Author Topic: A frustrated loser  (Read 2728 times)

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
  • Move over KY
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2019, 01:42:59 PM »
Morality is an evolutionary construct necessary for large groups of people to work together efficiently. The stronger your groups adherence to a certain set of rules, the stronger the group is as a whole and is therefore advantageous in natural selection.

People like Epstein et al. made a fortune for themselves by bucking the moral virtues, but living on the edge of moral virtue comes at a price as Epstein found. Ignoring morality may be rewarded for a time, but eventually you will be found out and come up short when inventing your own morality and the negative outcome is binary. If not on an individuals timeline, the success of ignoring morality will go bust on an evolutionary timeline. Over a millenia, a group of people who ignore these evolutionary moral virtues will fail to work cohesively and will be outcompeted (maybe violently) by a opposing group who work together more efficiently.

So you agree that Epstein is more of a hero than someone like Bonhoeffer, right? In almost any materialist way, Epstein destroys him.

Epstein
lived until 66
had many sexual partners
Very wealthy
friends with lots of wealthy and famous people

Bonhoffer
died at 39 fighting the Nazis.
Allegedly died a virgin
probably not wealthy
friends with religious folks (boring!)

Why would anyone chose the 2nd guy or admire him?

The 2nd guy died believing in an illusion of a greater good. The 1st lived it up and ignored the made up morality of the society around him. We should get a statue of Epstein if atheism is the correct worldview. ;)

I would posit a society with more Bonhoffers than Epsteins would be more successful than the opposite. Both a deity and natural selection are encouraging the same thing. Acting against one's self interest for the good of the group is ultimately what moral virtues come down to. An all seeing deity is a highly effective construct to make sure individuals follow those moral virtues when no one is looking. So the belief in a deity is in an of itself an advantage natural selection would prioritize.         
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options


LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3803
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #41 on: November 20, 2019, 01:45:36 PM »
Paul, eventually there will be a machine learning algo which continuously quotes previous replies to you.
And then we can run monte carlo analysis 1000000 times to see which side of the debate wins  ;D

I do rather enjoy you ignoring most of my questions.  ;)

Why can't you just admit that Epstein just might deserve more admiration than Bonhoeffer? Is my reasoning faulty?


You continually post non sequiturs which you apparently think are clever and proves your point, only all you do is answer questions that are not asked and set up strawmen to knock them down.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2019, 01:47:47 PM by LC »
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ads | brk.b | irm | mmm | mo | nlsn | pm | pypl | v | wm

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3120
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2019, 01:51:48 PM »
guys, one of my points is this (and I don't think this is really disputable but have an open mind if I'm wrong).

If atheism is the accurate view of the world, whatever each of us says is good is good and whatever is bad is bad. Fair enough.

Now, if one is going to be intellectually honest, we should also realize a couple things 1) we have no control how are brains are formed  2) we have no control over the environmental factors that made us value the things we value in the first place.

So for the first point, some of us are wired to like women, some men, some children...and some of us want to be with animals. Ultimately, neither is more right or wrong. Just different. The person who likes children can't help how their brain is wired and neither can the ones who like the others. It's by sheer luck that you and I don't have brains wired that way.

For the second point, the environmental factors affect our morality in ways we don't fully appreciate. For instance, the Epsteins of the world like young girls. That was an option for the rest of us - it just didn't win out due to environmental factors and national selection.

We (I hope) most of us like adult women. Why is that? I would argue that if environmental factors were different and girls were fertile only (roughly) between the ages of 5-12 most men would want that rather than an old 25 year old. Natural selection would have weeded out us (the one's who like a older females) and Epstein and his crew would be the dominate proclivity.

Paul

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
  • Move over KY
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2019, 02:09:12 PM »
For the second point, the environmental factors affect our morality in ways we don't fully appreciate. For instance, the Epsteins of the world like young girls. That was an option for the rest of us - it just didn't win out due to environmental factors and national selection.

We (I hope) most of us like adult women. Why is that? I would argue that if environmental factors were different and girls were fertile only (roughly) between the ages of 5-12 most men would want that rather than an old 25 year old. Natural selection would have weeded out us (the one's who like a older females) and Epstein and his crew would be the dominate proclivity.

The above is accurate. It appears you are beginning to understand natural selection. 
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3120
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #44 on: November 20, 2019, 02:42:34 PM »
For the second point, the environmental factors affect our morality in ways we don't fully appreciate. For instance, the Epsteins of the world like young girls. That was an option for the rest of us - it just didn't win out due to environmental factors and national selection.

We (I hope) most of us like adult women. Why is that? I would argue that if environmental factors were different and girls were fertile only (roughly) between the ages of 5-12 most men would want that rather than an old 25 year old. Natural selection would have weeded out us (the one's who like a older females) and Epstein and his crew would be the dominate proclivity.

The above is accurate. It appears you are beginning to understand natural selection.

Oh, I understand national selection fairly well. What I want to make clear are the moral implications of it. So do you agree that Epstein is a better role model that Bonhoeffer then? Or if someone else selected Epstein, it would be a good choice?

Again, I'm not talking about which one would make society more successful (current evolutionary path or not) but which an individual would prefer to follow.
Paul

Ross812

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
  • Move over KY
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2019, 08:03:03 AM »
For the second point, the environmental factors affect our morality in ways we don't fully appreciate. For instance, the Epsteins of the world like young girls. That was an option for the rest of us - it just didn't win out due to environmental factors and national selection.

We (I hope) most of us like adult women. Why is that? I would argue that if environmental factors were different and girls were fertile only (roughly) between the ages of 5-12 most men would want that rather than an old 25 year old. Natural selection would have weeded out us (the one's who like a older females) and Epstein and his crew would be the dominate proclivity.

The above is accurate. It appears you are beginning to understand natural selection.

Oh, I understand national selection fairly well. What I want to make clear are the moral implications of it. So do you agree that Epstein is a better role model that Bonhoeffer then? Or if someone else selected Epstein, it would be a good choice?

Again, I'm not talking about which one would make society more successful (current evolutionary path or not) but which an individual would prefer to follow.

The center of my argument is moral virtues are the result of natural selection. They allow large groups of people to work together in harmony. Choosing someone who puts themselves above all others as a role model would seem to make sense from an individual perspective, but most will choose a virtuous path engrained over generations.

How does a society assure its populous is virtuous? It creates penalties for those who are found to be in violation of those virtues (laws); the worst offenders are punished by the group. Policing a large society is impossible; small infractions go unnoticed and erode trust between individuals. What is the most efficient way to police society? Construct an all seeing deity to reward good behavior and punish those break the law.     


Paul, if you accept the premise:

Morality is an evolutionary construct necessary for large groups of people to work together efficiently

Then it is quite easy to see how Epstein is the "less moral" of the two.

I agree with that premise if God doesn't exist. I didn't say Epstein was more moral (morality is subjective so it doesn't have a universal definition). I'm saying that Epstein had the better life and should be more of a role model than Bonhoeffer. Materialistically, I can't think of anything Bonhoeffer did better? If atheism is true, the only things that really matter are the materialistic ones - everything else is fluff and cognitive errors.

It seems we are in agreement that a common set moral virtues allows large groups of people to work together more efficiently. We are arguing about creation versus evolution at this point; science or religion. In an evolutionary sense, morality is no more subjective than the need to walk upright; it exists because it is advantageous for the species.

Animals seem to follow some sort of natural law. Is this endowed by the creator or the result of evolution? Origin has been argued for thousands of years. I would hope we can agree there is an intelligent argument on both sides of the issue. The response atheism=materialism is binary; it stops any discourse on the subject. If you want to discuss something, you have to acknowledge the other party may have an intelligent well reasoned point.   
96% Fixed Income CDs, Muni, Corporate Debt - 4% SPX Options

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3120
Re: A frustrated loser
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2019, 11:33:30 AM »
For the second point, the environmental factors affect our morality in ways we don't fully appreciate. For instance, the Epsteins of the world like young girls. That was an option for the rest of us - it just didn't win out due to environmental factors and national selection.

We (I hope) most of us like adult women. Why is that? I would argue that if environmental factors were different and girls were fertile only (roughly) between the ages of 5-12 most men would want that rather than an old 25 year old. Natural selection would have weeded out us (the one's who like a older females) and Epstein and his crew would be the dominate proclivity.

The above is accurate. It appears you are beginning to understand natural selection.

Oh, I understand national selection fairly well. What I want to make clear are the moral implications of it. So do you agree that Epstein is a better role model that Bonhoeffer then? Or if someone else selected Epstein, it would be a good choice?

Again, I'm not talking about which one would make society more successful (current evolutionary path or not) but which an individual would prefer to follow.

The center of my argument is moral virtues are the result of natural selection. They allow large groups of people to work together in harmony. Choosing someone who puts themselves above all others as a role model would seem to make sense from an individual perspective, but most will choose a virtuous path engrained over generations.

How does a society assure its populous is virtuous? It creates penalties for those who are found to be in violation of those virtues (laws); the worst offenders are punished by the group. Policing a large society is impossible; small infractions go unnoticed and erode trust between individuals. What is the most efficient way to police society? Construct an all seeing deity to reward good behavior and punish those break the law.     


Paul, if you accept the premise:

Morality is an evolutionary construct necessary for large groups of people to work together efficiently

Then it is quite easy to see how Epstein is the "less moral" of the two.

I agree with that premise if God doesn't exist. I didn't say Epstein was more moral (morality is subjective so it doesn't have a universal definition). I'm saying that Epstein had the better life and should be more of a role model than Bonhoeffer. Materialistically, I can't think of anything Bonhoeffer did better? If atheism is true, the only things that really matter are the materialistic ones - everything else is fluff and cognitive errors.

It seems we are in agreement that a common set moral virtues allows large groups of people to work together more efficiently. We are arguing about creation versus evolution at this point; science or religion. In an evolutionary sense, morality is no more subjective than the need to walk upright; it exists because it is advantageous for the species.

Animals seem to follow some sort of natural law. Is this endowed by the creator or the result of evolution? Origin has been argued for thousands of years. I would hope we can agree there is an intelligent argument on both sides of the issue. The response atheism=materialism is binary; it stops any discourse on the subject. If you want to discuss something, you have to acknowledge the other party may have an intelligent well reasoned point.   

Ross, I don't think a lot folks believe in God because he's an all seeing deity who punishes people when they do wrong. For one I think of doing the right things as follow God's path and as a result it is a good thing. After all, the only real objective good that can exist is God.

I do agree with you though that if atheism is true, morality's primarily focus is keeping society functioning.

Now, most atheists claim to be free thinkers. As you rightly put it, they are simply following a "virtuous path engrained over generations." So basically most of this folks like to fashion themselves as "free thinkers" but are blindly folloiwng that "virtuous path" that previous generations grilled into their heads.

There's a poster on here that is so concerned about human rights and all that stuff. But when those folks are being persecuted it makes little sense to worry about it since it doesn't impact him.

From an atheistic perspective, I look at morality as something similar to manners. Some people get offended by social injustice and some get offended when another eats with his mouth open. None of that stuff really matters. It's kinda like an ocd person who has to wash their hands 5x or whatever. They don't really have to do it but seem to think they do.

As an aside if atheism is true, don't you think it would probably be prudent to restrict human rights and institute some type of eugenics program?
Paul