[Siderite]

bpg spotted in Westminster:

[Siderite]

Secular philosophies outlining morality predate Christianity. Are you stealing from them?

Evolution has no morality to it. Your statement is as meaningless as saying “plate tectonics worldview” or “gravity worldview.”

[Siderite]

Yet again the term ‘evolutionist’ is abused. In fact, the term doesn’t really exist.

All this demonstrates is a lack of understanding of secular philosophies. No-one thinks murder is wrong because of ‘personal preference,’ but because we can understand how others feel. Unless you’re a psychopath. If someone needs to consult with God whether an action is moral I am worried; it’s why extremists justify the very worst behaviour through religion.

[Siderite]

That’s just your opinion, but I am sure you’ll try and claim it as a fact. As it’s an opinion, I am allowed to disagree using a different one. As are the many, including Tories, who also found it weak.

Desperate deflection and whataboutery at the end there.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Iron-awe, Heath

[Siderite]

Your last post missed my point. I wasn’t saying the evolutionary development of the brain is the question. It is, however, a means of explaining how we can understand logic without need for a deity. Your statement is that without God there is no accounting for the ability to reason. This explains it perfectly, without the need for a deity. We can justify ‘the laws of logic’ because we can understand how natural and artificial processes can work and lead to certain outcomes. We can understand how processes are universal, because we can understand how the processes are not random, so will be universal (no god needed). There is no need for a god to make the argument work, as there is with oxygen for respiration. You can have faith that God set the conditions for how the Universe came to be, but there isn’t a necessity for logical determination to make sense. There is no stealing from the Bible needed to understand how frictional energy creates heat (with or without knowledge of what that actually is). Humans were using logic before the Bible, and could do so without Christian values.

Also, many physicists, religious or not, would take exception to the idea that the Universe is an accident.

[Siderite]

We can justify our beliefs in logic, because we can see how actions determine an outcome. A deity is not needed for the outcome. We don’t need a deity to explain why such outcomes exist (i.e. why frictional heat from flint generates fire in kindling). It’s superfluous, so your statement is illogical. It’s a non-sequitur.

Quite simply, we can understand that logic exists because we can see and learn how our actions lead to a consequence. This is a truism no matter the existence or non-existence of a god.

[Siderite]

I agree that Suella Braverman and the like signal to that kind of divisive mentality among some Tories, but I don’t want to make broad statements about all Tories. It’s perfectly possible to have good intentions, but be mistaken (from the perspective of someone who disagrees).

2 users thanked author for this post.

Just Iron, TwoWrights

[Siderite]

He has said himself that he wants to be like Peter the Great. He wants the former Russian Empire territory because he doesn’t think they’re legitimate countries.

[Siderite]

The person can deny oxygen exists, but the effect on a human can still be observable. A person can deny the need for a god to have logic, but the same need for a god won’t be observable. There is no world where the There are other, more evidence based, explanations available, unlike with oxygen for respiration. Development of the brain within species through time is perfectly acceptable for a greater ability to reason and no god is required.

We don’t need to invoke deities to explain why humans can use their brains to put two and two together or why we can expect a certain outcome from an action.

[Siderite]

Someone should have told Suella that Truss did so well in PMQs! Why quit now when Starmer doesn’t know what’s hit him*?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/19/suella-braverman-departs-as-uk-home-secretary-liz-truss

*No malice intended, Bucks. We should all laugh at ourselves, including myself.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

The point you miss is that we can see the effects of how oxygen gives life. We don’t see the effect of how God gives logic. We can see how humans, and indeed other animals to lesser extent, can use logic from secular means. There is no need to invoke a god to explain how humans followed trains of thought through history.

We don’t need a god to understand how humans first realised how to make fire from creating sparks with flint. There is no need to invoke a god to understand how crows first realised you could use twigs to hook insects from trees for food. All it required was a greater brain power for some to realise it and others to be taught. There is no god necessary for a step between as there is between the needing of oxygen for respiration.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Good posts IMO Siderite. I have a few friends who are so fiercely anti NATO and anti West it’s a waste of time discussing this matter. No matter what Putin does, or more atrocities he commits, apparently the US, NATO and allies are more to blame. Find it very dismaying that any humanitarian concerns are ignored or dismissed in favour of ideology. ‘Negotiations’?? When has Putin ever indicated he’s really interested in them? See their stance through to it’s logical conclusion and Putin would have taken Ukraine by now and be on to the next former Soviet country he’s embarrassed about losing in the first place (his words). But hey, in the name of ‘peace’ and stopping war, to hell with the Ukrainians (or not ‘but don’t ask troublesome questions please!). This is before we get on to the amount of ‘useful idiots’ out there on social media parroting exactly what Putin wants to hear. I know a few Ukrainians, as I’m sure many of the ‘stop the war’ crowd do. I’d feel pretty ashamed if I adopted the latter’s attitude.

It has also come out that a Russian minister to Ukraine had said they had got assurances Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO, prior to invasion. Yet Putin still sanctioned invasion. The NATO argument is an excuse for useful idiots to parrot.

I doubt StW know many Ukrainians outside of through antagonistic encounters. During the Syrian civil war, when that was at its peak, they actively refused Syrians a platform.

[Siderite]

Then, of course, you will kick up a fuss because I have showed some disdain here. Play stupid games, twisting words, and you will get disdain.

[Siderite]

Can you please learn to read, Bucks? For the fourth time I was not saying today is worse than the 70s. My sole point is that saying the 70s is more catastrophic is an opinion, not fact. I am not denying the bad times of the 70s. I should not have to keep explaining this to anyone more intelligent than a 5 year old.

I am really bored of words being put into my mouth and being straw manned, with accusations that I am somehow acting badly, when it’s you doing so.

[Siderite]

I mean, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but her own MPs (and not just the backbenchers) weren’t exactly rallying in support. Plus she seemed to think it was LOTOQs. I find it baffling anyone can think this is some turning point for the lame duck PM.

[Siderite]

Doesn’t look like Tory MPs share this rekindled spirit for Truss after her performance:

As the PM finishes her exchange with Keir Starmer, telling MPs she’s a “fighter not a quitter”, one Tory backbencher turns to their neighbour and says simply “useless”. Colleague nods.

— Kate McCann (@KateEMcCann) October 19, 2022

[Siderite]

Nice of her to turn up this time.

I see she has overruled Hunt on pension uprating. If the Tories want to delude themselves that this is some fantastic performance, as if most pay attention to PMQs anyway, then be my guest.

[Siderite]

They are busy too, but I do miss the former player podcasts to fill the void in other talking points. :-(

[Siderite]

Though seeing this lot in such pitifully small number does raise a giggle. One day the world will see through the fog of false consciousness and realise these people have happened to stumble on the correct opinion. One not sullied by bourgeoisie media convincing us that despots invading a sovereign nation and butchering their public is bad, realising that it’s more complex, and that Russia’s actions can be just ignored or explained away.

[Siderite]

I see the cowardly, ‘anti-imperialist’ left are out piously making they’re out for peace again. They neglect to mention their peace means death and subjugation for Ukrainians, forced resettlements and going against their will:

Yes, the anti-war left is starting to rise! Here we are in Detroit calling for negotiations in Ukraine. We are holding teach-ins, marching, lobbying Congress. Join us. #peaceinUkraine pic.twitter.com/LYfQIf6FcJ

— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) October 17, 2022

These people were never anti-war, when they claimed to be during US involved conflict. Their prime motivation is disliking the west, and they see the west at fault everywhere, so they reflexively apologise for Russia and make out they’re being forced into conflict by the evil west. NATO aren’t even in Ukraine, their weapons are, and are they going to argue that it’s immoral to help defend an invaded nation from an invader who cares not one jot about human lives?

This also highlights the problem I have always had with pacifism. Sure, we can see that war brings horror and devastation, and we shouldn’t actively seek it without strong justification. However, sometimes we are forced into it and demanding Ukraine accepts anything for peace (as some do) means the victim losing and the aggressor gaining. What would stop Russia from trying more if Ukraine is made to seek compromise on terms it isn’t willing to commit to? Alongside some pacifists having more sympathy to the likes of Russia, this mentality is a toxic breeding ground for dictator and mass murder apologia. If peace matters above all else, then the more amendable side (Ukraine) should just give up in the eyes of some.

I am by no means saying all pacifists are like this, there are many commendable ones, but it’s a tendency I have noticed among many.

Nowadays most say they would of course be for standing up to Nazi Germany in the 30s, because that was just. Easy to say with hindsight, but given many apologise and deny crimes of current despots I am somewhat sceptical they would. Many of the time didn’t (looking at you, George Lansbury).

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

64 wrote:

He’s got you again, chompety chomp

True. Though, it does seem unbefitting for a Christian to play the wum.

[Siderite]

No worthy response. Predictable.

There is a demonstrable link between oxygen and life, there is none between the Bible and the existence of logic. People were behaving logically, with the extent of their knowledge before then. Humans made fire, realised its potential for warmth and cooking before Christianity. We can see evidence of how humans have the ability to reason without it.

[Siderite]

“But this is the same mistake as the critic of air saying,”Of course air isn’t necessary to breathe,because I don’t believe in air and I can breathe just fine.””

Not it isn’t, because we can observe the effects of too little oxygen on the person. The same isn’t true for the Bible. People can survive, reason and behave perfectly fine without it. Next.

None of this bollocks has anything to do with evolution.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, TwoWrights

[Siderite]

Also, the idea that net zero policies are unpopular enough to cause serious damage to Labour chances seems wishful thinking:

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-support-majority-net-zero-policies-unless-there-is-a-personal-cost

Whether Tories could undermine this in debate, I don’t know, but it’s brave to suggest this is an automatic vote loser when polls suggest otherwise.

And, no this is not an argument that there are no problems which need to be met with net zero policies, before more words get put in my mouth.

[Siderite]

*Yet you keep trying to argue that the 70s were tough for many as if I disagree.

[Siderite]

Where did I say otherwise? Please stop putting words into my mouth and making a straw man to suit yourself.

The statement which Gurny made was that this current time is the “most catastrophic period of political leadership this country has ever seen.” This could mean many things besides just the economy. Undoubtedly the economic crises of the 70s plays a role, but equally the upheaval now has many things the 70s didn’t. PMs, chancellors and cabinet members are being upturned at a faster rate, which gives a more unstable impression of governance. Therefore, there is an argument here for the political leadership being more catastrophic than the 70s.

Regardless, it’s an opinion, not a sodding fact. Which was my point. Yet you keep trying to argue that the 70s were tough for many, or that I am arguing against there being a strong case for the 70s being worse for chaos and catastrophe, despite me clearly stating on two occasions now that I am not putting forward my own opinion on which is worse. Stop misrepresenting me for once. I don’t think my words are this unclear, and I specifically state that I am not making an argument in favour of one over the other. I repeat, it was solely over semantics, since the statement is not a fact.

[Siderite]

Sure, you can put forward a stronger case for the 70s being worse, but it isn’t unfalsifiable like actual facts, There is always an argument for the other side, even if it might be weaker and less grounded in evidence.

Again, no opinion of mine is given here. My point here is semantics.

[Siderite]

No, Bucks, saying the 70s were worse is an opinion, not a fact.

[Siderite]

And, no, that’s not actually me agreeing or disagreeing with you, before you start. Someone having an opinion that today’s leadership is worse than the 70s is just as valid as the opposite. Stating otherwise, as if it’s a fact, changes nothing.

[Author]

Posts