Unseen

Simon Paynton wrote:

If people want to be free to be stupid, whose right is it to stop them?

As someone who used to condemn people who refused to mask up or get vaccinated or stay home, I’ve seen experts and studies that throw doubt on all of those things I used to preach. Maybe those experts and studies are in the minority, and if one simply…[Read more]

The Freedom to Harm article raises an interesting question in my mind. Atheism may not be a religion per se, but it is a religious position (a position on religion), and the day may come when we want to assert a right to a “religious exemption” using the same sort of law that in Mississippi and elsewhere gives religious people an exemption.

Let’s…[Read more]

Re: The Brave New World of Synthetic Humans

Of course, the various religions may all decide that such manufactured humans will have no soul and so are at least an abomination if not also a work of the Devil.

But there are serious ethical questions for the rest of us, starting with this: Would these people have any rights at all? Would they exist…[Read more]

How would the church deal if confronted with the fact of intelligent life elsewhere than on Earth?

In the case of Christianity, would the demigod Jesus Christ also be the savior of intelligent pond scum on the surface of the planet Kepler 62F? Or would God have provided them their own pond scum savior?

This potential encounter been a theme, at…[Read more]

Why do Christians “seek atheists’ approval”?

It’s no mystery. Speaking as a one time Christian who was dragged to church for many years in childhood and went to church out of habit as an adolescent, there’s one thing I knew then that was confirmed in my Philosophy of Religion studies:

Two of the three main Abrahamic religions, Christianity and…[Read more]

Wittgenstein, certainly one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, famously once said, “The belief in the causal nexus is a superstition.”

Yet, causation is a superstition that plays a huge role in the law, as does time.

jakelafort wrote:

Forseeability and proximate cause are concepts in negligence law and elements of claims. So causation or our perception/understanding of it is an integral aspect of legal claims. As one might expect it is not required of a plaintiff to demonstrate the PARTICULAR harm resulting from the negligence, only that some harm of that…

[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Do you believe that enough people trying to listen to that mess of overlapping dialog could actually understand most of the questions and answers? Vivek does that all the time, and I wonder if fast talking while looking more confident than a used car salesman might actually prove to be an effective campaign strategy.

All I know…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen, i agree with all you’ve written in your shrinkflation post. I am seeing shrinkflation detonation. It is really bad. Apropos of not much i have always despised cow’s milk. It is pretty weird for an adult to drink milk and then of a different species. I have switched to oat milk and find it not great but better than mil…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

I think narcissism is amoral – competitive – seeking “my” benefit – rather than moral – cooperative – seeking “our” benefit.

You’re just proposing a definition, basically, which doesn’t constitute a proof of anything. It’s just you expressing your attitude.

Davis wrote:

I think that all moral systems deal with actions and consequences.

Is that true or is it that any system which didn’t do so wouldn’t qualify as a moral system?

Narcissism is built on a moral system which asks things like How does this affect me? or Does doing this give my enemy an advantage?