It's fairly common for religious people to think that non-religious people are leading meaningless, aimless, worthless lives. — baker

Religious people are lead to believe all sorts of things. That doesn’t make what they believe true.

From the perspective of (some of) the religious, it is nihilistic, by definition so. — baker

What do you mean “by definition”? That isn’t the definition of nihilism.

The point I aim to make is that not believing in life after death, or being a materialist, or non-religious, is not nihilism. To believe that it is nihilism is denying reality and a rather extreme view, a grasping view.

What could be more nihilistic than to believe that life is suffering and the only way to escape the endless cycle of life and death is the complete extinguishment of everything that makes you you.

I think I would have expected your favorite to be less dark.

I'm listening to the audiobook and the richness of it is made a little richer with Kenneth Branagh reading.

:up:

The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution by Francis Fukuyama

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

The City and Its Uncertain Walls by Haruki Murakami

So much for the social contract ... — baker

I can't speak for other nations but the majority in the U.S. favor access to abortion. Just this month seven states passed legislation supporting women's right to choose. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say,"So much for the social contract..."

Where in the world is there a place where people won’t kill other people? In the United States the federal death penalty applies in all 50 states and U.S. territories. There was around 20k murders in the U.S. last year.

Progressivism really is like a secular religion, complete with the Paradise of Power to the People through Big Brother Federal Government. Republicans are the party of the immoral, selfish and stupid. Dems are the party of the morally upright, the community based, and the brilliant thinkers. — Fire Ologist

It seems rather contemptuous of religion to reduce it to mere political and social philosophy.

Looking at that giant ideology gap between young men and women in South Korea made me think of the 4B movement that started there around 2017-2018. I happened to read something about it the other day. The movement is supposedly getting some traction in the US since the election.

I’m a liberal Democrat. I don’t like losing elections and we shouldn’t be. Democrats govern and Republicans destroy. We should be the majority party, but we’re not. Here are some suggestions about how we might go about fixing this. — T Clark

Frankly, I don’t think the current state of affairs allows significant fixing. Democrats will have a comeback after Trump/Republican policies destabilize the economy, there’s a downturn, and Americans look to the alternative party to get out of the hole. Rinse and repeat.

Most abortion debates get nowhere because they're focusing on the personhood status of the unborn or the lack of such status, rather than looking at the intention for abortion and the implications of such intention. — baker

What are the implications?

Thats only a problem if you believe value derives from evolution, a proposition you presented but which I dont hold. — Ourora Aureis

If not evolution then from God?

You even mentioned social and cultural factors yourself, but then you immediately overule them with the gene propagation idea. — Ourora Aureis

I wrote that valuing human life is ingrained and the reason (you requested reasoning) I think it's ingrained is because it promotes gene propagation and the survival of our species.

I already presented why I think people hold these values, and its mostly a case of religious philosophy, not some innate emotional reaction that derives from their biology. — Ourora Aureis

I thought you were asking me why I value zygotes. Granted religious thought has been somewhat ingrained in me even though I've never really been religious.

There's a bit of all-or-nothing slight of hand going on… — Banno

There’s a lot of really bad slight of hand going on. According to Malcolm Gladwell, it takes 10,000 hours of practice to master a complex skill.

If your entire position is without any rational thought and is simply driven directly by your genes, then Im not sure how you would defend it or even justify it to yourself. It also is a false scientific explanation, since zygotes are a part of modern knowledge that couldnt have evolved into our psyches, which you can see by the vast majority of humanity having no emotional issue with zygote termination. — Ourora Aureis

If it were necessary for zygotes to have ‘evolved into our psyches’ then there couldn’t be a minority that values them.

Alright, have it your way. Why do I value human life? I think it’s deeply ingrained, shaped by a mix of biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors. I think the reason valuing human life is ingrained in me is basically because it promotes gene propagation and the survival of our species.

Looking forward to your counter argument.

they’d kill him — NOS4A2

Via inept SS?

It seems like there’s a point to these questions so please, let’s skip to the point.

From what you just said, I'm assuming I was wrong and that you value life from conception? — Ourora Aureis

I never kid about zygotes.

Your point being that if I value persons I should also value zygotes? I do value zygotes.

I recognize the image on the right as a person. I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.

If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?
—praxis

The one on the left is what the one on the right looked like about 9 months earlier. In those 9 months, what changed for you? — NOS4A2

I recognize the image on the right as a person and I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.

I don’t want us to have to talk about my crappy reasoning yet, — Fire Ologist

I doubt waiting will improve it. I’ll just assume that, like myself, you don’t recognize the image on the left as a person.

What are those qualities, besides Caucasian, and hair? — Fire Ologist

We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we?
— praxis

Absolutely not. Probably a bottomless pit. — Fire Ologist

:roll:

Again, this provides no insight into why an adult and a baby are both persons, but a zygote is not. — Fire Ologist

Babies and adults have qualities that match my concept of ‘person’.



I assume by not answering that you do not recognize the image on the left as a person just as I don’t recognize it as a person.

Basically, why do you think a new born baby is a person? — Fire Ologist

I already explained because I recognize it as such.

What “personal” things are you recognizing about a new born baby? — Fire Ologist

We can see many personal things about the baby in the picture. It looks caucasian, has light hair, etc.

If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?

I recognize the image on the right as a person. I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.

If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?

the same question from way way back that I’ve asked multiple people over and over to directly address in any way — Fire Ologist

You asked specifically about the aspect of individual recognition in personhood and I responded. You said my response was interesting and good. We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we?

what is “individual recognition” anyway? — Fire Ologist

Referring to someone as a human being emphasizes their biological identity as a member of the species Homo sapiens. Referring to someone as a person focuses on qualities that go beyond biology—like individuality. In the following image, we can see clear meaningful differences that distinguish two persons in the upper portion of the image. The bottom portion of the image shows virtually identical twin embryos. There's nothing to distinguish the twin embryos as different persons so how can they be persons?

What leads you to believe it is not a person? — NOS4A2

I can’t touch, feel, smell or hear it. Visually it doesn’t look like a person to me. Do you see a person?

This is not a picture of a person, Fire.

Some people may think it's a person because that's what they've been led to believe.

There is a reason that people have been led to believe it's a person. Is that reason based on morality or something else?

When does “person” or “human being” happen so that it matters in discussion about abortion. That’s the money time period or moment. — Fire Ologist

The term "person" highlights aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition rather than strictly biological features.

Did you really need someone to explain that?

So if you're a 2nd Century BCE Carthaginian, it's moral to sacrifice babies to Baal. — frank

I suppose that pro-life advocates must view Josseli Barnica and Navaeh Crain as necessarily sacrifices based on religious beliefs. The more things change the more they stay the same.

In the news today, Josseli Barnica from Texas died of an infection because doctors couldn’t properly treat her miscarriage.

I looked it up and the Catholic Church considers abortion murder, so if you’ve been involved in an abortion somehow and are unrepentant, and maybe especially if you’re unbaptized, you’ll be eternally separated from God. I think that means damned.

And about being damned, the damning is eternal. The eternal part of eternal damnation is far from incidental, if you asked me. :grimace:

Essentialism tend to mean that there are fixed attributes — Tom Storm

Something that exists in a life from conception to beyond life and regardless of the physical condition of any part of life sounds pretty fixed to me. Also, immortality is an attribute, an eternal attribute.

I’m not sure what it means for something to equate with essentialism.

Catholics believe that the soul is immortal (can’t die or decay) and is the essence of a person from conception (maybe before that?) to beyond the grave. Physicality doesn’t seem to matter so what could change it?

Do you think essences immortal or something? — Fire Ologist

No, but Catholic's do. If the immortal soul isn’t the essence of someone then what is it?

Are you saying immortal equals unchanging?

Why is that? — Fire Ologist

I hate to answer a question with a question but can you name anything that doesn’t die or decay?

Ok, just above, you said Catholics have to be essentialist because Catholics believe in an immortal soul.
I then said that this doesn’t follow as there is nothing about the amorphous term soul that requires belief in essentialism.
You agreed they can be amorphous. — Fire Ologist

It's not the amorphous nature of the concept that makes it essentialist, it's the immortal nature. We touched on this before you volunteered your faith and took a defensive posture. You agreed with me that everything seems to be in a constant state of change, but then also said that you could be wrong and things may exist that are static and unchanging.

Catholics don't believe that souls are mortal.