Infanticide

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:45 am Conscience isn't mystical. It is psychology but not the psychology limited to secularism but is universal in scope.quote
1954
“We will be destroyed unless we create a cosmic conscience. And we have to begin to do that on an individual level, with the youth that are the politicians of tomorrow…. But no one, and certainly no state, can take over the responsibility that the individual has to his conscience.” Albert Einstein
My gut feeling is that humanity as a whole is not ready for it. This is why the question of the thread cannot be answered. It requires respecting the entire cycle of life rather than arguing small segments. But as long as we have the Einsteins, and Simone Weil types, they reveal the psychological path leading to conscious evolution: from the secular to the universal if only for individuals if nothing else.


Nick,
Ok, conscience is psychological, which necessarily means subjective, but it is not to be secular but universal, how is this subjective property to become universal yet not secular? Where does the meaning inherent in conscience come from? Conscience arises I believe from an identification of the self with others as self, thus compassion arises as conscience. You seem to be hinting that the source of these things is other than humanity itself----no? What is this universal quality and how does it manifest itself. I believe you previously inferred that conscience is or should be objective but it could only be made objective by a conscious subject bestowing said conscience upon the physical world which is in itself meaningless. All right lets assume that the subject is to acquire universal conscience what does that mean? A path leading to conscious evolution inferrs a methodology, what might that look like? Responsibility to one's conscience inferrs compassion for one's self, if in doing so, does that involve a larger concept of self incorporateting humanity in general, thus a universal conscience of the individual?

I begin with the premise that humanity exists and functions in what Plato described as the darkness of Plato’s cave attached to the shadows on the wall so incapable of experiencing and reacting to reality. We are asleep in Plato's Cave. So the human problem isn’t learning anything new but how awaken to what already exists. Consider how Einstein describes conscious human potential.
"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self." - Albert Einstein
We are caught up in being a part of a whole and defending the part while oblivious of the whole we are a part of. It is the preoccupation with the self that causes this delusion and prevents us from the experience of conscience which is really feeling the value and necessity of the whole. That is why Einstein defines the value of a human being as freedom from the conditioned self.

If humanity as a whole is ever to consciously evolve it will require freedom from the indoctrinated self and begin to feel the wholeness we are within (conscience) in which everything is related and our obligation to it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Infanticide

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:08 pm Just off the top, atheism is a negative, not a positive, and the idea of an atheist creed is a positive, not a negative.
Actually, the statement, "There is no God" is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies.
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Infanticide

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=565139 time=1647916190 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=565060 time=1647878933 user_id=15238]
Just off the top, atheism is a negative, not a positive, and the idea of an atheist creed is a positive, not a negative.
[/quote]
Actually, the statement, "[i]There is no God" [/i]is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies.
[/quote]

The "hard" form of atheism is broadly known to be the lesser and almost non-existent variety and i believe you're being disingenuous with your straw man there.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13975
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Infanticide

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:45 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:29 am
Advocate wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:08 pm Just off the top, atheism is a negative, not a positive, and the idea of an atheist creed is a positive, not a negative.
Actually, the statement, "There is no God" is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies.
The "hard" form of atheism is broadly known to be the lesser and almost non-existent variety and i believe you're being disingenuous with your straw man there.
Is that like 'hard' afairyists? Those people who foolishly feel confident that there is no such thing as fairies and other supernatural entities like, for instance...gods?
promethean75
Posts: 7113
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Infanticide

Post by promethean75 »

"Actually, the statement, "There is no God" is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies."

Not for theological noncognitivists it ain't. We say the very word 'god' is meaningless, so statements with the word 'god" in them - excluding statements like this one about such meaningless, itself - can't be 'true' or 'false' because they are nonsensical.

The dapplenogger is eternal and loves the world.

Is that statement true or false? This is a trick question. It's neither.
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Infanticide

Post by Advocate »

[quote=vegetariantaxidermy post_id=565171 time=1647937642 user_id=8006]
[quote=Advocate post_id=565150 time=1647920739 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=565139 time=1647916190 user_id=9431]

Actually, the statement, "[i]There is no God" [/i]is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies.
[/quote]

The "hard" form of atheism is broadly known to be the lesser and almost non-existent variety and i believe you're being disingenuous with your straw man there.
[/quote]

Is that like 'hard' afairyists? Those people who foolishly feel confident that there is no such thing as fairies and other supernatural entities like, for instance...gods?
[/quote]

It's much easier to ensure oneself there are no gods because people have been trying without success to prove there are gods since always. All versions of god contain impossible, ineffable, or mutually exclusive attributes and are therefore indistinguishable from fiction. I haven't studied fairies. There may be some version of fairy that is plausible, because they at least have a bound form and an Earthly presence.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Infanticide

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:27 am
Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:45 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:29 am
Actually, the statement, "There is no God" is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies.
The "hard" form of atheism is broadly known to be the lesser and almost non-existent variety and i believe you're being disingenuous with your straw man there.
Is that like 'hard' afairyists? Those people who foolishly feel confident that there is no such thing as fairies and other supernatural entities like, for instance...gods?
Just so long as you don't go around insisting on the, "creed," of a-headless-horsemansim. Everybody knows, "There are no headless horsemen" is a positive knowledge claim.

I'm going to risk saying anything that has no properties but impossible ones, like omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, but cannot possibly be seen or detected by any physical means probably doesn't exist. If the description were true, there wouldn't be anything else. If something has all the power, presence, and knowledge there is, there would be nothing left over for anything else. Contradictions never stop those who choose to believe fairy tales from believing them, however.

My apologies if I sound like a, "hard' afairyists."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Infanticide

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:45 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:29 am
Advocate wrote: Mon Mar 21, 2022 5:08 pm Just off the top, atheism is a negative, not a positive, and the idea of an atheist creed is a positive, not a negative.
Actually, the statement, "There is no God" is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies.
The "hard" form of atheism is broadly known to be the lesser and almost non-existent variety
Not at all. It's very common, even though it's totally irrational.

And there is no such thing as "hard" Atheism versus "soft" Atheism, as if it makes the case better if one says, "Well I don't know there's not a God, but I hope not." That just weakens the Atheist position so much it does not even get beyond mere agnosticism. For "I don't know..." is a very timid and narrow claim...nobody else really needs to care if Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris "does not know" things. There are things that many people "do not know."

But people like Harris and Dawkins want much more mileage out of their Atheism than that. What they clearly want to say is, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't, too." :shock: And if they don't get that "bang" out of it, they would both obviously be terribly disappointed.

So Atheism is either an absolute positive claim (i.e. "I am certain there is no God, and you should be, too.") or it turns wimpy and spineless and devoid of any serious implication (i.e. "I happen to be one of the people who has no knowledge of God.")

Which kind do you recognize as Atheism, in your own vocabulary? Do you actually, positively, refuse belief in God and think others should do the same, or do you merely want to say that Advocate personally happens not to know God? :?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

It is obvious that the modern normal mind cannot answer the question of the thread. But the real concern is that the normal modern mind has become closed to the essential question of God: "What is God"? if we don't understand, how can we understand objective conscience leading to respect for life? Can humanity as a whole come to grips with the question: What is God"? If possible, how to approach the question? If some do, they are in the minority.

Jacob Needleman in this short interview about his book "What is God" offers some ideas that may offer some food for thought for those minds which haven't closed.

https://sojo.net/articles/what-god-inte ... -needleman
What prompted you to write the book What Is God at this particular time?

Many years of teaching and writing books about philosophy and comparative religion have shown me the great unsatisfied hunger that exists throughout our culture, especially in the younger generation, for serious ideas that point to something that transcends the materialism, relativism, and absolutism that define the main intellectual options of our society. More and more, I have been deeply troubled by the prevalence of what I have come to call "toxic ideas" that form the basis of most of the answers offered to the great questions of the meaning and purpose of life. By "toxic ideas" I mean ideas that on the one hand deny the possibility of a higher reality in the universe and in ourselves, or that on the other hand deny the need and the value of developing one's own independent, critical thought about the fundamental questions of human life. I saw the recent, so-called "debate" about God as epitomizing both sides of this toxicity. I felt the urgency to try to call for an entirely new way of thinking about God.
Toxic ideas; this negativity which both closes the mind and diminishes the power of independent critical thought has become the dominant secular feature in intelligent society. Is there a way out? I believe yes for some. But be prepared to drink the hemlock in the future. Such an attitude cannot be tolerated.
Advocate
Posts: 3480
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Infanticide

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=565209 time=1647961099 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=565150 time=1647920739 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=565139 time=1647916190 user_id=9431]

Actually, the statement, "[i]There is no God" [/i]is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies.
[/quote]

The "hard" form of atheism is broadly known to be the lesser and almost non-existent variety[/quote]
Not at all. It's very common, even though it's totally irrational.

And there is no such thing as "hard" Atheism versus "soft" Atheism, as if it makes the case better if one says, "Well I don't know there's not a God, but I hope not." That just weakens the Atheist position so much it does not even get beyond mere agnosticism. For "I don't know..." is a very timid and narrow claim...nobody else really needs to care if Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris "does not know" things. There are things that many people "do not know."

But people like Harris and Dawkins want much more mileage out of their Atheism than that. What they clearly want to say is, "I don't believe in God, [i]and you shouldn't, too[/i]." :shock: And if they don't get that "bang" out of it, they would both obviously be terribly disappointed.

So Atheism is either an absolute positive claim (i.e. "I am certain there is no God, and you should be, too.") or it turns wimpy and spineless and devoid of any serious implication (i.e. "I happen to be one of the people who has no knowledge of God.")

Which kind do you recognize [i]as Atheism[/i], in your own vocabulary? Do you actually, positively, refuse belief in God and think others should do the same, or do you merely want to say that Advocate personally [i]happens not to[/i] know God? :?
[/quote]

That's not how those words work.

Atheism - i see no reason to believe in any version of god.
Hard atheism - i have positive reason to believe there is no god
New atheism - I see no reason to believe in any version of god, and you shouldn't either.
Agnosticism - I don't claim certainty with regard to my belief about god.
bonus: Igtheism - all versions of god are too ineffable to have a rational conversation about.

All of them are justified beliefs.
popeye1945
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by popeye1945 »

Nick,

Ok, I get it now, but it could be as easily called Holistic thinking or Cosmic thinking, one part of that I suggest is to realize that all life forms are of the same essence, all interrelated. What you suggest I do believe is of necessity to be realized if we are to save ourselves in maintaining that condition we call our environment. Part of the reason this will not happen is the scattered nature of the human mind, I don't see that changing. You still present a problem that is unresolved, " Objective Conscience", any creation of man needs first to be subjective, for the physical world is utterly meaningless, accept by the meaning that life bestows upon a meaningless physical world. So, if I were you I would chose another term, or articulate it in a manner that makes greater sense.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by Nick_A »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:32 pm Nick,

Ok, I get it now, but it could be as easily called Holistic thinking or Cosmic thinking, one part of that I suggest is to realize that all life forms are of the same essence, all interrelated. What you suggest I do believe is of necessity to be realized if we are to save ourselves in maintaining that condition we call our environment. Part of the reason this will not happen is the scattered nature of the human mind, I don't see that changing. You still present a problem that is unresolved, " Objective Conscience", any creation of man needs first to be subjective, for the physical world is utterly meaningless, accept by the meaning that life bestows upon a meaningless physical world. So, if I were you I would chose another term, or articulate it in a manner that makes greater sense.
You seem to be describing intellectual interpretation normal for the scattered mind. But conscience is "Feeling" or intuition. We can recite many reasons why infanticide or even genocide for convenience is reasonable. That is why these attitudes continue to exist.

However objective conscience is a deeper experience and beyond our usual negative emotions which justify absurdity. Simone Weil describes an experience of objective conscience.

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.
Where the intellect compares phenomenon through dualism, objective conscience establishes universal value of relative existence. In this thread for example it is argued that the fetus and the baby only have value when given it by the mother. Objective conscience defines value by its place in the universal life process which man and the slavery of the self as a whole no longer feels.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Infanticide

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:24 pm
Which kind do you recognize as Atheism, in your own vocabulary? Do you actually, positively, refuse belief in God and think others should do the same, or do you merely want to say that Advocate personally happens not to know God? :?
That's not how those words work.
Yes, it is: you can only say either "It's just me -- I have no knowledge of God," or "There is no God." And if you say the former then the logical consequence is that you cannot recommend your lack-of-knowledge to anyone else, or demand that he/she should not know what you confess you do not know.

Atheism is either totally irrational or totally powerless, depending on which form you choose.
popeye1945
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Infanticide

Post by popeye1945 »

"You seem to be describing intellectual interpretation normal for the scattered mind. But conscience is "Feeling" or intuition. We can recite many reasons why infanticide or even genocide for convenience is reasonable. That is why these attitudes continue to exist.
However objective conscience is a deeper experience and beyond our usual negative emotions which justify absurdity. Simone Weil describes an experience of objective conscience.

Where the intellect compares phenomenon through dualism, objective conscience establishes universal value of relative existence. In this thread for example it is argued that the fetus and the baby only have value when given it by the mother. Objective conscience defines value by its place in the universal life process which man and the slavery of the self as a whole no longer feels.
[/quote]

Nick,

Intellectual interpretation is all we have. it is fed by the more primordial parts of our brains. The brain evolved from the inside out thus feelings predate the frontal lobes, what you are speaking about is sourcing the reptilian brain and/or the brain stem. Genocide is never reasonable and is considered a crime against humanity, infanticide is sometimes reasonable unless you have some mystical belief that says otherwise. If a fetus is a monstrosity that can be determined today ahead of time, it would be immoral to bring it into this world simply to suffer and expire slowly. Objective conscience still seems to me to be a nonsense phrase what about it is objective?

"Universal value of relative existence," does that mean in English giving value to all life forms? "Objective conscience defines values by its place in the universal life process." quote Temporality is one of the most prominent aspect of reality the other being being itself. Do you believe that human life is in some way superior to other life forms? Define for me it you would, the slavery of the self as a whole in which it can no longer feel?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Infanticide

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:58 pm
Advocate wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:45 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:29 am
Actually, the statement, "There is no God" is a positive knowledge claim. It proposes that the speaker knows for certain that there is no God. That the Atheist cannot establish such a claim is just the first of Atheism's incoherencies.
The "hard" form of atheism is broadly known to be the lesser and almost non-existent variety
Not at all. It's very common, even though it's totally irrational.

And there is no such thing as "hard" Atheism versus "soft" Atheism, as if it makes the case better if one says, "Well I don't know there's not a God, but I hope not." That just weakens the Atheist position so much it does not even get beyond mere agnosticism. For "I don't know..." is a very timid and narrow claim...nobody else really needs to care if Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris "does not know" things. There are things that many people "do not know."

But people like Harris and Dawkins want much more mileage out of their Atheism than that. What they clearly want to say is, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't, too." :shock: And if they don't get that "bang" out of it, they would both obviously be terribly disappointed.

So Atheism is either an absolute positive claim (i.e. "I am certain there is no God, and you should be, too.") or it turns wimpy and spineless and devoid of any serious implication (i.e. "I happen to be one of the people who has no knowledge of God.")

Which kind do you recognize as Atheism, in your own vocabulary? Do you actually, positively, refuse belief in God and think others should do the same, or do you merely want to say that Advocate personally happens not to know God? :?
Still tilting at windmills, err, atheists, I see.

Christianity sure makes people stupid. Not believing (or even considering) something, like not believing in astrology or the transmigration of souls or the Phoenix being a rare bird in Arizona, in the demented mind of a Christian becomes, "a positive knowledge claim."

One better not claim to not believe in Zeus, or Allah, or Thor, or Wooden. Those would be positive knowledge statements that can't be proved.

There is no god ever believed in, when those that believe in it actually describe or define their god, that is not as absurdly impossible as any god in history or any other impossible superstition popularly embraced. That is a positive knowledge claim. Not being gullible enough to believe or even consider any such superstitious nonsense asserts nothing. It's something one does not do, not anything anyone claims.

What is a bit dismaying is that Christians actually know this, but they flat out lie about it, because Christianity needs enemies, and since very few people who aren't Christians give a damn about it all, they have to make them up.

Who cares what Christians believe and practice. It harms no one else directly. There may be a few crackpots who have chosen to make anti-Christianity their pet project, but such are rare, unlike Christians who universally consider anyone not embracing their views and practices as their enemy worthy of the most horrendous possible punishment, which they positively claim will happen and look forward to with glee.
Post Reply