1. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176832 by Henri Bergson on May 8, 2008 at 6:24 am

'Handwriting analysis'?

This makes a good case for eugenics.

I seriously think we should begin re-valuing mandatory sterilisation if we are not to end up in the Idiocracy that is sweeping over the most powerful nation on the planet.

China has such a eugenics program (since 1993) and Europe needs to reconsider it if we are not to degenerate.

2. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174067 by Henri Bergson on May 1, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Corylus,

I don't particularly want to get into this meta-ethical argument again, but having a 'certain utility' does not prove it correct. Aristotle's outdated cosmology has a certain utility.

The proposition, "utility is good" is unprovable a posteriori and a priori.

It's a matter of preference, like preferring tea to coffee.

---


I prefer the Iron Rule and I prefer tea. The question is, What are preferences based on?

I also prefer Ragnar Redbeard's reformulation of Jesus' old proverb:
"If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him down".

---

But let's return to eugenics as I'm sick of stating the case against morality as we know it.

3. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173937 by Henri Bergson on May 1, 2008 at 11:32 am

China practises eugenics today, overtly.

In 1993, the Chinese government announced a law, "On Eugenics and Health Protection," designed to "avoid new births of inferior quality and heighten the standards of the whole population." In 1994 they passed the "Maternal and Infant Health Care Law", which included mandatory premarital screenings for "genetic diseases of a serious nature" and "relevant mental disease". Those who were diagnosed with such diseases were required either not to marry, agree to "long-term contraceptive measures" or to submit to sterilization.

Of course, the Chinese have not shared our German-tainted history.

4. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173893 by Henri Bergson on May 1, 2008 at 10:26 am

Having said that though, 'the Golden Rule' ("treat others as you would like to be treated") is, despite Dawkins' claim, not a logical proposition (i.e. not true empirically or analytically).

Another person could say, "treat others as you wish" ('the Iron Rule'), and you could not, through reason, contradict him/show him to be logically wrong.

5. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173888 by Henri Bergson on May 1, 2008 at 10:17 am

This objection that Darwinism leads to eugenics, or social Darwinism, is so ignorant of history. Eugenics has been around far before Darwin, so Darwin cannot be the cause.

Plato, in book 5 of his Republic, written c. 360B.C. - i.e. 2220 years before The Origin of Species - advocates eugenics (and propaganda):

"Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.

Very true.

Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.

Certainly, he replied.

We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.

To be sure, he said.

And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their other honours and rewards, might have greater facilities of intercourse with women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers ought to have as many sons as possible."

- Plato (427-347BC... BC.)

6. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171889 by Henri Bergson on April 29, 2008 at 1:32 am

Interesting article, though somewhat obvious. As it suggests, not only religion, but ethics, are delusions.

Wait for my book on this.

7. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165188 by Henri Bergson on April 21, 2008 at 7:32 am

It may become the focal point of the world once we nuke it.

8. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161031 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Gilks,

The existence of assertions of value can be proven, but not the content of the assertion itself.

---

And now, my friends, I must leave you as I have some videotapes to return. I shall simply end tonight by writing that any criticism leveled against me will be wrong: Pre-emptive strike.

9. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161025 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Gilks,

You missed my point that I am doing this for amusement. If I were to say that 'truth' were a value, then I would be a hypocrite. I did not argue that.

10. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161021 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Zara,

The words you're looking for there are 'formal reality' as opposed to 'objective reality'.

And they simply prove my point.

11. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161019 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 5:05 pm

SSki,
Simple error there - assertions of fact can be proven; assertions of value cannot. So therefore I can judge others' assertions of value to be meaningless whereas you cannot judge my assertions of fact as being so.

Why don't you finish that fat yank peanut butter sandwich and go to bed?

12. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161013 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Gilks,

a little more concise...

Of course conditionals are not affected by the is-ought problem; but morality cannot be a conditional without attributing to humans a final cause/purpose. And only religion can do that. Therefore, when 'god is dead', we have no purpose. If you attribute the purpose 'preservation of species' or 'getting on in civilisation', that is subjective not objective.

Secondly, I never claimed that people should care for the truth, I simply am pointing it out for my amusement.

13. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161005 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 4:49 pm

It would please many if I were a Christian; however, I am more far removed from that faith than you cultural Christians out here who don't believe in the Christian God but believe in Christian values.

Zara,

all mathematical theorems are merely models of reality, not in reality itself. If you believe they are really 'out there' you're a Platonist and should join the god gang.

14. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160998 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Godless,

You're simply confusing descriptive with prescriptive morality.

We can learn a lot from science regarding why we behave 'ethically' (descriptive); but we can never learn from science how we should behave (prescriptive).

'Preservation of the species' may be an instinct; but so is aggression. Evolution per se cannot say which has more value. If you say "preserving the species is more valuable because it preserves the species" you have created a circular argument which yields no knowledge.

15. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160997 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Gilks,

your posts are far too long and muddy.

Of course, truth, logic and maths are relative. I don't think you'll find anyone who says otherwise, except some nutcase Platonist (e.g. catholic theologian).

You make me into your straw man: I never used the word 'ought' with truth. In fact, that is why the logical positivists couldn't justify themselves.

What is your question to me?

16. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160972 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Corylus,

'Moral' relative to today's western standards, of course.

I'm actually a really nice guy, if a little arrogant (not that anyone cares). But truth fears no debate, eh?

17. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160970 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Because ethical statements are expressions of desire not fact.

18. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160967 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 3:45 pm

n0rr1s,

I begin by thinking what their head would look like on a spike.

No, I behave in 'moral' ways, but cannot rationally say that way is superior to the ways of a cold-hearted assassin.

19. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160963 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Okay Zara:

The End.

I honestly think that you do not see reason sometimes. I wish you would read something like:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tkannist/E-texts/Wittgenstein/LectureOnEthics.html
(Wittgenstein on ethics)

20. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160950 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Zara,

And you are no academic.

Your errors were pointed out, you are just deaf to anything you do not want to hear.

21. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160948 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Corylus,

That's not an argument. I'm not trolling, just trying to point out common errors which people do not want to hear.

You may as well say Dawkins should 'quit trolling' in the bible belt.

22. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160942 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Kaiser,

I argue with my head, not my (cold) heart. I advise you do the same if you are to be taken seriously by me.

23. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160941 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Oh dear Corylus,

David Hume is most famous for arguing that even reason/understanding cannot give us reasons why we act, only how to act. Thus his famous statement:

"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"
(Treatise, Book2, part3, sec3)


You have completely misunderstood Hume by taking an extract out of context.

Indeed, Hume was the precursor and inspiration to the logical positivists such as Russell and Ayer, being an empiricist.

24. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160922 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm

The problem with some scientists is that they seek to demonstrate temporary cultural phenomena.

Trying to scientifically demonstrate the truth of something like 'human rights' is like trying to demonstrate 'nymphomania'. Behaviour can be explained, but not values. In the term 'nymphomania' we have a morally-negative connotation. Or, in the term 'invert'.

Evolutionary psychology is very fruitful and interesting, and it can explain *why* we behave in certain manners; but it cannot explain how we *should* behave. And this is what 'human rights' seeks to do.

25. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160914 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 2:39 pm

AD,

In three words, "God is dead". Or, in a few more, "If God is dead, all is permitted" (Dostoyevsky).

But values are useful. We overpower nations by imposing them, we grow by their means. Just because it's false doesn't mean it's useless.

Look at how we overpowered Iraq and Afghanistan by imposing "freedom", "democracy", "human rights". We now look down and judge China for "human rights abuses". To moralise is to put yourself on a pedastal.

It's a power game, nothing more. And if you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself.

26. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160907 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

TCT,
"equality, freedom, concern and sympathy for others" all derive from Christianity in the west (see Matthew 5-7: sermon on the mount).

Remember Christianity was a religion for the oppressed: the Jews under the Romans and under the richer Jews (Pharisees). The Romans, Spartans, Vikings, Samurai held no such sentimental, soppy values.

Even Plato considered compassion a vice.

I think you need to be more historical and objective.

And again, aggression & hatred can be useful feelings that we all share. But we do not value them in the west as Christianity, the perspective of the weak, has taken a 2000-year grip on our way of thinking.

27. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160900 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Quet.,

Humans also possess, unlike other animals, delusions (e.g. religion, prescriptive morality).

Secondly, whales and lions do possess intelligence. Culture cannot yield objective morality, as otherwise you would have to say the Bedia tribe did.

There's no fallacy in my arguments, only in yours.

28. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160896 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Zara,

Another meaningless response, thanks. Replace the words 'human rights' with 'Christianity' and you'll see the flaw in your rebuttal.

You're also blatantly 'begging the question': assuming what you seek to prove: we can be moral ('get along') by being moral ('human rights').

Get out of the circle, think straight and get serious! (as Jack Nicholson might say.)
Read the atheists I mentioned above.

29. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160876 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 2:00 pm

TCT,

Yes, we all share, say, aggression and hatred. These are human commonalities - does that make them human rights?

You cannot derive an 'ought' (e.g. 'human rights') from an 'is' (human commonalities). It's a logical fallacy, as mentioned.

I refer you to Bertrand Russell, A J Ayer, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Marx, et al, on this matter.

30. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160869 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Quet.,

You cannot possibly judge it as factually incorrect, only as not to your taste - as you would judge food or drink.

We are only animals. Do you judge a lion when it kills prey? Do you judge a killer whale when it tortures seals for its amusement?

Human rights is yet another 'false ideology', as Marx would say.

31. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160867 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm

TCT,

That is no contradiction as I am a moral relativist, not a cultural relativist.

This means I am not saying that you're being immoral in judging others, but simply that morals, like God, are delusions.

32. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160866 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Sarah,

If human rights can be justified with emotions, then so can religious claims. Proof (rational or empirical) is needed.

Just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's true. The Bedia tribe feel differently.

33. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160859 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Typical is-ought fallacy there, TCT.

34. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160857 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Human rights are not actually universal, but particular to the modern-age West. In a few hundred years they will pass.

35. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160844 by Henri Bergson on April 14, 2008 at 1:22 pm

You commentators here are being very naive: you cannot judge another culture from your own culture's perspective.

'Human rights' is just a western notion that, like 'God', cannot be proven.

In other words, you're all acting like frenzied religious nutcases pushing your unjustified perspective on others.

36. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #152113 by Henri Bergson on March 30, 2008 at 6:40 am

Americans...

Humanism is Christianity without God.

This gives atheism a bad name.

37. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #152097 by Henri Bergson on March 30, 2008 at 5:19 am

Why has this website not yet mentioned Geert Wilders' anti-Islam film?

38. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152095 by Henri Bergson on March 30, 2008 at 5:14 am

This is evolution in action: non-survival of detrimental characteristics (low intelligence).

Or, natural eugenics.

39. The Secular Conscience

Comment #146903 by Henri Bergson on March 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.

Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).

40. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144475 by Henri Bergson on March 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

So Americans are so extremely thick and uneducated now that they have to use pretty pictures to make a scientific case...

The solution is the re-introduction of a sterilisation programme.

41. The atheist delusion

Comment #144288 by Henri Bergson on March 15, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Zara,

Don't defy me. I beat you before, I'll beat you again.

If you are denying Dawkins is liberal, I would like you to state your case and answer the Strauss challenge. If not, forever hold your peace.

42. The atheist delusion

Comment #144284 by Henri Bergson on March 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

It's Gray's point. That the 'New Atheists' are Anglo-American Victorian in their reasoning; having missed the German incursion.

43. The atheist delusion

Comment #144277 by Henri Bergson on March 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm

To give him some credit, Gray has understood Nietzsche's point.

Liberalism is a legacy of Christianity. Dawkins is very Christian in this sense.

If anyone foolishly disagrees with me, I would ask you to rebut Leo Strauss' observation that, "Liberalism cannot be proved correct anymore than Fascism or Communism can be."

Dawkins is a great, logical speaker. But he annoys me when he speaks of liberal values as definitively true. He is clearly a cultural Christian in this sense, even more than he realises.

Liberalism cannot be proven.

44. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143680 by Henri Bergson on March 14, 2008 at 9:51 am

But Hedges is a fundamentalist himself - a liberal fundamentalist.

Therefore, he's against himself.

As Leo Strauss said, "liberalism is no more factually correct than is Fascism or Communism."

Hedges' cant about people lacking empathy is his fundamental value, one which is unverifiable as 'good'.

He's so undereducated and a product of the PC movement. These people must be eradicated.

45. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127484 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 10:38 am

Here in Europe Americans do have a reputation for being very dumb. There are reasons for stereotypes.

Even when I was doing my Master's, the American students were very biased (politically correct to the extreme) and undereducated.

I now cringe when I hear an American try to be intellectual. It is a prejudice, but one with some justification.

I think the underlying reason is that money is valued higher than knowledge in the US.

This is an example, very funny:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=q566ys0sqVQ

46. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127377 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 8:02 am

Mornington Crescent.

I win yet again.

47. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127331 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:54 am

Not playing your strange games here, but I'm actually popping out to Gloucester Road. (Does this mean something here?)

48. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127323 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:46 am

Oh, sorry irrate-atheist, I didn't realise this forum was all about reading about your changing moods and taste in clothes.

49. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127316 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:40 am

If we're all in London, we could settle this dispute with an arm-wrestle. I'm in Kensington if anyone fancies a debate over beer...

Anyway,

Zara,

Indeed nutrition is essential for power. Although it's at the rudimentary level.

Physical growth and knowledge are essentially different degrees within the same principle: 'will to power'.

50. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127289 by Henri Bergson on February 15, 2008 at 6:19 am

Irate,

Uhh? I know the station in Camden....

Zara,

You write,
"Survival is the lowest form of power, it's the condition." [me]
I am not sure I can actually get any sense from this statement."

This is the missing link.

Survival is the condition of growth (things have to exist in order to grow). Growth is what I mean by power, be it physical, mental or social. Life is growth (in part).

This is in part a Nietzscheanism.