Lemming

Being from India, but studying in the United States,

I'd imagine such gives you a different perspective,

Kind of like when watches a chess game, sometimes people can see moves they would not have seen if they were playing the game themself,

Are there any blind spots in America's actions or views, that you might see, but many Americans miss, that come to mind?

It 'does sound ugly to say rape is an evolutionary advantage,

But that's an old problem that people have seen often enough when talking about utilitarianism,

Ends have means, fair and foul, depending on our eyes,

People often find means to be ends in themselves,

Rape being an evolutionary advantage in some cases, does not endear it nearly enough to most people, to encourage it.

Of broadly speaking evolutionary advantage,

I'm thinking Avery doesn't 'specifically mean the propagation of genes, though I may be wrong,

But that he suggests religion to be an advantageous quality/tool for an individual and/or people, in living their lives, in propagating, but not 'purely in propagating,

It's simply that those who live well, tend to propagate, maybe.

. . .

Something being useful. . . Is I think a very specific point,

Though of 'course people speak broadly of subjects, because items 'usually 'are something or another, though in 'truth, they are situational.

Rape seems to me a 'really crappy evolutionary advantage for an individual of modern society,

What comes of it now?

Prison, death, societies hate, poor living,

Usually, I think.

One 'might argue it had a stronger advantage in older society,

. . .

Take individuality in an individual, nonconformity,

At a guess, I'd think standing out, holding strong to one's ideals, opinions would be dangerous in some situations, North Korea, prison,

Though not much chance of reproduction in prison, when speaking of survival. . .

Then again, there are evil ideals and opinions I suppose, Hm, rambling a bit there. .

. . .

I 'do think religion can be an advantage, but I also think the same of atheism,

Still might be one is more often an advantage than the other,

But that doesn't greatly concern me.

. . 

I 'do suspect that evolutionary advantage is,

Thumbs.

Fire.

Written language.

Weapons.

Airplanes.

. . .

Maybe.

I've not commented until now because I've been overthinking what does evolutionary advantage 'means,

But I don't want to talk about my overthought thoughts.

Well, myself I mean "heh", as a short, somewhat amused laugh.

Heh.

In response to your harping claim that I've been harping,

As for the rest you say,

I'm not inclined to comment.

Might be you found my post harping,

Myself I'd find continuous focus and repetition on the use and definition of the word atheism, harping.

As I think the Topic originator was looking for something else in conversation, when he made his post.

I 'already stated my opinion that that he was using the word atheism a bit broadly.

But still, ideas, people who claim identities,

Can be roughly categorized at times,

Depending on when and where.

Take the identity of Americans for example,

They can 'roughly be identified by different values, depending on timeframe.

Take Communists, 

They can 'roughly be identified by different values, depending on timeframe.

Though for the Communists as time passes, it becomes required to use where,

As the belief spreads over such distances and numbers, that vast variation occurs.

Anyway,

I like talking with people at times,

And wanted to address his topic for what I thought he 'meant,

Rather than harping on what he 'said.

Personally my opinion aligns in a similar manner as,

zedvictor4           #3

3RU7AL                #21

SkepticalOne     #23

Though arguably atheists could be grouped into various groups based on beliefs, the variety, number of beliefs, and lack of formal organization makes that difficult I think.

. . .

But for conversation,

Let's say you were talking about a specific atheist/s

Who did not believe in God, an Afterlife, or Objective Morality.

And wanted to follow Humanism.

You know the way fantasy martial art fiction has moves like spinning dragon, moonlight hare, or lion's roar?

I wonder if there's any fantasy martial art fiction that has moves like spinning human, moonlight human, or human's roar?

@#194

I don't consider myself a fence sitter, I'm clear enough an Atheist, not a Theist, but that doesn't make me an Anti-Theist.

People also have various definitions of God, that by 'some people's definitions, even Atheists could have God/s,

Though I don't go for such definitions 'myself,

Still it's not always so clear cut.

Atheism or Theism, either one have their moments and perspectives,

Good, bad, beauty, ugly, useful, useless,

'Depends on context.

Is my opinion.

Just finished the story you recommended, I found it interesting.

Link to stories chapters, if anyone wanted to read the later chapters and found difficulty navigating the them.

I preferred the true ending myself,

And thought the human values in part 4 made a good job in showing an aspect of humans in a different time as dislikable/strange for their differences.

I found the early part encouraging, on encouraging rationality, thought, discussion, before action.

I actually 'do doubt my thoughts and existence at times,

Not 'usually, but sometimes.

I believe that the concept of God, believing in God 'can help with an iPhone,

Take individuals who suffer from cyberbullying,

Many individuals by God and religion,

Are able to discover game theories, that aid in durability of character and understanding,

As well as their faith placed, will endure in understanding or strength standing.

Though not believing in God myself,

I prefer 'my apparent truth of atheism,

And find what tools from it and elsewhere, that aid me.

I disagree that an iPhone and God are the same shape, meaning,

Replace has variance depending on what function is being replaced,

I think your comment on an iPhone replacing God, is too broad a statement.

One 'can be refused a membership of an iPhone,

If the government refuses the citizens such,

If a company refuses a citizen such,

If one has not the funds to afford one,

If one refuses spyware be included in their iPhone.

I think more of God, than I do iPhones.

Though I'm an atheist.

. . .

Though depending on various situations, I may encourage people to use an iPhone, God, or both.

Actually I think a belief in God can save lives,

And kill lives,

Same with an iPhone.

Out of curiosity, why Atheists be hypocrites in particular?

Everything being doubtable, it'd sound that 'every belief system that says something seems likely and acts upon such, would be hypocrites by your logic?

I think.

@K_Michael

Personally I'd agree with what you say about actionable, people have the impression of this reality, so that's what they act on,

Sure 'seems like we're tying our shoelaces when we appear to do so,

Also possible to explain exactly a method by which to tie one's shoelaces.

Murder though I'd call a bit like gravity,

Though only in the sense that a person or society would be likely to structure morality a certain way based on certain conditions.

Though it's lazy, I conflate atheism and nihilism a bit myself,

The method anyhow, that led to my loss of belief in Christianity, also led to my intellectual nihilism,

But person's got to be, got to act,

And to an atheist, this reality, our needs are real enough to compel our actions to go along with.

Have 'more an appearance or truth, than God.

Though I can understand a theist seeing it different.

. . .

@NoOneInParticular

Even if one makes an intellectual conclusion that one can't 'truly 'know anything,

Doesn't 'seem to matter much for a human,

Seems we make due with what we have then, form our conclusions and apparent truths,

Push back against what seems less likely,

Encourage apparent benefit,

Discourage apparent harm,

'Is that hypocritical?

Hm, right this instant I don't think so myself.

Personally I only bought a phone at age 20, when the military said I 'had to.

Bought a flip phone.

After I left I got rid of the phone,

Then got one again for current job, last 8 months, most purpose it's served is as a watch.

It's a flip phone.

Home phone on a cord works well enough for calling family, and even that's more for 'them than me.

I read an atheistic book once, that was of the opinion/theory that fiction, imagination, the communication of ideas,

Led to the evolution of humans, our societies and writings, far flung, high built civilizations.

I suppose other species are also wide flung,

But there's a lacking of tool use in them, ignoring the primitive tools of use,

Instinct perhaps guiding ants to vast empires,

But still, existence of other methods, doesn't discount our own.

. . .

As I recall the book was of the opinion that imagination, thinking on what 'might be, was useful for problem solving.

I define God differently depending who I speak to,

As often these days, it's a word of more clear meaning and definition for them, than myself.

For myself as time passes, it becomes more a nonword for myself,

Not in a reviled sense, but that it has lost meaning for myself, and garners meaning more in how it applies in discussions with others, than myself.

Is 'survival enough though?

Survival of the species, societies, individuals?

Which or all?

A person wants for meaning, for 'living, more than survival at times,

Then again, different people have different ideas of meaning, living.

Not @ting 3RU7AL,

As these are more my thoughts to myself, than directed,

Though I still feel like posting my thoughts.

. . .

I'd suppose even hunter gather's would have hierarchy, laws in a group,

Though I'm not sure I see a need for the supernatural, excepting for what one does not understand,

Then again, people might make or live by fiction, even when they know a truth.

. . .

Hm, when I say 'enough,

I'm not sure I had any fixed idea in mind, though I suppose vaguely I had the thought that many things can survive without various items, though in a worse state than if they had various items.

Eh is all subjective anyhow.

And I find meaning and life enough without God, myself.

Sure if we state our beliefs conclusion as we believe just because we believe,

I don't expect there to be any superiority between the two, from an objective view, not prepossessed towards one feeling of the other.

Well, infinite God might depend on one's definition of God,

Might depend on whether another 'accepts such a definition.

My own interest isn't so much in arguing against people's reasons for believing God,

So my being at square one doesn't bother me much,

Though I've debated the point with someone at least once in the past, as a way of testing my own beliefs and conclusions.

I'm not an Atheist interested in crusading against religion,

I'm happy enough usually to talk in bits on religion,

Admiring what I find beautiful or useful, in Religion 'or Atheism. I think.

Eh, I could be wrong of my Atheistic conclusion, but I don't think I am.

I don't think any of my family members spat in the bag of sliced bread I used to make a sandwich yesterday,

I 'could be wrong,

But it seems reasonable enough based on past experiences and current views of their character to conclude it likely they did not.

I 'could be an Agnostic in life I suppose,

But I prefer stating my certainty, as I think and feel certain enough about it for me.

I don't see much of a need for a gender neutral term and humans,

But I suppose there do exist organisms where such a term could have more use,

Or we might meet an alien race,

Or become or split off into such.

I don't really feel much a need myself though, expecting aliens to be far away,

And not being highly involved in biology science.

. . .

I'm not even sure biology science cares much,

I imagine they'd just use the organisms species name, or they.

I suppose some people might say their teachers were nature, or the streets, or Sesame Street,

Still that's the same word with different 'meanings though,

Teacher's more often specifically meant for an instructor, I think.

I'd suppose less hair is easier to make/keep clean, look sharp,

That shorter hair might get reputation for a tidy look,

Since people not concerned with their hair might look dirty with long hair, but not short hair.

Men often involved in war in history,

Hair is a location pests might roost, spread disease.

Women in history less often seen as providers, working jobs I mean, though lot of work at home I imagine, depending on one's financial level,

But women more time or expectation to look nice, kept as accessories to men (I view this as bad) than autonomous.

When gas masks came about in war,

Cutting of facial hair came about,

Many modern militaries like to control people, conform them,

Top of head close to beard.

. . .

I don't know about oriental cultures though,

I think I remember reading about Taiping male followers often having long unbound hair.

Lot of older works I read often have some oriental cultures with male top knots, buns, or some name I don't know.

. .

I recall reading a book called Spider Eaters, in which it claimed a man was beaten during the Cultural Revolution for having long hair,

Supposedly a mark of the bourgeoisie, or intellectuals, I think.

. . .

Even in America during the Hippie era, I'm sure many cops, military, business guys, didn't like men with long hair, patriotism/nationalism driving such as hippies tended to be anti war I think.

Probable people got targeted for attire or hair.

Do you mean Communist China, (Which I'd still disagree)

Or China in it's long history of various dynasties and countries? (Which I'd also disagree)

But I'm not so much interested in arguing the point, as simply curious which China you mean.

Bah, thought this might happen after my brother tested positive a few days ago.

Have Covid now, disappointing, would have been fun to never get it,

Still I've had shots, so shouldn't be severe.

Likely that 'is true for a number of people and dehumanization,

People get engrossed in fictions at times, playing parts they know are false,

But when one is 'in the act, it's a truth for them.

When people play games such as tag, screaming their heads off, exerting great effort to catch or not be caught,

One see's kids and even adults act stupid, such as jumping into a briar patch or small height that could hurt an ankle, because of the importance given the moment.

Psychological effect of glasses and masks, anonymity has often been talked about,

Though I forget if such is because of feeling not seen, someone else, safe from retaliation.

. . .

My thought was that people might often be using the same word, but a different meaning.

People often use the term human for individuals not human, at least not 'as human as we're used to,

Speaking of robots with humanity, or Spock from Star Trek,

Human then comes to have a different meaning, than Homeo Sapien.

. . .

But I also think that your point stands,

It's an act insisted on, a play or stance, used for usefulness, more than it's truth.

It's a bit at odds with what humans usually want, to act or state oneself publicly in such a way, I'd say.

Humans being social animals, the amount of power one can claim as an individual being limited.

Others are useful in watching one's back, or preying on others, Ingroup, Outgroup,

Even criminals, will have a 'code, concern and laws for their Ingroup, a method to protect themselves from each other,

Redirect their aggression outward to Outgroup.

I think that people often value the familiar, habits,

One get's used to a behavior, a claim,

That even if one values themself, because they've lived in a community, acted by and enforced X rules,

They 'then also have come to value those X rules.

. . .

Groups of humans tend to value other humans,

Because such is a successful strategy, and the habit becomes ingrained in societies,

Children are indoctrinated to value other humans,

I could have said taught, I suppose, but taught would imply 'right.

I'm pretty sure people exist out there, who 'don't think it's wrong to take other people's stuff.

That their morality is caring for themself.

Let's say someone kills another person and takes their stuff?

Not everyone values human rights.

How is that different from saying, you can't walk ten feet without a really good reason?

I imagine at least 'one of the religions/groups/cults that call themselves Satanists, worship Satan, and view God as the enemy.

I don't quite understand dehumanization, myself.

Even if one hated a people, that they are human seems undeniable,

One can hardly avoid speaking of value, I think, as a human.

I'd say the moral disagreement lays in what we value,

I don't quite understand your argument that people make moral judgements, mean we all have the same morals?

Unless you mean we all value the same items, which I don't agree we do.

I would prefer more guns and less regulation,

Though I'm not bothered by cities and/or states voting to,

Requiring background checks for purchases,

Limiting the ownership of guns for convicted criminals 'depending on their history,

Individuals being investigated, counseled, for insanity, drug use, malicious intent

Citizens not being able to own nukes.

I think I'm relatively normal.

Burr was looking to form an army as we use the phrase for 'military conquest.

Trump, you call anyone who supports him in a group part of his personal 'army.

Then shy away from the military definition of the word,

Yet 'attempt to nudge people's thoughts in the direction of the military definition.

True there's some people not on the Left, who 'call it a coup.

Football. . . Armies.

School. . . Armies.

Music concert. . . Armies.

(Sarcasm)

Even though the person who made the video, intended to make fun of Peterson,

I enjoyed it, and think it feels more a tribute than a mocking,

And think Skeletor/Peterson has a point about, legal under the laws of the time.

The Leftist News repeating again and again, "It was a coup" "It was a coup",

Does not make 'fact.

I also disagree that the group of people qualify as an 'army.

I disagree.

Trump hasn't looked to form an army and plan to separate part of the USA from itself though?

I'm still unfamiliar with particulars of Burr Conspiracy, though I 'have heard of it passingly before,

Looking on Wikipedia, it sounds vague.

Trump has only 'joked about shooting someone,

Burr went the whole way, and found he 'did in fact lose all the voters,

(Joke)

I'd have to read up on the Burr conspiracy to have an opinion on it.