Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion
- Thread starter river
- Start date
some metaphysical systems work better than others
religious based metaphysical systems certainlt have a better track record than non-religious ones
aka
enter metaphysics
:shrug:
as I said, if you could introduce the concept without a requirement for metaphysical thinking, you would have a point.
Your talking about "thinking about humanity as a whole" is metaphysical discourse (hell, you even give humanity a capital "H")
Respect certainly is a metaphysical construct when you talk about it in a manner to prevent one taking advantage of another on account of them being weaker and posing some immediate benefit
well sure, but if you wish to exclude metaphysical precepts from the discussion you can't say that.
I think its becoming clearer that you don't know what metaphysics is
Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]
What is there?
What is it like?
And as a side issue, its difficult to even talk about a universal agreement on what the metaphysical nature of human experience is (for purpose of drawing up a list of social codes) ... much less your attempt to breach the subject in the same manner sans metaphysics ....
:shrug:
Not really since you are taking for granted that everyday human experience incorporates core metaphysical precepts.
For instance in some parts of the world (with a notable absence of such metaphysical precepts being regulated or orchestrated) everyday human experience entails might=right (eg rape, robbery, assault, etc)
What some parts of the world ?
And how do everyday people react to this terrible behavior ?
The misconception, that atheist propaganda creates, is that religion is only mythology, period. Religion is also about defining natural human behavior. The litmus test I use to differentiate natural human behavior is, natural human behavior does not require propping up with social mops, since such mops are not found in nature. I have never seen a social mop anywhere in nature.
For example, apes engage in a range of sexual behavior. This is natural for apes because there is no need for an expensive social program to prop this up. It is 100% natural based on the litmus test.
When humans copy ape behavior, you need a large social mop to prevent and clean up STD;s. This medical mop is not found in nature therefore this cannot be natural behavior for humans. It needs to be propped up to exist. It is natural for apes. Humans have will power and can chose unnatural or unnatural behavior, but only natural is mop free.
We can place wild animals in the zoo. This is not natural because it requires mops swung by zoo keepers. As long as the zoo keepers keep mopping, the animals might appear in their natural environment, to the naive. If the zoo keepers stopped supplementing the animals; mop free, there would be attrition and the unnatural would be obvious even to the naive.
If you look at love, love eliminates a wide range of legal and social mops.
What I don't understand is why science calls behavior that needs mops, natural? I am a scientists and this seems rather naive.
For example, apes engage in a range of sexual behavior. This is natural for apes because there is no need for an expensive social program to prop this up. It is 100% natural based on the litmus test.
When humans copy ape behavior, you need a large social mop to prevent and clean up STD;s. This medical mop is not found in nature therefore this cannot be natural behavior for humans. It needs to be propped up to exist. It is natural for apes. Humans have will power and can chose unnatural or unnatural behavior, but only natural is mop free.
We can place wild animals in the zoo. This is not natural because it requires mops swung by zoo keepers. As long as the zoo keepers keep mopping, the animals might appear in their natural environment, to the naive. If the zoo keepers stopped supplementing the animals; mop free, there would be attrition and the unnatural would be obvious even to the naive.
If you look at love, love eliminates a wide range of legal and social mops.
What I don't understand is why science calls behavior that needs mops, natural? I am a scientists and this seems rather naive.
.... in some parts of the world (with a notable absence of such metaphysical precepts being regulated or orchestrated)
fight (ie might = right) or flight
errr ... no.
I just said it was but one of two responses to widespread civil disruption of a region
The Taliban fight, for example. But you probably don't think their fight is a good thing.
And not just some parts of the world. It is the common experience across the world, in all walks of life. The modes and methods vary, but the principle is the same.
For example, the average employee in the US fears their boss, fears workplace mobbing, fears losing their job and so on.
Killing someone may take a second to pull the trigger on a gun, or a few years of exhausting 12-hour shifts at an office. Either way, the person ends up dead.
That is a metaphysical claim. And it's a claim that cannot be scientifically evidenced, unless you downplay respect into suggesting that respect is merely a form of politely keeping one's distance.
And what will you do with all those who disagree with you? Which may be a considerable portion of the human population.
Hence we have lost our humanity towards each other and religion hasn't quelled this attitude
We have understanding and empathy towards this person we are letting go and the only way to do this is to think in terms of Humanity towards letting someone go
Such as helping this person , ahead of the time of letting them go , in contacting other companies to see if they could perhaps hire this person
So that , we are letting you go but this company would be interested in you , for example