Question for atheist

[rdean]

if there is no judgement over human acts, what would be the difference between the good and the bad?

what's your definition of morality?

That's exactly why the religious scare me.

How many times have you heard someone who is religious say, "If there is no God, what is to keep you from murder, robbery and rape?"

One wonders, do they know the difference between good and bad other they what they are told? Do all their morals come from a primative Middle Eastern Desert People?

Even more frightening, they are telling us what they would do if they ever lost their faith.

never.

have a cookie.

Do a search on, "If there is no god what's to keep you from murder and rape" and you get the religious asking that question over and over again. What does that lead you to believe about them and their faith?

 

[Diuretic]

wait.... socialism and republicanism (support for a republic) are kinda mutually exclusive... a socialist republican, possible- a communist republican would be one very confused individual

Socialism is a form of economic system

We must clarify our semantics. I use the term Socialism in the original Marxist sense, where it refers to the society following the Bourgeois state marked by capitalism and the liberal ideology, prior to the development of (in Marx's vision, where we part ways) the communist state. Branches of Marxism which view this condition (think of Mao's New Democracy)) as more an end means than a step towards Marx's Utopian pipedream would develop what is now known as Social Democracy. This constitutes the reformist branch of socialist thought. Socialism is a social system which necessitates a certain type of economic system uin order to maintain it.

Marx and Engels were against the Utopian socialists. Socialism preceded Marx as a theory of society and economics. Marx's great work was to discover historical materialism. I also think that both he and Engels saw the state as eventually "withering away." It may have been Lenin who took Marxism and used it to support the idea of the proletarian state as being the ultimate expression of human endeavour. Stalin really fucked it up big time.

 

[Diuretic]

That's exactly why the religious scare me.

How many times have you heard someone who is religious say, "If there is no God, what is to keep you from murder, robbery and rape?"

One wonders, do they know the difference between good and bad other they what they are told? Do all their morals come from a primative Middle Eastern Desert People?

Even more frightening, they are telling us what they would do if they ever lost their faith.

never.

have a cookie.

Do a search on, "If there is no god what's to keep you from murder and rape" and you get the religious asking that question over and over again. What does that lead you to believe about them and their faith?

And have a read of Plato on Glaucon and the Ring of Gyges. It's an old question.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Marx and Engels were against the Utopian socialists. .

Marx was Utopian himself. He recognized that any class which took power in history had sought to maintain it, yet he dreamed of an idealized Proletariat which was somehow different without any fundamental change to human nature or evolution of society beyond the realization that the Proletariat was being exploited. His economic theories were overly simplistic (such as his labour theory of value, which fails to consider the subjective nature in way people value items), as well. Also, He failed to address what unifying factors might bind men into a single society and provide the motivation to aid their fellows (a role traditionally played by religion, which can bind the ingroup, but only by the creation of out-groups which are less than those who are members of the ingroup, leading to the many religiously-motivated genocides and other atrocities in history) necessary to the formation and stability of any society/State of Man such as he envisioned.

 

[Diuretic]

Marx and Engels were against the Utopian socialists. .

Marx was Utopian himself. He recognized that any class which took power in history had sought to maintain it, yet he dreamed of an idealized Proletariat which was somehow different without any fundamental change to human nature or evolution of society beyond the realization that the Proletariat was being exploited. His economic theories were overly simplistic (such as his labour theory of value, which fails to consider the subjective nature in way people value items), as well. Also, He failed to address what unifying factors might bind men into a single society and provide the motivation to aid their fellows (a role traditionally played by religion, which can bind the ingroup, but only by the creation of out-groups which are less than those who are members of the ingroup, leading to the many religiously-motivated genocides and other atrocities in history) necessary to the formation and stability of any society/State of Man such as he envisioned.

Are you using the word “Utopian” as a pejorative?

I think Marx understood human nature and wasn't as naieve as you've painted him. He argued that the true nature of “man” was corrupted by the economic forces in various societies. The notions of work and toil are important here. Marx recognised it is human to work, it isn't human to be exploited.

As an economist Marx may well have been off beam, he used the Ricardian theory of surplus value and applied it as a form of analysis. As I understand it the whole idea of surplus value, is no longer of use.

I think he well understood the unifying factors of society, he worked out how societies up to 19th Century Europe operated and why. He was able to identify the historically motive forces in societies. Of course he made errors but his discoveries outweighed the errors.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Are you using the word “Utopian” as a pejorative?

No. I simply reject his proposition (which is Utopian in nature, as I has described above) because it is unrealistic and is unlikely to have the desired result.

I think Marx understood human nature and wasn't as naieve as you've painted him.

Again, see his idealization of the common man the moment he gains pwer.

He argued that the true nature of “man” was corrupted by the economic forces in various societies.

Economies and societies formed by man. Exploitation of man by his neighbor is a result of human nature. That nature cannot then be wholly the effect of the exploitation, for that leads to infinite regress and is logically impossible. This is another flaw in Marx's thinking.

Marx recognised it is human to work, it isn't human to be exploited.

No? Is not a parent willingly exploited by its child?

As an economist Marx may well have been off beam, he used the Ricardian theory of surplus value and applied it as a form of analysis. As I understand it the whole idea of surplus value, is no longer of use.

Thye concept of surplus value is still useful and accurate. The problem is that he relies on the Labour Theory of Value, missing the subjective nature of the value ascribed by persons to objects and products. His system is overly simplistic.

I think he well understood the unifying factors of society, he worked out how societies up to 19th Century Europe operated and why. He was able to identify the historically motive forces in societies. Of course he made errors but his discoveries outweighed the errors.

He focuses too much on the factors following the formation of societies. The ingroups which would become the classes necessarily formed before the final system.

 

[rdean]

Mysticism and the supernatural.
I just don't understand how people can believe in magical spirits and demons and angels. Of course there is no evidence of ghosts and "unseen" forces. Because they are just "made up".
You almost have to be indoctrinated at a very early age. When a religion different than you own is explained to you, it's almost impossible to not laugh.
Of course, people no longer believe that the earth is a flat plate riding on the back of a giant turtle, but the fact that people still have these occult believes amazes me. They might as well believe in astrology. It's equally "real".

 

[Diuretic]

Are you using the word “Utopian” as a pejorative?

No. I simply reject his proposition (which is Utopian in nature, as I has described above) because it is unrealistic and is unlikely to have the desired result.

I think Marx understood human nature and wasn't as naieve as you've painted him.

Again, see his idealization of the common man the moment he gains pwer.

Economies and societies formed by man. Exploitation of man by his neighbor is a result of human nature. That nature cannot then be wholly the effect of the exploitation, for that leads to infinite regress and is logically impossible. This is another flaw in Marx's thinking.

No? Is not a parent willingly exploited by its child?

As an economist Marx may well have been off beam, he used the Ricardian theory of surplus value and applied it as a form of analysis. As I understand it the whole idea of surplus value, is no longer of use.

Thye concept of surplus value is still useful and accurate. The problem is that he relies on the Labour Theory of Value, missing the subjective nature of the value ascribed by persons to objects and products. His system is overly simplistic.

I think he well understood the unifying factors of society, he worked out how societies up to 19th Century Europe operated and why. He was able to identify the historically motive forces in societies. Of course he made errors but his discoveries outweighed the errors.

He focuses too much on the factors following the formation of societies. The ingroups which would become the classes necessarily formed before the final system.

Again, see his idealization of the common man the moment he gains pwer.

You'll need to give me a reference so that I can do that.

Economies and societies formed by man. Exploitation of man by his neighbor is a result of human nature. That nature cannot then be wholly the effect of the exploitation, for that leads to infinite regress and is logically impossible. This is another flaw in Marx's thinking.

Human nature. It's malleable. But cooperation came before exploitation. Exploitation isn't part of human nature, it's a learned behaviour. Cooperation among humans is responsible for the fact that our species is the primary species in Earth. We do it, yes, but that doesn't make it desirable.

No? Is not a parent willingly exploited by its child?

It's human nature for a parent to provide for its child. Before the concept of family that provision was made by the group, it would be difficult for a single child to exploit a group of adults.

Thye concept of surplus value is still useful and accurate. The problem is that he relies on the Labour Theory of Value, missing the subjective nature of the value ascribed by persons to objects and products. His system is overly simplistic.

I don't know if Marx “missed the subjective nature of the value ascribed by persons to objects and products.” I thought that was what he was on about when he referred to “commodity fetishism” in Capital.

He focuses too much on the factors following the formation of societies. The ingroups which would become the classes necessarily formed before the final system.

I think that Marx argued that classes were formed as a result of the organisation of the means of production in a society.

 

[Diuretic]

Mysticism and the supernatural.
I just don't understand how people can believe in magical spirits and demons and angels. Of course there is no evidence of ghosts and "unseen" forces. Because they are just "made up".
You almost have to be indoctrinated at a very early age. When a religion different than you own is explained to you, it's almost impossible to not laugh.
Of course, people no longer believe that the earth is a flat plate riding on the back of a giant turtle, but the fact that people still have these occult believes amazes me. They might as well believe in astrology. It's equally "real".

For me they're explanations of observed phenomena. I think that's part of the reason for the historical clashes between religion and science. They're both systems of explanation.

 

[JW Frogen]

For me they're explanations of observed phenomena. I think that's part of the reason for the historical clashes between religion and science. They're both systems of explanation.

Yes, religion sees the Moon as a goddess, science a place to place a man.

I would go with the latter when I am ill and need help, the former when I am dying.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

. Exploitation isn't part of human nature, it's a learned behaviour.

Again, the relationship between parent and child is exploitation in that it is a parasitic relationship. Tending to a sick relative or an elderly person, as well. Exploitationa dnd cooperation are both aspects of human nature.

Cooperation among humans is responsible for the fact that our species is the primary species in Earth. We do it, yes, but that doesn't make it desirable.

So is competition, the driving force behind evolution.

It's human nature for a parent to provide for its child. Before the concept of family that provision was made by the group, it would be difficult for a single child to exploit a group of adults.

Is not a human female instictively programmed to care for a child?

He focuses too much on the factors following the formation of societies. The ingroups which would become the classes necessarily formed before the final system.

I think that Marx argued that classes were formed as a result of the organisation of the means of production in a society.

[/QUOTE]

And he is wrong. Ingroups existed before the division of labour he addresses, just as they do elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

For me they're explanations of observed phenomena. I think that's part of the reason for the historical clashes between religion and science. They're both systems of explanation.

Yes, religion sees the Moon as a goddess, science a place to place a man.

I would go with the latter when I am ill and need help, the former when I am dying.

If I'm dying, I'll turn to science. I'll take a modern Emergency Room over a bunch of gibberish and drums and poetry if ever I'm shot or have cancer or get stabbed or hiit by a car...

 

[Diuretic]

. Exploitation isn't part of human nature, it's a learned behaviour.

Again, the relationship between parent and child is exploitation in that it is a parasitic relationship. Tending to a sick relative or an elderly person, as well. Exploitationa dnd cooperation are both aspects of human nature.

Cooperation among humans is responsible for the fact that our species is the primary species in Earth. We do it, yes, but that doesn't make it desirable.

So is competition, the driving force behind evolution.

It's human nature for a parent to provide for its child. Before the concept of family that provision was made by the group, it would be difficult for a single child to exploit a group of adults.

Is not a human female instictively programmed to care for a child?

He focuses too much on the factors following the formation of societies. The ingroups which would become the classes necessarily formed before the final system.

I think that Marx argued that classes were formed as a result of the organisation of the means of production in a society.

And he is wrong. Ingroups existed before the division of labour he addresses, just as they do elsewhere in the animal kingdom.[/QUOTE]


Given that the modern family where the biological parents are responsible for the upbringing of their offspring is a recent phenomenon it pays to look back a bit. Among early humans parenting children was a shared duty. So in that sense I don't see exploitation so much as a response to the biological imperative. And in a sense there's also some group parental benefit from having offspring, they grow and are able to get food when the olders ones aren't able to do so. So I'd call it cooperative and not parasitic.

I think both males and females respond to the biological imperative when it comes to care for the children, the different physiology of females and males may influence the social roles that are developed.

I'm not sure if “competition” is a driving force behind evolution. I seem to remember that it's more about fit and adaptation, although I think I may be straying from Darwin into Spencer on that one, so I will be corrected.

Ingroups are really based on proximity and not likeness. I suspect humans developed class systems as part of the economic process.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Given that the modern family where the biological parents are responsible for the upbringing of their offspring is a recent phenomenon

The mother has always been tasked with this during the child's early life. There is no such thing as the 'modern family unit'; the family unit varties across cultures. Are you ereferring to the modern Western family unit?

it pays to look back a bit. Among early humans parenting children was a shared duty. So in that sense I don't see exploitation so much as a response to the biological imperative. And in a sense there's also some group parental benefit from having offspring, they grow and are able to get food when the olders ones aren't able to do so.

Living that long at all is a 'relatively new phenomonon', much like the family unit.

So I'd call it cooperative and not parasitic.

Actually, you just described tending to a parasite in the hopes that you'll lve long enough to become one. This is self interest and ties into modern theories regarding the development of evolutionary altruism.

I'm not sure if “competition” is a driving force behind evolution

What do you think 'fitness' refers to?

I seem to remember that it's more about fit and adaptation, although I think I may be straying from Darwin into Spencer on that one, so I will be corrected.

Yeah, genius- fitness means more able to compete for resources/mates and more able than the competition to have viable offspring.

Ingroups are really based on proximity and not likeness. I suspect humans developed class systems as part of the economic process.

Ingroups are based on both proximity and likeness. We can still see this in other apes and monkeys, where two clans may live in close proximity yet remain distinct. INgropups also form based on sex and age.

 

[amrchaos]

wait.... socialism and republicanism (support for a republic) are kinda mutually exclusive... a socialist republican, possible- a communist republican would be one very confused individual

Socialism is a form of economic system

We must clarify our semantics. I use the term Socialism in the original Marxist sense, where it refers to the society following the Bourgeois state marked by capitalism and the liberal ideology, prior to the development of (in Marx's vision, where we part ways) the communist state. Branches of Marxism which view this condition (think of Mao's New Democracy)) as more an end means than a step towards Marx's Utopian pipedream would develop what is now known as Social Democracy. This constitutes the reformist branch of socialist thought. Socialism is a social system which necessitates a certain type of economic system uin order to maintain it.

I think we parted ways a long time ago, buddy!!

 

[Diuretic]

Given that the modern family where the biological parents are responsible for the upbringing of their offspring is a recent phenomenon

The mother has always been tasked with this during the child's early life. There is no such thing as the 'modern family unit'; the family unit varties across cultures. Are you ereferring to the modern Western family unit?

it pays to look back a bit. Among early humans parenting children was a shared duty. So in that sense I don't see exploitation so much as a response to the biological imperative. And in a sense there's also some group parental benefit from having offspring, they grow and are able to get food when the olders ones aren't able to do so.

Living that long at all is a 'relatively new phenomonon', much like the family unit.



Actually, you just described tending to a parasite in the hopes that you'll lve long enough to become one. This is self interest and ties into modern theories regarding the development of evolutionary altruism.



What do you think 'fitness' refers to?

I seem to remember that it's more about fit and adaptation, although I think I may be straying from Darwin into Spencer on that one, so I will be corrected.

Yeah, genius- fitness means more able to compete for resources/mates and more able than the competition to have viable offspring.

Ingroups are really based on proximity and not likeness. I suspect humans developed class systems as part of the economic process.

Ingroups are based on both proximity and likeness. We can still see this in other apes and monkeys, where two clans may live in close proximity yet remain distinct. INgropups also form based on sex and age.

Family – yes I'm using the definition that most of us who post and read here would subscribe to, the modern, western model. I thought it would be a bit difficult and somewhat pretentious to go on about the various contemporary models around the world.

Lifespan – whether a human is breaking down from age at 40 or 90 is only a matter of years. When 40 (or less) was the definition of old age for humans they would have needed care, at least as long as it could be given and the aged person wasn't threatening the viability of the group. So, the actual numerical value is not relevant.

Evolutionary altruism – entirely possible, therefore the view of the object “child” possibly wouldn't have been “parasite”?

“Fitness” isn't a matter of competition, it's a matter of adaptive biology. Selection for fitness simply means that species that weren't able to thrive in a particular environment didn't reproduce effectively and therefore died out. The only competition there is between the life-form and its environment. Given that humans have been able to thrive, even though we are relatively physically puny, co-operation is the key. You probably recall evidence of humans hunting mammoths and other large herd mammals and driving them into marshes to get stuck under their own weight or over cliffs, evidence of co-operation at an early stage in our development.

Yeah, genius- fitness means more able to compete for resources/mates and more able than the competition to have viable offspring.

I'm no genius, just widely read. You might want to read my paragraph on “fitness” again. I wasn't referring to "fitness" in the sense of bigger muscles or bigger balls. I was referring to the Spencerian interpretation of Darwin's idea of natural selection.

As for ingroups - no problems, but in the context of the discussion I maintain that "classes" are a product of economic structure.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

“Fitness” isn't a matter of competition, it's a matter of adaptive biology. Selection for fitness simply means that species that weren't able to thrive in a particular environment

-were less able to compete for resources

didn't reproduce effectively and therefore died out.

were less able in the competition for mates (did not reproduce)/resources (children died)

Yeah, genius- fitness means more able to compete for resources/mates and more able than the competition to have viable offspring.

as I said

 

[Diuretic]

Compete for resources - good point when applied to different species trying to live in the same area and possibly competing for the same food sources.

Competition for mates occurs in the same species. Individuals who aren't able to mate will not pass their genes on, that's true, but the species itself will not die out due to competition for mates. If we look at humans and assume that voluntary mating is the norm, regardless of the parenting arrangements, then yes there is competition between individuals for mates. I'll have to concede that. But humans found it necessary to cooperate to thrive, that was my point.

On "fitness", you do need to read up on it. By all means contest my point but find some evidence to help do it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Compete for resources - good point when applied to different species trying to live in the same area and possibly competing for the same food sources.

and also to different populations and individuals of the same species.

Competition for mates occurs in the same species. Individuals who aren't able to mate will not pass their genes on, that's true, but the species itself will not die out due to competition for mates.

Certain members will, and certain sub-populations can.

On "fitness", you do need to read up on it. By all means contest my point but find some evidence to help do it.

What point? All you've done is admit to being wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

Compete for resources - good point when applied to different species trying to live in the same area and possibly competing for the same food sources.

and also to different populations and individuals of the same species.

Competition for mates occurs in the same species. Individuals who aren't able to mate will not pass their genes on, that's true, but the species itself will not die out due to competition for mates.

Certain members will, and certain sub-populations can.

On "fitness", you do need to read up on it. By all means contest my point but find some evidence to help do it.

What point? All you've done is admit to being wrong.

Oh, I have?

Okay then