Confirm your unsubscription from 'Secular Café'

To confirm that you no longer wish to receive updates from 'Secular Café', please click on the following link:

http://blogtrottr.com/unsubscribe/confirm/G8vlDy/kWm0L


If you weren't expecting to receive this email, then simply ignore it and we'll go away.

Secular Café: This sucks

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

This sucks Jun 9th 2012, 17:04 I'm no fan of Fire-arms, but I think this sucks- http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...-photos-by-aoc There is no hint of anything illeagal and, for God sake, Shooting is an Olympic sport!! Would the same have happened to two Olympic Shooters posing holing a pair of speedos??

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Why are people becoming evermore selfish as my clock ticks?

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Why are people becoming evermore selfish as my clock ticks? Jun 7th 2012, 00:07 Quote: I was in a coma for 25 years and woke up a year ago. I cant believe whats happened to everybody? We didnt have all these gadgets some are nice but it scared me at first but im most sad about all the people they seem so bitter so cold so sad. What happened to good music? I thought i was listening to a comedy hour the first time i heard the radio. Lady Gaga is madonna, All these weird panty waist bands are simply horrible. What happened to Def Leppard. Dokken, all the heart and songs that made you feel.good all day. Everyone seems like a pissed off monkey tapping on little telephones and showing no compassion and love. I thought about going back.into.a permanent coma but I still can not find the strength to do it. Please let me know you good people are out there. Wasn't my question but answer: Quote: Morals are taught whereas selfishness is a survival trait. Which do you think will win? As our population increases primarily because of morals (It is a sin to kill) nature has built in mechanisms to promote violence (selfishness)to balance out things. Please disregard the coma part and tell me does this have a corralation with the 7 billion people and shortage of resources? Where are the morals of our world? Why did our ego take over? Right now every women and man wants to graduate from university, get a well paying job and lock him/herself up in a big home- then start a family. I can see that we are overmaterialistic and verging on to living a dynamic lifestyle. I know that Gandhi said "one who hates society hates himself" but really there is a problem here. Its like a new apparition came and told everyone to screw helping others before ourselves (unless we can benefit from them) and advertise yourselve so you can make your friends jealous. Are we really verging into a more hateful world?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Evil and Atheism.

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Evil and Atheism. Jun 1st 2012, 08:04 Folks, For Christians, the word 'evil' has a specific meaning, fitting with a world view of 'the fall'. Evil is in the world, either as metaphysical evil (non human events such as plagues, floods) and human evil (human actions influenced or instigated by the devil and/or lesser demons). This simple narrative provides the Christian with a basis for recognising and dealing with evil as they see it. In the famous movie 'The Exorcist" the old priest (played by Max Von Siddow) has a line which must be memorable in the minds of believers who know the film. He is being told by a younger priest that he thinks the child is inhabited by several personalities, referring maybe to Freudian theory. The old priest says "There is only one." Watching the film, and having followed Regan's trip through the world of science, doctors and psychologists, we are finally shown the enemy in it's singularity. It is the Demon. The demon can present as legion, but it is only one. Whether we agree or disagree with religious dogma which drives the events in the film, we may at least allow that there is an elegant simplicity in the coming battle. For those of us who are not Christians or any kind of theists, the word 'evil' cannot stand on the definitive ground that the Christian uses. We are left with an idea of 'very bad' or 'unacceptable' which can immediately be assailed by moral relativists. 'Evil' for the Atheist is the alcohol free beer of our morality, lacking the essential ingredient of the word in the mouths of the theists. However, for some of us interested in moral philosophy there are times when we might want to use the word without dilution. We might want to say that Adolf Eichmann, Hienrich Himmler, Josef Mengele and others were evil in their intentions, their actions, and in their very bones. This is not because we want to parse their theories and actions in logic, but because we feel the presence of evil in and around them. For some of us, intellectuals or not, we simply feel it. Our reaction is not reasonable, but emotional, and in my view sometimes feeling can be the more truthful arbiter, and 'evil' is the only word to be used. Whether such men were born evil, became evil or rationalised themselves into evil acts is a moot point here. The only point is that evil is present, and that we feel it. Imagine what the world would be like if we didn't? Alex.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Why Consciousness is a Problem

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Why Consciousness is a Problem Jun 1st 2012, 00:30 It seems trivially true that the felt quality of redness is different than the observed interactions of neurons. To see this, we simply have to imagine a red patch, and compare that to any possible interactions between the physical constituents composing our brain. The two are not identical. Intuitively then, it seems as if the world can be separated into the mental and the physical, the belief in which can be called mind/body dualism. So what do I mean by "the felt quality of redness"? We might imagine that while looking at a red flower, we are in a way peering out through our eyes at the flower. This view is generally rejected as it brings to mind a tiny person behind our eyes, and another behind his, ad infinitum. This when we know vision to be the result of the interaction of light with our eyes, which triggers a chain reaction of neurons. What seems left out of that explanation is what can be called the phenomenal character of e.g. redness, or in less technical terms: the felt quality of redness or the experience of redness. Now while our experience of seeing a red rose may seem different than the neural correlates thereof, there is some reason to think they must nevertheless be the same in some sense. The brain seems to be a closed causal system, which is to say that there is no room for mental properties and physical properties to interact: consciousness seems superfluous. The prospect of existent but non-interacting mental properties is perhaps even more problematic, as then it would seem impossible for us to be able to speak of mental properties at all. So the problem often referred to as the Hard Problem of Consciousness, is the problem of accounting for the apparent lack of identity between the mental and the physical. Currently there is no academic consensus as to what strategy is best for doing so, though many have been proposed. So the question remains open.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: intolerance of intolerance. Is it going anywhere and where will it lead us.

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

intolerance of intolerance. Is it going anywhere and where will it lead us. May 28th 2012, 16:47 Are people who hate people who hate others self absorbed, self righteous or self aggrandizing? Are stereotypes a means or a justification and how can these false images be refuted without the refuter defaulting to their own mental images of the types of people who use stereotypes? In this day and age we are sometimes inundated with the term "Rights" but the precursor is always a subgroup of a group instead of the rights of any individual within that entire group to be treated equally with anyone else in that group. Is it not in the best interest of the entire group, as a whole to protect and defend anyone or any subgroup within the entirety of group lest the subgroup they're in be the next to be placed on the chopping block? Is the simple fact that there are subgroups of groups within society make that society vulnerable to be fractured and why would we give ear to those who claim to want save society by separating it from itself? Do those who wish to lead society into a promised land actually have a promised land to take us or is it this just and image they delude us into believing because they know we would not believe in them? When is a sanctuary an prison and a higher order of thinking or acting a more palatable means of promoting arrogance? When does all this and much much more begin to create something that is a benefit to everyone?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Understanding vs Excusing

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Understanding vs Excusing May 27th 2012, 19:40 Rather than go off in somebody else's thread, I'm making a new one. I often run into the mindset that equates the understanding of why somebody does something - anything - with excusing that behavior. As if to say that if we, as a jury or just as human beings, understand the train of incidents and/or genetics and/or whatever else that led to an instance of wrongdoing, then we are bound to just pat them on the head and let them go on their merry way. I don't get that at all. I really don't understand why those two are connected. They aren't connected at all for me - I can understand what led someone to do a heinous crime without letting them off the hook for responsibility for their actions. Can somebody explain that linkage to me? Why does understanding equal excusing?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions