-->
@secularmerlin
So keeping old, weak, diseased, and genetically inferior members of a population alive to procreate is beneficial to the race?
Animals and the Afterlife
Posts
Total:
320
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Hitlers concern was not in eliminating the old, weak or diseased. Which would you actually like to discuss Hitler or this new topic?
-->
@secularmerlin
You said that altruism is beneficial to the survival of the human race. I was specifically addressing the topic of altruism as beneficial to the human race that you mentioned.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Altruism is bebeneficial to the human race as it promotes cooperation which is, as a species, our greatest strength.
-->
@secularmerlin
How is cooperation our greatest strength when it allows our old, weak, diseased, and genetically inferior members to carry on their genes?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
In exactly the same way that it is beneficial to ants. Groups can accomplish things that are impossible for the individual.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, because rival ant colonies are known for their cooperation and benevolence
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Cooperation is a strength of any social species whether there is competition between groups or not. This is equally true of humans which are the actual subject of our conversation. Did you want to continue discussing that or did you want to move on to the unrelated topic of ant warfare?
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I asked for a good reason that the Nazis should not have attempted to purify the human gene pool. You said because of altruism and cooperation. Then you proved yourself wrong by admitting that competition also exists that causes different groups to war with each other. Competition then could be seen as the reason the Nazis exterminated the Jews so you haven't given any good reason why they shouldn't have done so. Would you like to try again or should I just tell you my point?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You asked for a reason beyond someone doesn't like it. I gave a biological reason. Now you seem to want to move the goal.posts and talk about groups in competition even though as citizens of the same countries nazis and Jews were actually members of the same population not a 'rival colony'. Hinestly if you have a point I wish you would get to it.
-->
@secularmerlin
You're the one who engaged me, bringing up ants and asking me to define the word immaterial for you. You seem to have a problem with my original statement because I believe that immaterial things exist, and you think that even logic and morals should be considered material.
My point was that if your view is true, the best attempt you had at coming up with a reason to condemn the horrible events of the Holocaust is that you believe there are better methods that are more "beneficial to the survival of the race as a whole" than extermination of a population. I would much rather have the problem of justifying the existence of the immaterial than having to resort to inconsistent biological arguments to condemn the Holocaust.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Did you not ask for a reason other than opinion?
That altruism is a survival trait of our species is one such reason. I gave you what you asked for but apparently that wasn't what you wanted to hear. Please stop your attempt to straw man me. I did not say my best argument was biological. It is simply an argument that is not based on opinion.
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok, what is your best argument then?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
My best argument is that as a human being I have empathy for other humans and I find the act of genocide horrifying. As horrifying when the hypothetical Yahweh commands it and people excuse the act as 'necessary' or 'for the greater good' as when Hitler is excused by white supremacists for largely the same reason.
In fact classing genocide as right or good even if it is fictional is incomprehensible to me.
-->
@secularmerlin
And what exactly is empathy? Can you give me the chemical reaction in your brain that produced that? Or did billions of years of natural selection give you empathy for every other member of your species as an instinct?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Natural selection seems a likely answer. Also it would seem to be a learned behavior since my empathy developed through time. It is however an opinion based reason. I personally find it horrifying. My best argument is different from an argument that does not rely on opinion. You keep changing the subject. What do you actually want to talk about? What does human behavior, or indeed anything that can be measured or detected directly or indirectly to do with some immaterial (a term you have still not really defined well) thing which cannot be measured or detected in any independently verifiable method?
-->
@secularmerlin
If we take the definition of material and add the prefix im- to show it is not that, then we get "immaterial." So it's something that is not made of matter. So a soul is the part of a person which does not consist of matter (thoughts, emotions, desires, will). But you're saying that those are all actually material in nature because they are just the product of chemical reactions in your brain that are fizzing in ways that your brain can interpret. So I would then have to ask, do we have any way of controlling the chemical reactions in our brains that produce our thoughts or our will, or are we just slaves to the uncontrollable brain-fizz that produces those things?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I see no reason to believe that our decisions, such as they are, are not guided by causality.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't care what it isn't I care what it is and if it can be demonstrated to exist by any practical means.
-->
@secularmerlin
It is that which is not made of matter. Why does something need to be made of matter to exist?
You have also not demonstrated what the cause of our decisions is by any practical means, so should it be safe to presume that no cause exists? If not, what is the cause?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It is that which is not made of matter. Why does something need to be made of matter to exist?
It doesn't necessarily. Radiation is not matter. What it does have to be before I can believe it exists is demonstrable.
You have also not demonstrated what the cause of our decisions is by any practical means, so should it be safe to presume that no cause exists? If not, what is the cause?
I do not believe that we have an inherent purpose no. Even if I accepted that we have some inherent purpose however that does not in any way obligate me to accept you hypothesis regarding what that purpose might be unless you can somehow demonstrate that the hypothesis is accurate.
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not asking for a purpose. I am simply asking if we have a mechanism to control our brain-fizz or not. If we do, then what is it? If we don't, then we are really just mindless clusters of cells that are only moving according to the random chemical reactions in our brains. Our thoughts and will are inconsequential since we cannot control them anymore than we can control our actions.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You have presented a false dichotomy. Having consciousness or awareness or whatever you want to call it in no way guarantees us control over our thoughts or actions.
-->
@secularmerlin
Since you want to nit-pick, let me simplify the question. Do we have a mechanism to control any of our mental processes such as our thoughts or will? If so, what is it?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Desire seems to be the foremost control followed by external factors however since we do not choose to desire something nor do we by and large have control over our external circumstances it is difficult to argue that we control our mental processes or our actions. They are at least as likely to be simply the product of cause and effect. In fact since we have demonstrable examples of cause and effect and only anecdotal evidence at best of freewill I would say that causation is easier to accept.
-->
@secularmerlin
So let's try to summarize this materialistic view. We are all just purposeless clusters of molecules. We have no ability or mechanism to control any of our thoughts, will, or emotions (this would include empathy), making them all nothing more than meaningless brain-fizz that are just by-products of our environment. Even if we try to make sense of this meaningless, uncontrollable brain-fizz that (maybe) guides the cluster of molecules we call a body, the best reason for condemning the atrocity of the Holocaust is that our meaningless brain-fizz we call an "opinion" reacts (negatively?) to members of our species killing other members of our species for the purpose of genetic enhancement, even though they can't control the brain-fizz driving their thoughts, will, and emotions, and are likely just carrying out what billions of years of natural selection is instinctively driving them to do. The second-best reason is that our brain-fizz doesn't think extermination of a certain population has the greatest benefit for the survival of the species. This of course implies that if this extermination would have the greatest benefit for survival, it would be the best option. But eventually we will be replaced as the dominant species when new, more advanced species replace us through the evolutionary process, all while the meaningless universe slowly marches toward a heat death that will destroy everything anyway.
That's pretty depressing. Or at least it's causing my brain to uncontrollably fizz with some "emotion."
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I do not see that the facts being depressing would change them. I'm not certain I agree with every one of those points but for now I will take it that at least you understand my position. Until it can be proven more than 'brainfiz' if that's what you want to call it, there is no reason to believe it ou s more.
Skepticism is the default position.
Animals have as much or as little of a soul as humans do. As a Pagan I am most vehemently against Christianity and Islam. This means that I am against religions that revolve around justifying abuse and seeing entities as so much 'lesser' that you can demean their actual sentience.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam do this more so than any other major religion. In practise, Christianity and Islam have done it the most; owning over 90% of the world essentially thanks to how brutally and without qualms they could justify invasion and Imperialism.
The religions that seek to make animals lesser than humans, use the same logic when making humans lesser than the invaders and rulers etc. These are corrupt religions, designed to tame people and masquerade their motive as salvation and therapy.
Of course, by taming people you do actually achieve helping them psychologically cope with the horrors of being invaded, pillaged and enslaved; for they accept that in the afterlife their God will repay them and it's only right the God's chosen people have power over them.
I am not here saying that we are all equal, I am not a Buddhist or some romantic fool. Some people really are smarter than others, some really will do more with their life. That doesn't mean that you lack a soul, just that you used yours more efficiently for the betterment of others. A dog most certainly has a soul, in my eyes and my religion.
-->
@RationalMadman
Animals have as much or as little of a soul as humans do. As a Pagan I am most vehemently against Christianity and Islam. This means that I am against religions that revolve around justifying abuse and seeing entities as so much 'lesser' that you can demean their actual sentience.Judaism, Christianity and Islam do this more so than any other major religion. In practise, Christianity and Islam have done it the most; owning over 90% of the world essentially thanks to how brutally and without qualms they could justify invasion and Imperialism.The religions that seek to make animals lesser than humans, use the same logic when making humans lesser than the invaders and rulers etc. These are corrupt religions, designed to tame people and masquerade their motive as salvation and therapy.Of course, by taming people you do actually achieve helping them psychologically cope with the horrors of being invaded, pillaged and enslaved; for they accept that in the afterlife their God will repay them and it's only right the God's chosen people have power over them.I am not here saying that we are all equal, I am not a Buddhist or some romantic fool. Some people really are smarter than others, some really will do more with their life. That doesn't mean that you lack a soul, just that you used yours more efficiently for the betterment of others. A dog most certainly has a soul, in my eyes and my religion.
Hinduism treat all life sacred. Their deities are represented as animals eg a monkey and elephant. If you love animals Hinduism is for you.
-->
@Harikrish
Hinduism is very vague on many matters, its concept of Dharma is ultimately that nothing matters (not that being good matters). They tend to make Gods up as they go along and are never quite clear if Brahman or Kali is the true God AKA Ultimate Reality.