s1eep

Well, if you say so. but what I'm saying fits (and I know God 'fits'), and it's rational when I say the planet is a greater good; without that mentality, we are likely to fail.

1. The point I was making still stands, during the time humans were 'a lot like squirrels', they were not suffering in harsh conditions, otherwise they wouldn't have evolved into human (technically, a more advanced) form, and I guess it's only because they are human and a part of human affairs they are suffering; it's probably to do with their natures now, but that's a reflection of their attitude and judgement towards family-orientated survival, which is highly influenced by the surrounding elements. I'm not imagining survival as a being or beings other than the survivor or survivors, it's probable that you will have an attempt at surviving because it would be inherently considered immoral not to... Think "we", as if there was a bond between us and planet, or us and nature (which again is best reflected to us by the planet). It doesn't care, but we will probably care---you will probably eat. 2. You don't believe that the universe can advance, but you believe in the advancement of technology? I don't believe you, I think we advanced out of the water, and have more mental freedom than a fish; there are more wants we can fulfil, we have less troubles, and we are, again, at the top of the food chain (it's less likely we'll get eaten). It's the same as you advancing in intelligence because you surrounded yourself with physics doctrine and people interested in physics, but the way it's done in nature beyond a single humans ability, or multiple individual (not connected in sexual intercourse) humans abilities. 3. And your misunderstanding is because you already have in your head an idea of good, and it's a totally different idea to the one I'm using, however, it's relative because it's only a reflection of the truth to the individual; a rather solipsistic view of good and evil where you are judged for every action---I'm not asking myself "was that good?" to some God, or to whoever judges me at the end, I'm being sure myself that it's good before I do things so that it's beneficent and not maleficent to programmed objectives like family-orientated survival. Please try to reply to the semantics of the whole extract and less on individual extracts, because naturally, we think of things that the other may being up in debate while we are typing...

South Africa is renown for it's third world suffering, but their lives and habitats were not always as broken as they are today. It's obvious that, because they evolved to the form of a human, prior stages in evolution (we supposedly came from monkeys), they were not suffering to the extent we see today, they were prosperous to have been selected to continue. Yes, human Africans. I'm not being egotistical when I say advanced. As well as the other species humans are advanced, and I would say the fact they are at the top of the food chain on Earth is showing that they have worldly value, or nature, that is above other animals. No. Where one might see a duality between good and evil, I see good as the duality. One might say to prosper is the opposite to suffering, I think both cases are examples of good nature because they allow one to exist and survive in nature (which is formally represented by the greater good that's most significant to us; the planet in humanity's case). I'd say because everyone has to eat, they are programmed to some extent to act in a certain way throughout their life; they are automatically submissive to tasks indicated by the body. Our base selves are not unintelligent, they are like biological machines with intent already coded into their beings. And if you say not all cases people eat their food, then I would say that it's probable that food will be eaten and since this is consistent, this is the rational way a human should act, and (part of) the epitome of a human.

You implied I hastily blamed nature for evils when you assumed I automatically thought these things (mentioned in your post) were 'bad'. Let me rephrase my statement, rather than 'consider', 'treat', nature doesn't treat these things as though they were evil, they are treated as though they are relative. A relationship consists of two or more parties, and these parties co-exist, not separate to each other (lots of bubbles together, rather than each individual a bubble and no co-existence with other bubbles). About Africans, for billions of years before they evolved to humans, they obviously weren't suffering as much. Humans are an advanced species, we don't come about through only passiveness, or only weakness, it takes hard work (years of survival, sometimes in tough conditions). It has not always been the case where South Africans were suffering. I'm basically agreeing with your words about how these things, that I may consider evil, aren't evil because of the science behind it. I didn't consider them evil, this is one of the reasons why. The application of my statement "we developed a sense of pain for a reason", is implying that pain is not evil but good.

How is it not an objective assessment? We have hunger, which implies we are to eat or we are to die. this happens simultaneously and dynamically to thirst. I can objectively assess both objectives forced upon me through hunger and thirst, and come to the conclusion that I probably will do the good thing for the combined objective of survival. When matters that concern two or more parties are involved, then the objective assessment is between two people so even in the sense of communication and humanity I'm being rational. I have applied value to the human species in the form of nature's support of existence. And I wouldn't consider any of these things bad, and it isn't considered bad by nature (it preserves); we developed a sense of pain for a reason; how did some Africans evolve to be Africans if they have always been suffering? I wasn't so hasty to blame nature for evils in the world...

It paves the way for civil war in western countries. I will never accept Islam...

They have a different objective than the one I gave as an example. And just because it's good for me doesn't mean it has to be good for you, there are some cases where the morality could be between two or more parties who faced a similar objective; such as, life on the planet.

But if good is not real, what is it's importance as a word? I see no problem in changing it if there is a better suited definition, and I haven't strayed too far from the original definitions. For aid with this thread, here are the original definitions of good: to be desired or approved of. having the required qualities; of a high standard. noun that which is morally right; righteousness. benefit or advantage to someone or something. The mind is free until it is forced to yield to hunger, thirst and tiredness, where it has to eat, drink and sleep if it wants to continue; there are times where we are objective, some objectives are more significant to us than others (such as eating, drinking and seelping); we are not fully purposeless when we consider the bond we share with nature...

Again, I am redefining good, so imagine there wasn't already a concept for good and evil. I said it in one thread, what is a term we use to describe "deliciousness' for one objective, and 'coolness' we use to describe another? I'm spotting a pattern in the full and cohesive whole of the universe. Because everything nature is to individuals within nature, I have defined as good; this is my starting point. It's good on account of the lesser goods it creates; and they are good because the judge of what's good is above them in the hierarchy (natural selection, planets to humans, etc)

How is it stupid? The theory expressed in the original post is that nature is a greater good, and things are good because of this (that’s why they are good---which is what you’re asking). Remember, this is not individual things, this is everything together. I am not the true nature, so you wouldn’t accredit my personified view of things, you would only take account of the whole. To nature, things are either evil or good. In essence, I am redefining good, taking it away from religious belief and into rationality. Is nature (the whole) greater than individual humans? Yes, in many ways, as expressed in the original post and later posts. You are above nature, because you are nature, but nature is also beyond you, it is a greater good. You are in control of your body, but beyond your control is a heartbeat and bodily functions. The planet is greater than humans in mass, it is their habitat, and it’s a fine representative of the greater good of nature. Why is nature good? Because it facilitates (how it facilitates everything is a list too long to write here; we can use “good” as a loose-term to describe this generosity, or ‘help’, from nature) beings in the universe---that are good in accordance with the facility; humans for example had to work hard to survive until civilization advanced to the modern era; animals are focused survivors when not kept in homes as pets. These things are being what nature intended them to be when the world found the harmony to create life. It may have been spontaneous, but I doubt life would have come about if there was no food on the land or oxygen in the atmosphere. We have reason, if we take account of the whole, “we”, or “us”, and not the individual factors. For example, taking account of the body shows that you have a bias toward family-orientated survival. It’s probable that if there were one trillion Earths, and they all had someone like you on it, in most cases you would be surviving and helping your family survive, the latter would be where you were on a internet forum. And since the last post was nothing more than an hypocritical 'meaningless' insult, with no actual inclination to discuss the original post, I'll take it as your comment is invalid, thanks for your input.

I theorize that Nature is a "greater good", and creates lesser goods that harmonize with it. Ultimately, I'm suggesting the universe is good, but I'm redefining good, taking it away from religious belief into rationality. The planet is a prime example of nature acting as a greater good amongst lesser goods, this is by no means an insult to their goodness, the term ‘lesser’ refers only to the dimensions (such as size) of humans and animals on the planet; they are ultimately good. Why are they good, what defines them as good? Everything has to be good in accordance with the nature that homes them (i.e. planet Earth), or they cease to exist; so nature decides what’s good and evil (ourselves most explicitly), it is the greater good that we can either harmonize or de-harmonize with, and most significantly for us, the planet. We can be relaxed with the definition of good, it can be used in the useful and real sense, where, for example, I would not go near a diseased human because that would be “evil” in accordance with my objective, which is to live. If we rationalize and highlight in our minds, our home planet, Earth, and use our objective (mental capabilities) minds, we can find out what’s good and evil for the livelihood on this planet. Good and evil exist as real concepts, it’s not all spurring from the bible, or God. You don’t have to picture morality as something exclusive to an out-of-dimension observer who judges you at the end, as there is a useful way to use good and evil that has actual beneficent or maleficent effects on our lives.

I don't have anything to say... Okay, let me explain again, and then I'll respond to whatever you say. I agree that like-mindedness can be dangerous, but as you said, in physics, surrounding yourself with like-minded people is actually productive, but I suppose we still need to assess it's danger. I guess like-mindednes is danger-inherent, but it's in my belief this danger can be overcome with mental power

Said in a serious, good-willed yet depressed tone, "we should only think about sex". The author(s) of the bible are what I would call the "final boss".

I stand with nature, for I can sense inevitable inferiority.

Whatever... I agree with the OP to some extent.

Existence is not 'tranquil' (and the semantics I'm using here are something along the lines of "lack of magic", "lack of imagination"); and what I mean by that is, we can imagine things different from the self, and we are affected by other things. It's not all about oneself, and to think that the self as this depiction from the third person, does not address a majority of the nature about the self experienced from the first person. "No-one has a right to be wrong", does not imply I'm right, and it's not saying it's impossible to be wrong. It could be what's beneficent for an objective, again, "prosperity of the human species" (in which case I would be right).

"Like-mindedness for like-mindedness' alone is dangerous, but with a reason such as "prosperity of the human species", it becomes something, which enhances the process, it is essentially a way to accomplish the goal. Sometimes it's good to see things out to the end. I agree that people should accept other perspectives to challenge their own, but I don't think one should neglect the objective of one perspective if it is important. For example, I don't think anyone should have a right to be wrong; I'm sure of this, should I accept other perspectives, but wouldn't these be the ones I've deemed as guilty?

Sin is a broad subject in religions, they obviously have studied sin to some degree. There was a case with Eliot Rodger (the murderer), where religious people were close to him, being supportive, general interest in his problems. Priests often turn up in mental hospitals or prisons, but I haven't got scientific proofs, no, just my own observation. And as for the first part of your post, I can see dangers where the Earth was concerned too, but I cannot apply it to every case of surrounding yourself with "like-minded" people, some wouldn't be dangerous at all, and are actually productive, as you mentioned with physics.

There is danger inherent with this natural phenomena, but not all cases are dangerous, as you said sometimes it's profitable. I think it is rational when applied to real stressing issues, such as the mind, or the planet. A lot of cultists are attracted to the people that aren't like them, and try to force their beliefs upon others, or even merely observe these people because it entertains them; cults often have wide-interest in those alien to their beliefs.

That's a very racist way of putting things... Why not Easternized?

It seems that God-believers think that God would work well with society if it was everywhere, because the methodology applied in the bible can be helpful. This is true to some extent, but by no means is this a reflection of God, it's not God's work, it's written word (by human hand); if anything, people with a perception that the bible supports (is evidence of) God, are truly highlighting the aptitude of humans to follow teachings and laws without the need for law enforcement (the work in the bible, beyond God, applied in society). Just saying, don't confuse the concept of God and the concepts written further in the bible... The highlighted goodness of the bible (i.e. it's technicality, the way it works), is not proving God is true, but rather humans are able to some extent.

What is a word we use to describe all the "usefulness" for one objective, and "deliciousness" to another, and so on?

That was addressed earlier by Phi for All, To add to what I said in my last post---this is ironic, it seems as though you two are socially conditioned the same... You will say the same semantics that are centred around the objective of moderating the board, which I said I had no problem with; I'm treating it as evidence for discussion.

It may be good advice, for being an average kind of victor, but there are more important matters than politics, in my opinion, such as the world and the human condition, that are greater victories. And whether or not you think morality is insignificant or not, it's there, in the relaxed sense I'm using it to describe the possible beneficent or maleficent actions in light of an objective. And it being there is a good thing and helps me to progress with some of the problems I face when proving that people are being evil towards the Earth; not to mention making the suppressing of religious stupidity harder because they are the accepted representatives of morality. I think that objective morality is a rational morality. What is a word we use to describe all the "usefulness" for one objective, and "deliciousness" to another, and so on? I think good fits quite well.