would be no physical or financial repercussions for yourself - and perhaps even a bit of a benefit - would you do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cpuldnt foresee losing my empathy, which is a piece of the pie that makes up my morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And from whence comes this empathy? All these digressions merely avoid the fundamental question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Empathy is likely an evolutionary tool to protect the reproduction of your family - by protecting THEM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you're not talking about morality.
Click to expand...

Seems to you.

To me, im talking about right and wrong and how we determine those.


----------



## Boss

IsaacNewton said:


> I suggest a reading of The Golden Bough. You'll know where all the 'beliefs' and rituals in the human race came from, including the current major religions.
> 
> Its a long read, not for the squeamish or lazy.



I have read it and most of it is speculative clap trap. It does not explain "all the beliefs and rituals in the human race or where they came from" because it was written at the turn of the 20th century. Since then, we have discovered all kinds of ancient civilizations where spirituality thrived. And we've had many things discovered about more recent religious rituals. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1946.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Boss said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest a reading of The Golden Bough. You'll know where all the 'beliefs' and rituals in the human race came from, including the current major religions.
> 
> Its a long read, not for the squeamish or lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it and most of it is speculative clap trap. It does not explain "all the beliefs and rituals in the human race or where they came from" because it was written at the turn of the 20th century. Since then, we have discovered all kinds of ancient civilizations where spirituality thrived. And we've had many things discovered about more recent religious rituals. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1946.
Click to expand...


Nice try, you haven't read it. Amazing how the human mind can reject fact because reality is just too scary.

You need your mental crutch, knock yourself out. You believe in magic and an invisible father that will protect you like when you were a child. And if you don't believe in him he will torture you in horrible pain for all of time...but he loves you.

LOL  wtf  kind of nightmarish sadomasochistic master/slave relationship is that.

Now git off'n that 'puter and git on yer knees.


----------



## Boss

IsaacNewton said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest a reading of The Golden Bough. You'll know where all the 'beliefs' and rituals in the human race came from, including the current major religions.
> 
> Its a long read, not for the squeamish or lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it and most of it is speculative clap trap. It does not explain "all the beliefs and rituals in the human race or where they came from" because it was written at the turn of the 20th century. Since then, we have discovered all kinds of ancient civilizations where spirituality thrived. And we've had many things discovered about more recent religious rituals. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1946.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, you haven't read it. Amazing how the human mind can reject fact because reality is just too scary.
> 
> You need your mental crutch, knock yourself out. You believe in magic and an invisible father that will protect you like when you were a child. And if you don't believe in him he will torture you in horrible pain for all of time...but he loves you.
> 
> LOL  wtf  kind of nightmarish sadomasochistic master/slave relationship is that.
> 
> Now git off'n that 'puter and git on yer knees.
Click to expand...


Well, I had to read it in college, I took Comparative Religious Studies. My roommate actually did his thesis on it. Like I said... it was written at the turn of the 20th century, it is outdated information and most of it was bunk anyway. As is most of the chitter-chatter from you godless nitwits. 

I don't have a mental crutch, I don't believe in magic, don't know about invisible fathers or torture or love... Those are all things you are projecting onto me because you are an anti-Christian bigot. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God or Spiritual Nature.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Boss said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest a reading of The Golden Bough. You'll know where all the 'beliefs' and rituals in the human race came from, including the current major religions.
> 
> Its a long read, not for the squeamish or lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it and most of it is speculative clap trap. It does not explain "all the beliefs and rituals in the human race or where they came from" because it was written at the turn of the 20th century. Since then, we have discovered all kinds of ancient civilizations where spirituality thrived. And we've had many things discovered about more recent religious rituals. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1946.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, you haven't read it. Amazing how the human mind can reject fact because reality is just too scary.
> 
> You need your mental crutch, knock yourself out. You believe in magic and an invisible father that will protect you like when you were a child. And if you don't believe in him he will torture you in horrible pain for all of time...but he loves you.
> 
> LOL  wtf  kind of nightmarish sadomasochistic master/slave relationship is that.
> 
> Now git off'n that 'puter and git on yer knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I had to read it in college, I took Comparative Religious Studies. My roommate actually did his thesis on it. Like I said... it was written at the turn of the 20th century, it is outdated information and most of it was bunk anyway. As is most of the chitter-chatter from you godless nitwits.
> 
> I don't have a mental crutch, I don't believe in magic, don't know about invisible fathers or torture or love... Those are all things you are projecting onto me because you are an anti-Christian bigot. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God or Spiritual Nature.
Click to expand...


I know you haven't read it. Its easy to spot someone who is an 'internet' poster. Short, dismissive answers re very complex and lengthy subjects are a sure clue.

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity at the beginning of the 20th century, I'm guessing you dismiss that as well. Or maybe quantum physics.

Not interested in discussion with you, feel free to troll at your hearts content. There are plenty here who also think their half-sentence statements are manna from heaven. LOL

Carry on Copernicus.


----------



## G.T.

IsaacNewton said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest a reading of The Golden Bough. You'll know where all the 'beliefs' and rituals in the human race came from, including the current major religions.
> 
> Its a long read, not for the squeamish or lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it and most of it is speculative clap trap. It does not explain "all the beliefs and rituals in the human race or where they came from" because it was written at the turn of the 20th century. Since then, we have discovered all kinds of ancient civilizations where spirituality thrived. And we've had many things discovered about more recent religious rituals. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1946.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, you haven't read it. Amazing how the human mind can reject fact because reality is just too scary.
> 
> You need your mental crutch, knock yourself out. You believe in magic and an invisible father that will protect you like when you were a child. And if you don't believe in him he will torture you in horrible pain for all of time...but he loves you.
> 
> LOL  wtf  kind of nightmarish sadomasochistic master/slave relationship is that.
> 
> Now git off'n that 'puter and git on yer knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I had to read it in college, I took Comparative Religious Studies. My roommate actually did his thesis on it. Like I said... it was written at the turn of the 20th century, it is outdated information and most of it was bunk anyway. As is most of the chitter-chatter from you godless nitwits.
> 
> I don't have a mental crutch, I don't believe in magic, don't know about invisible fathers or torture or love... Those are all things you are projecting onto me because you are an anti-Christian bigot. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God or Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you haven't read it. Its easy to spot someone who is an 'internet' poster. Short, dismissive answers re very complex and lengthy subjects are a sure clue.
> 
> Einstein came up with the theory of relativity at the beginning of the 20th century, I'm guessing you dismiss that as well. Or maybe quantum physics.
> 
> Not interested in discussion with you, feel free to troll at your hearts content. There are plenty here who also think their half-sentence statements are manna from heaven. LOL
> 
> Carry on Copernicus.
Click to expand...

Hes a troll man, pay him no mind hes just out to argue and be contrarian, not have engaging and cordial discussion but instead to promote his own goofy agenda.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Hes a troll man, pay him no mind...



I'm a troll? For contesting a LIE that a book from the early 20th century contains legitimate information on ALL BELIEFS in the "human race" when that is simply not true? 

I think your butt is still hurt from the ass drilling I gave you.


----------



## G.T.

See?


----------



## G.T.

Boss, call my radio show sunday night it starts at 6pm and we will see how smawwwt you are. We can talk your corny spirituality theory and i wont jump at your lack of self confidence in speaking.


----------



## Boss

IsaacNewton said:


> I know you haven't read it. Its easy to spot someone who is an 'internet' poster. Short, dismissive answers re very complex and lengthy subjects are a sure clue.



Wow... I usually get the complaint that I am "too wordy" or "verbose" in my replies. For the record, it's not a complex subject... I attended college, studied Comparative Religion, had to read the book... simple. Most everything in it is a denigration of religion which is precisely why it was written. It's a bunch of biased one-sided garbage from a 19th century atheist. 

Aside from that, it's incomplete. There is absolutely NO mention of the Lake Mungo civilization, for example. They hadn't been discovered yet. No mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls... they hadn't been discovered either. Archaeologists and paleontologists have discovered literally thousands of ancient civilizations with tens of thousands of rituals and ceremonies not found in this book because they hadn't been discovered yet.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss, call my radio show sunday night it starts at 6pm and we will see how smawwwt you are. We can talk your corny spirituality theory and i wont jump at your lack of self confidence in speaking.



Wow GT, ratings must be pretty sucky to have to be scrounging up "trolls" from the internet to be on your show. Howard Stern, you are not, I am guessing? In any event, a part of me is saying... _Boss, you don't need to jump in the shark tank to prove you're smarter than GT, it has already been proven at USMB on a daily basis_. But another part is saying... _Yeah, this might be fun!_ 

So I am torn. I don't have a problem with confidence in speaking, I've done radio work before, not a biggie to me. I also have no problem discussing Spiritual Nature and my beliefs. The problem is, I know how you are here... you get emotional and get your feelings hurt then you behave immaturely and want to shut down the conversation. I imagine you are the same when piloting a radio show.


----------



## G.T.

Do you think you can win anything? Youre on auto loss for having a half naked man as an avatar and the user tag "boss."

Youre the epitome of an insecure and unconfident male. One espousing that he's "winning" something over internet conversations that noone could give a fuck about.

So instead of continuing to take L's on the internet all day, I assure you, go ahead and call and Ill give you the business.

Also you cant read emotions through text ya passive agressive doorknob. If you think youve ever made me emotional then youre even worse at conversation than staphanie, bud. So yea maybe better not call and embarrass yourself.

Did you say something about ratings? Are you daft.....or? 

I dont work in the field of radio, its a hobby ya narc. I have an independent weekly show with 2 other hosts. Oye vey


----------



## G.T.

Let me know Boss so that when I make the thread for my usmb listeners this weekend, I know to promote that you're calling or not. 

Theres 3 other callers this week that Im aware of and we also have a lot of content to get through this week (prank calls, music, casual discussion, current events), but we have 2 hours live and then an hour long after show that isnt available live but becomes available when the episode comes up available on demand(immediately after).

Its essentially 3 hours. Listeners can call a line if they wish to keep hearing live after that second hour.


----------



## G.T.

Last thing Ill say to the half naked gentleman...

Boss i dont take this website's conversations as seriously as you might think, or as you might. 

Any disrespect youve given me anonymously on a corny messageboard doesnt carey over if we speak. I would never disrespect a gueat of my show. Thats uncouth.


----------



## G.T.

Also I didnt spell carry wrong my phone did. Fuck you Samsung.


----------



## Unkotare

You fellas seem upset . Hug it out.


----------



## RKMBrown

neither said:


> An answer at this website.  What do you think?
> 
> Edward O. Wilson Science Not Philosophy Will Explain the Meaning of Existence Big Think
> 
> "Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book _The Meaning of Human Existence, _knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:
> 
> What are we and why?
> 
> Where do we come from?
> 
> Where are we most likely to be headed?
> 
> Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere."


ROFL what a load of hogwash.


----------



## Toro

science > religion
empiricism > ideology


----------



## G.T.

Unkotare said:


> You fellas seem upset . Hug it out.


:hugs:

Oh wrong guy...





Oh well cmere youuuj


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Do you think you can win anything? Youre on auto loss for having a half naked man as an avatar and the user tag "boss."



Uhm.. yeah, I think I can win pretty much anything I *think* I can win. 
Ah.. you noticed the 'half naked man' in my avi... that means it's working! 
User tag is explained in my profile, Gran Turismo. 
 ...auto loss... :rofl



> Youre the epitome of an insecure and unconfident male. One espousing that he's "winning" something over internet conversations that noone could give a fuck about.



Ahh... so now that you've mentioned my 'half naked man' avi you're going to attack my confidence and security as a male? Sounds like the makings of a homophobic rant to me. As for my winning arguments with you on the Internet... I have mounted so many chunks of your ass on my wall that I no longer bother... they're worthless anyway... I had sillyboob call me the other day and wanted me to send him a mounted chunk of GT ass just so he'd have something to put on his wall... but otherwise, can't give 'em away.  



> So instead of continuing to take L's on the internet all day, I assure you, go ahead and call and Ill give you the business.






> Also you cant read emotions through text ya passive agressive doorknob. If you think youve ever made me emotional then youre even worse at conversation than staphanie, bud. So yea maybe better not call and embarrass yourself.



Sure you can read emotions through text sometimes. Or at least, I can... but I have a psych degree.
I know that I make you emotional... you're getting emotional over me saying I make you get emotional. You're also a reactionary. 



> Did you say something about ratings? Are you daft.....or?
> 
> I dont work in the field of radio, its a hobby ya narc. I have an independent weekly show with 2 other hosts. Oye vey



Ohh... so this isn't an actual radio broadcast? What's it like a podcast or livestream thing? 
Is there a link you can send me?


----------



## G.T.

@ how cringe worthy that was......whew


----------



## IsaacNewton

G.T. said:


> See?



Yes. Thanks for the heads up.

Some people think anything older than yesterday has no value. I guess that would mean Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Socrates, DaVinci all are outdated and can be discarded. LOL 

Again, for those who don't think Galileo or Newton were old-timey dunces, read The Golden Bough to understand how beliefs, superstitions, religions, rituals, etc...came about in the human race.


----------



## G.T.

IsaacNewton said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> Some people think anything older than yesterday has no value. I guess that would mean Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Socrates, DaVinci all are outdated and can be discarded. LOL
> 
> Again, for those who don't think Galileo or Newton were old-timey dunces, read The Golden Bough to understand how beliefs, superstitions, religions, rituals, etc...came about in the human race.
Click to expand...

"Blow hard" is a cogent description. S'all good. Sometimes we turn the lights on and then come the gnats. Sometimes its fun to gnat the gnats but mostly, its tedious.


----------



## IsaacNewton

G.T. said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> Some people think anything older than yesterday has no value. I guess that would mean Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Socrates, DaVinci all are outdated and can be discarded. LOL
> 
> Again, for those who don't think Galileo or Newton were old-timey dunces, read The Golden Bough to understand how beliefs, superstitions, religions, rituals, etc...came about in the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Blow hard" is a cogent description. S'all good. Sometimes we turn the lights on and then come the gnats. Sometimes its fun to gnat the gnats but mostly, its tedious.
Click to expand...


For me it is tedious. I don't mind taking to someone that has a different take on something but as soon as the 'I dismiss any relevant information you provide from known scholars and scientists because I do, nyah'. Ok, have a nice day then, buh bye.


----------



## G.T.

IsaacNewton said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> Some people think anything older than yesterday has no value. I guess that would mean Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Socrates, DaVinci all are outdated and can be discarded. LOL
> 
> Again, for those who don't think Galileo or Newton were old-timey dunces, read The Golden Bough to understand how beliefs, superstitions, religions, rituals, etc...came about in the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Blow hard" is a cogent description. S'all good. Sometimes we turn the lights on and then come the gnats. Sometimes its fun to gnat the gnats but mostly, its tedious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me it is tedious. I don't mind taking to someone that has a different take on something but as soon as the 'I dismiss any relevant information you provide from known scholars and scientists because I do, nyah'. Ok, have a nice day then, buh bye.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Here is what I liken it to. 

People who write walls of text, and 75% of it is refutabe psychobabble.......

Do you go line by line in an exhausting fashion picking apart every.....single....dripping with derp lunatic line or piece of information?

Especially since its also addled with "extra" commentary exibiting hubris and pompousity....

Or do you just call them what they are, admittedly an ad hom - and let them point and say "see! Aha! Internets victory for meeeee! You cant refute what i say and are emotional!!"

I typically let them have their la la land, but i do tend to continue on engaging them when Im bored. 



At the end of the day, my topical conversations dont happen via text anonymously on a messageboard. Not typically, anyhow. There's no fruit.


----------



## Boss

IsaacNewton said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> Some people think anything older than yesterday has no value. I guess that would mean Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Socrates, DaVinci all are outdated and can be discarded. LOL
> 
> Again, for those who don't think Galileo or Newton were old-timey dunces, read The Golden Bough to understand how beliefs, superstitions, religions, rituals, etc...came about in the human race.
Click to expand...


Now you are trying to equate a 19th century atheist anthropologist's philosophical opinion with SCIENCE.   

I never said _The Golden Bough _should be discarded... first published in 1922, it IS outdated. Again... it's "required reading" for Comparative Religious Studies. Some of it is accurate, most of it is demeaning toward religion. It makes wild presumptions about the attribute of human spirituality, which is the primordial basis for many of the atheist arguments today. There is no scientific basis for much of what it proclaims as fact. It is a philosophy book and not a science book. 

As for the scientists you spewed forth in your emote... every single one of them have had some aspect of their ideas and theories challenged *and corrected* by the very scientists they inspired. Science is not empirical or absolute. What science "believes" is true today has no bearing on what science may discover is true tomorrow. In any event, we do not *advance* science by clinging to late 19th century atheist philosophy and calling it science.


----------



## IsaacNewton

G.T. said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> Some people think anything older than yesterday has no value. I guess that would mean Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Socrates, DaVinci all are outdated and can be discarded. LOL
> 
> Again, for those who don't think Galileo or Newton were old-timey dunces, read The Golden Bough to understand how beliefs, superstitions, religions, rituals, etc...came about in the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Blow hard" is a cogent description. S'all good. Sometimes we turn the lights on and then come the gnats. Sometimes its fun to gnat the gnats but mostly, its tedious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me it is tedious. I don't mind taking to someone that has a different take on something but as soon as the 'I dismiss any relevant information you provide from known scholars and scientists because I do, nyah'. Ok, have a nice day then, buh bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Here is what I liken it to.
> 
> People who write walls of text, and 75% of it is refutabe psychobabble.......
> 
> Do you go line by line in an exhausting fashion picking apart every.....single....dripping with derp lunatic line or piece of information?
> 
> Especially since its also addled with "extra" commentary exibiting hubris and pompousity....
> 
> Or do you just call them what they are, admittedly an ad hom - and let them point and say "see! Aha! Internets victory for meeeee! You cant refute what i say and are emotional!!"
> 
> I typically let them have their la la land, but i do tend to continue on engaging them when Im bored.
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day, my topical conversations dont happen via text anonymously on a messageboard. Not typically, anyhow. There's no fruit.
Click to expand...


"There's no fruit."  Yes that is it. If someone is taking the discussion seriously I'll see what they have to say. Otherwise it just isn't worth my time and I agree, let them have their fantasy 'internet' mental sauve and discontinue engagement.

There are a decent number of people that can string together more than one sentence and use coherent thought.


----------



## Unkotare

Oh brother...


----------



## Toro

Do you know what trumps science AND philosophy?









TRUMP!!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

IsaacNewton said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest a reading of The Golden Bough. You'll know where all the 'beliefs' and rituals in the human race came from, including the current major religions.
> 
> Its a long read, not for the squeamish or lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it and most of it is speculative clap trap. It does not explain "all the beliefs and rituals in the human race or where they came from" because it was written at the turn of the 20th century. Since then, we have discovered all kinds of ancient civilizations where spirituality thrived. And we've had many things discovered about more recent religious rituals. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1946.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, you haven't read it. Amazing how the human mind can reject fact because reality is just too scary.
> 
> You need your mental crutch, knock yourself out. You believe in magic and an invisible father that will protect you like when you were a child. And if you don't believe in him he will torture you in horrible pain for all of time...but he loves you.
> 
> LOL  wtf  kind of nightmarish sadomasochistic master/slave relationship is that.
> 
> Now git off'n that 'puter and git on yer knees.
Click to expand...








I didn't see him mention any invisible father who will protect him. He's even suggested the opposite. So this makes you somewhat of a troll who only wants to provoke others...

I'd like to hear more of his 'spiritual' beliefs.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Treeshepherd

This whole conversation got off track. Philosophy needs to be differentiated from metaphysics, though there is often an overlap. 

_Happy wife, happy life_. That's a piece of pop-philosophy. It communicates the sense that happiness is a worthy personal goal and furthermore prescribes a path toward achieving that goal. 

Philosophy is prescriptive, because it's the study of existence. It acts as a guiding principle for behavior. 

Science alone is incomplete because the meaning of life is more than a definition of life.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Treeshepherd said:


> This whole conversation got off track. Philosophy needs to be differentiated from metaphysics, though there is often an overlap.
> 
> _Happy wife, happy life_. That's a piece of pop-philosophy. It communicates the sense that happiness is a worthy personal goal and furthermore prescribes a path toward achieving that goal.
> 
> Philosophy is prescriptive, because it's the study of existence. It acts as a guiding principle for behavior.
> 
> Science alone is incomplete because the meaning of life is more than a definition of life.









The meaning of life is death if we use simple logic... However a sense of ethics and morality is a constantly shifting ocean of societal values. For one man, or woman, it is all right to kill your neighbor to obtain his holdings and for the next it is morally and ethically repulsive. Each philosophy is only as perfect as those that follow it... Look as Nietzsche's works as compared to the teachings of Christ or Ghandi. Each person has their own values. We all live in a imperfect world and are...

*****SAD SMILE*****


----------



## Unkotare

Treeshepherd said:


> This whole conversation got off track. Philosophy needs to be differentiated from metaphysics, though there is often an overlap.....




Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Damaged Eagle said:


> The meaning of life is death if we use simple logic... However a sense of ethics and morality is a constantly shifting ocean of societal values. For one man, or woman, it is all right to kill your neighbor to obtain his holdings and for the next it is morally and ethically repulsive. Each person has their own values. We all live in a imperfect world and are...



The deeper meanings cannot be derived from logic. There is nothing illogical (other than the fear of punishment) about killing your neighbor to obtain his holdings.


----------



## Unkotare

Treeshepherd said:


> Philosophy is prescriptive, because it's the study of existence. It acts as a guiding principle for behavior......




That doesn't follow.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Unkotare said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole conversation got off track. Philosophy needs to be differentiated from metaphysics, though there is often an overlap.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy.
Click to expand...


Well, I did say that there is often an overlap.


----------



## Unkotare

Damaged Eagle said:


> a sense of ethics and morality is a constantly shifting ocean of societal values.




Then you're not talking about morality.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Unkotare said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is prescriptive, because it's the study of existence. It acts as a guiding principle for behavior......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't follow.
Click to expand...


It's straight out of the dictionary.

_: the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

: a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.

: a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live

Philosophy Definition of philosophy by Merriam-Webster_


----------



## Unkotare

Treeshepherd said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole conversation got off track. Philosophy needs to be differentiated from metaphysics, though there is often an overlap.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I did say that there is often an overlap.
Click to expand...



That's not what "overlap" means.


----------



## Unkotare

Treeshepherd said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is prescriptive, because it's the study of existence. It acts as a guiding principle for behavior......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's straight out of the dictionary.
> 
> _: the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
> 
> : a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
> 
> : a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live
> 
> Philosophy Definition of philosophy by Merriam-Webster_
Click to expand...




Only the last entry (from no less an authority on Philosophy than a dictionary...  ) can be reasonably interpreted as prescriptive.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Treeshepherd said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meaning of life is death if we use simple logic... However a sense of ethics and morality is a constantly shifting ocean of societal values. For one man, or woman, it is all right to kill your neighbor to obtain his holdings and for the next it is morally and ethically repulsive. Each person has their own values. We all live in a imperfect world and are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deeper meanings cannot be derived from logic. There is nothing illogical (other than the fear of punishment) about killing your neighbor to obtain his holdings.
Click to expand...







True. The deeper meanings can't be derived from mere logic. The meaning of brotherhood (liking your neighbor), safety in holding common ideals (culture), or simply finding the idea repulsive, are all abstract concepts which require more than simple logic and will vary from individual to individual. They deal with the human psyche which is horridly convoluted to say the least.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Unkotare said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> a sense of ethics and morality is a constantly shifting ocean of societal values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're not talking about morality.
Click to expand...







Both are constantly changing values in societies...

In which way do you see me misspeaking?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Unkotare

Damaged Eagle said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> a sense of ethics and morality is a constantly shifting ocean of societal values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're not talking about morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are constantly changing values in societies...
Click to expand...



No, that is not what morality means.


----------



## Boss

Damaged Eagle said:


> I'd like to hear more of his 'spiritual' beliefs.



I'd like to hear more of your spiritual beliefs, Unkotare as well.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Unkotare said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> a sense of ethics and morality is a constantly shifting ocean of societal values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're not talking about morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are constantly changing values in societies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what morality means.
Click to expand...







I haven't posted a 'meaning' for morality.

If you desire me to leave out the ethics that's fine. However...

**************************************************************************

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
_noun_
noun: *morality*

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicalityMore
"the morality of nuclear weapons"
virtue, goodness, good behavior, righteousness, rectitude, uprightness;
morals, principles, honesty, integrity, propriety, honor, justice, decency;
ethics, standards/principles of behavior, mores, standards
"a sharp decline in morality"
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: *moralities*
"a bourgeois morality"
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of *the morality of* the possession of nuclear weapons"

***********************************************************************************

It would appear that both are intertwined.

Would you care to provide a definition and explain your disagreement?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Boss said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear more of his 'spiritual' beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear more of your spiritual beliefs, Unkotare as well.
Click to expand...







I have many spiritual beliefs... Some taken from the monotheistic religions and some from other religions. The Ten Commandments of the monotheistic religions are a good starting point. However I do kinda' like the Native American beliefs such as the one I've posted above.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Unkotare

Copy and paste from Merriam-Webster...



This is why we are unlikely to ever have a serious discussion of Philosophy here.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Unkotare said:


> Copy and paste from Merriam-Webster...
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we are unlikely to ever have a serious discussion of Philosophy here.








We are having a serious conversation. You questioned what I posted and I've added clarity. Something that you have not provided in any way, shape, or form... Even when asked to provide such. To understand each other there must be a common ground for reference. Do you disagree with the definition provided? If so then it is your responsibility to provide explain of what you find inaccurate with the definition.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Treeshepherd

Unkotare said:


> Copy and paste from Merriam-Webster...
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we are unlikely to ever have a serious discussion of Philosophy here.



Your basic M.O. is to nitpick, which is why you're a minor impediment to having a quality general discussion. And incidentally, if we're going to establish the definition of a word, why wouldn't we copy and paste it from a dictionary? 

My general point is that there's a reason for having two different forums; one on religion and another on philosophy.  I love both subjects, but the question posed here is whether science trumps *philosophy*. 

One of Kierkegaard's main themes was that the most powerful truths are deeply personal, and based on personal experience. They're derived from life experiences, and certainly not from the scientific method.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Is Unkotare a troll? Science is a poor tool for answering that question. "Troll" has no scientific definition. It is a proverbial term and proverbs are within the domain of philosophy. A better way to answer the question would be to use the Socratic Method. 

Socrates: Does science trump philosophy? 
Unkotare: You have crumbs in your beard. 
Socrates: Indeed. Would you like one of these scones. 
Unkotare: Those are not scones. 
Socrates: What would you call them?
Unkotare: It's not my responsibility to educate imbeciles. 

One could construct a Socratic dialogue to illustrate the trollish nature of Unkotare. But, there would still be room for debate. And unlike demonstrated science and pure mathematics, the truth would not be absolute. It's possible, for example, that the trollish behavior of Unkotare is not a permanent condition. Maybe he could keep his blood sugar up, or take a daily nap, or seek therapy. Also, I don't remember any specific examples but I'm sure I've witnessed Unkotare be generous upon occasion... even humorous. So he can't be absolutely defined as a troll, which after all has no scientific definition. 

And this is why science can never trump philosophy. Many truths are too elusive to be completely defined.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

It would seem Unkotare doesn't desire to discuss the matter further.

Shall we continue the discussion? Thoughts, perspectives, and interrogatives.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Unkotare

Damaged Eagle said:


> It would seem Unkotare doesn't desire to discuss the matter further.




Let me know when service is finished at the kiddie table.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Unkotare said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem Unkotare doesn't desire to discuss the matter further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when service is finished at the kiddie table.
Click to expand...







So you're asked a question about what you mean and then decide to start hurling insults.

That's fine. Go for it. I'm sure the service will never be done at the kiddie table when you seem to enjoy sitting there.

*****CHUCKLE******


----------



## amrchaos

Jim ryan said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Philosophy?
> Is Science related to it? If so, How?
> 
> How does one subject matter 'trumps' another subject?
> What are the criteria to make such judgement?
> 
> Come to think about it, I don't really understand the thread topic. When one talk of 'Philosophy' , which 'Philosophy'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All are good questions. Now all you have to do is enter one question at a time and into your browser bar and hit go and start reading.
Click to expand...


Science is a philosophy.  So when you ask "Does science trump Philosophy" you have to tell us which philosophy. Then define the criteria we should use to make the determination. 

However, if Philosophy means all philosphy, then philosophy includes science.  Philosophy Trumps science because Philosophy includes science.

So, what is meant by the thread topic.  Depending on criteria and definition, you can go either way.


----------

