Over 10 yrs ago everybody thought Mel Gibson was crazy [715x715 - 74KB]

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (57).

[–] • 0 pt

You make a good point. But why cant I have a preference for quality of life. Can I choose being a european over being a gorilla? Or a mussel growing on a rock?

Can I give a shit about whether my society pursues a head choppy strategy or more cooperative one? Can I not prefer the strategy of my society?

I think the scientific contributions of the islamic “golden age” are a bit exagerated but how many of those advances were within 5 or 10 generations of islamic conquest. Now that we are on generation 50 or 75 of islam, what do we see?

How would you explain the massively high violence you see in muslims compared to their neighbors? Or the tendency toward rape? Every single place islam exists. Southeast asia, central asia, iran, the levant, north africa.

Even in Nigeria, the coastal blacks are terrified of inland islamists. I think following the religion for centuries causes populations to select for violent traits. I also think that following judaism has caused jews to accumulate some exploitive and secretive behaviors. Cultures produce selective pressures just like physical environments.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

a head choppy strategy

Hahaha. This is fantastic.

But why cant I have a preference for quality of life.

I definitely think you can. I just don't believe there is a good evolutionary argument that completely rids us of this 'nuisance' of moral realism. I responded initially to your claim that Christianity was only the ostensible reason for these preferences in society, when you're also asserting that the underlying facts doing the real work are evolutionary ones. In some ways, that could be the case. If these social organizational changes that issue from Christianity confer some kind of social benefit, say something that further downstream leads to technological and industrial supremacy, you have an evolutionary argument. I suppose you could always just discriminate between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in terms of their evolutionary strategies.

My problem is with treating the morals themselves like psychological vapors that don't track reality, but which evolutionary processes merely favored as useful illusions. Instead, I think we must treat these moral preferences not as useful illusions, but as facts of reality inasmuch as our tendency to adapt to these moral facts (or not) produces effects that evolution can act on.

Now that we are on generation 50 or 75 of Islam, what do we see?

I agree. I believe they based their lives on false beliefs, and for many reasons this has compromised their 'staying power' with respect to sustaining their cultural, intellectual and scientific heritage. In strictly evolutionary terms, they're still getting on. They're on the planet in large numbers. They outbreed us. So what they tend to do in cooperation with natural law benefits them, and what they tend to do that disjoins them from the Logos, harms them.

Cultures produce selective pressures just like physical environments.

Oh, without a doubt. In a developed world where the standard of living is sufficiently high, I'd say culture is the environment. Most of us aren't being shaped any longer by basic survival needs. We're being shaped by our ability to conform to and excel within the culture.

>a head choppy strategy Hahaha. This is fantastic. >But why cant I have a preference for quality of life. I definitely think you can. I just don't believe there is a good evolutionary argument that completely rids us of this 'nuisance' of moral realism. I responded initially to your claim that Christianity was only the ostensible reason for these preferences in society, when you're also asserting that the underlying facts doing the real work are evolutionary ones. In some ways, that could be the case. If these social organizational changes that issue from Christianity confer some kind of social benefit, say something that further downstream leads to technological and industrial supremacy, you have an evolutionary argument. I suppose you could always just discriminate between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in terms of their evolutionary strategies. My problem is with treating the morals themselves like psychological vapors that don't track reality, but which evolutionary processes merely favored as useful illusions. Instead, I think we must treat these moral preferences not as useful illusions, but as facts of reality inasmuch as our tendency to adapt to these moral facts (or not) produces effects that evolution can act on. >Now that we are on generation 50 or 75 of Islam, what do we see? I agree. I believe they based their lives on false beliefs, and for many reasons this has compromised their 'staying power' with respect to sustaining their cultural, intellectual and scientific heritage. In strictly evolutionary terms, they're still getting on. They're on the planet in large numbers. They outbreed us. So what they tend to do in cooperation with natural law benefits them, and what they tend to do that disjoins them from the Logos, harms them. >Cultures produce selective pressures just like physical environments. Oh, without a doubt. In a developed world where the standard of living is sufficiently high, I'd say *culture is the environment*. Most of us aren't being shaped any longer by basic survival needs. We're being shaped by our ability to conform to and excel within the culture.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

I responded initially to your claim that Christianity was only the ostensible reason for these preferences in society, when you're also asserting that the underlying facts doing the real work are evolutionary ones. In some ways, that could be the case. If these social organizational changes that issue from Christianity confer some kind of social benefit, say something that further downstream leads to technological and industrial supremacy, you have an evolutionary argument. I suppose you could always just discriminate between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in terms of their evolutionary strategies.

You say it better than I do.

My problem is with treating the morals themselves like psychological vapors that don't track reality, but which evolutionary processes merely favored as useful illusions. Instead, I think we must treat these moral preferences not as useful illusions, but as facts of reality inasmuch as our tendency to adapt to these moral facts (or not) produces effects that evolution can act on.

I agree, the moment you are aware that you are acting on an illusion, your whole cultural regime becomes undermined. Jews undermined christianity and western civilization is now falling apart.

Atheists assert that they dont need to worship a sky god to make moral or ethical decisions, they will just use “common sense” or some faggy humanist ethos but its failing wildly in atheist strongholds. Burning in a pit of non-consuming flames is a stronger impetus it seems. This is the paradox.

In strictly evolutionary terms, they're still getting on.

They are and so are jews, but their strategies are colonization and parasitism respectively. Islam “eats up” newly conquered areas living of the fresh supply of other people’s virgins and other people’s wealth as they head chop their way merrily through the world.

Arguably christian nations have done this too a bit. There is a natural inclination in most humans to conquer other people, and christianity provides the justification by way of christianization i.e. “saving” savages. I just think europe’s monogamist strategy is relatively sustainable and stable compared to the middle east. But Im obviously biased.

Jews just have a fundamentally parasitic strategy which will obvious burn itself out eventually after theve parasitized everyone and there’s no one left to exploit.

What would we be like if a cult of jesus loving jews didnt infiltrate the roman empire and brainwash everyone that jesus was the son of god? (This is how I see it, sorry if it offends) What would the character of european people be?

Look at what a difference following judaism has had on jews in 3000 years! How different are they from palestinians? What would a continent (or 2) of pagan europeans be like? Would we be monogamous? Would we be more violent? Would we be like the hindus? Christians executed a lot of people over the years. And fought a lot of wars. Well, food for thought anyway.

>I responded initially to your claim that Christianity was only the ostensible reason for these preferences in society, when you're also asserting that the underlying facts doing the real work are evolutionary ones. In some ways, that could be the case. If these social organizational changes that issue from Christianity confer some kind of social benefit, say something that further downstream leads to technological and industrial supremacy, you have an evolutionary argument. I suppose you could always just discriminate between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in terms of their evolutionary strategies. You say it better than I do. >My problem is with treating the morals themselves like psychological vapors that don't track reality, but which evolutionary processes merely favored as useful illusions. Instead, I think we must treat these moral preferences not as useful illusions, but as facts of reality inasmuch as our tendency to adapt to these moral facts (or not) produces effects that evolution can act on. I agree, the moment you are aware that you are acting on an illusion, your whole cultural regime becomes undermined. Jews undermined christianity and western civilization is now falling apart. Atheists assert that they dont need to worship a sky god to make moral or ethical decisions, they will just use “common sense” or some faggy humanist ethos but its failing wildly in atheist strongholds. Burning in a pit of non-consuming flames is a stronger impetus it seems. This is the paradox. >In strictly evolutionary terms, they're still getting on. They are and so are jews, but their strategies are colonization and parasitism respectively. Islam “eats up” newly conquered areas living of the fresh supply of other people’s virgins and other people’s wealth as they head chop their way merrily through the world. Arguably christian nations have done this too a bit. There is a natural inclination in most humans to conquer other people, and christianity provides the justification by way of christianization i.e. “saving” savages. I just think europe’s monogamist strategy is relatively sustainable and stable compared to the middle east. But Im obviously biased. Jews just have a fundamentally parasitic strategy which will obvious burn itself out eventually after theve parasitized everyone and there’s no one left to exploit. What would we be like if a cult of jesus loving jews didnt infiltrate the roman empire and brainwash everyone that jesus was the son of god? (This is how I see it, sorry if it offends) What would the character of european people be? Look at what a difference following judaism has had on jews in 3000 years! How different are they from palestinians? What would a continent (or 2) of pagan europeans be like? Would we be monogamous? Would we be more violent? Would we be like the hindus? Christians executed a lot of people over the years. And fought a lot of wars. Well, food for thought anyway.

parent
link