To take the position that the OT is the literal and sole source of truth runs you head first into the problem that the OT advocates stoning and other terrible acts. If you choose to creatively interpret those problematic verses, I question why you accept your own interpretation but not of the ancient rabbis.

What I really hear you saying, however, is something more innocuous, which is that you're troubled by the idea that much religious doctrine is obviously man-made, so you want to hold to the notion that the Torah, at the very least, is a reliable, untainted, authentic statement of God, unmitigated by the imprecise hand of man.

Can't help you there, though, because it's not. — Hanover

To use your term, at least Sisyphus isn't thirsty then, with all those water boys catering to him.
In other words, with the above line of reasoning, you've joined the lines of secular humanists, existentialists, etc.

The phrase “pro-life” pertains only to the abortion debate, not to other matters. — NOS4A2

And a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so great minds are against abortion and in favor of capital punishment.

I don't see mental health as a secular/atheistic concept. I see it as a human one. Mental wellness. — Moses

Sure. But as long as you live in a secular country, your mental health is going to be assessed by secular/atheistic standards. You don't actually have the feedom to declare yourself mentally healthy on your own.

Perhaps if one first believed in the Bible, and only later became afflicted with a disability.
But having a disability first, and then trying to cope with it via adopting a religious narrative that was until then foreign to one doesn't seem like a viable course of action to me.
— baker

You see things however you want; it's not your life at stake. You don't have that task.

On the contrary. I have tried to make sense of my predicament by turning to religion. It failed.

Yes in terms of how one ought to frame their disability, I believe the exodus dialogue is uniquely special. You could frame a disability any number of ways, most of which are toxic.

But from what you've said so far, it appears that you're framing your religiosity in a solitary, isolated way, and it's fully dependent on remaining that way. Are you a member of any organized religion?

It's not my interpretation — Tom Storm

You framed it that way earlier on.

and your assuming that actually Nazi's actually followed their ideology even in adversity.

In WW documentaries, I have heard of suicide letters from them that give me reason to believe that they in fact did. In those letters, they said things like, "I cannot bear to live in a world ruled by an inferior race".

I also had a friend whose father was a real Nazi from WWII. I got to know him. I have reason to believe that these people would rather die, even by their own hand, than live under the rule of those they deem inferior to themselves.

Sure they haven't killed themselves but how's their mental health? How do they view their own condition and place in society? That's the real question.

How healthy are they, mentally? IMHO the exodus narrative is the best one for mental health. — Moses

"Mental health", as assessed by secular, atheist psychology/psychiatry?

IMHO the exodus narrative is the best one for mental health.

Perhaps if one first believed in the Bible, and only later became afflicted with a disability.
But having a disability first, and then trying to cope with it via adopting a religious narrative that was until then foreign to one doesn't seem like a viable course of action to me.

Can you provide direct quotations?
Your interpretation is not in line with Nazi ideology. It's certainly an interpretation in line with what many people _wish_ that the Nazis would think and feel, or what many people believe that the Nazis _should_ think and feel, but that still doesn't make it the case.

I would actually certainly be dead. Suicide. — Moses

Yet there are people with a speech disability who don't believe in God, and yet seem to be doing just fine.

Belief in God isn't necessary in order to cope with a disability.

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter whether there's a perfect secular moral system (even it was "objective"). Even if there was, why should anyone care? — Moses

It does matter, so that people can direct their lives best.

Spend your time how you see best fit.

Except that it's often not clear what that is; people sometimes wonder, sometimes they are deeply perplexed, about what that would mean to "spend one's time how one sees best fit".

Unless one is very fortunate, the set of moral principles that one was raised with will probably sooner or later be challenged, or even proven counterproductive, so that one will end up in a moral crisis. And then one will possibly try to resolve that moral crisis, such as by reading various philosophical and religious texts and discussing them.

Personally I basically have to believe in God otherwise I would probably be dead. — Moses

How do you know that?

Until you can demonstrate -

1) which god is true;
2) which understanding of that god is true;
3) which religion is true;
4) what that god wants;
5) which holy book is true;
6) which interpretation of that holy book is true

- you don't have a reliable basis for moral behaviour. What you have is a claim coalescing around a series of subjective interpretations, in search of a totalizing meta-narrative. — Tom Storm

But in order to make such a demand for demonstration, you're already working out of a totalizing meta-narrative.

IOW, you're already decided which god is true, which understanding of that god is true, which religion is true, etc.

Every anti-abortion argument I’ve heard has to do with the termination of human life, so I’m not sure that’s accurate or a fair interpretation of what they care about or want. — NOS4A2

Yet many pro-lifers are in favor of capital punishment, so, clearly, the termination of human life is not all that repugnant to them. So it must be something else that leads them to oppose abortion.

The view that it is wrong to procreate is not the view that no one procreate. It is normative: a view about how ought to behave, not a view about how we do behave — Bartricks

I'm asking you what you make of the fact that people are able to procreate (some people, at least; the ability to procreate is not a given).
What moral implications does this fact have, according to you?

Extreme unending agony. — Bartricks

That requires belief in one's eternal damnation. This is a very specific belief.

They were more afraid of the reprisals than dying and end his life destroying everything they built during Nazi Germany. — javi2541997

Again:

How do you know that?
Can you substantiate your claim with empirical evidence, or is it just conjecture?

Not really. It was mainly driven by fear. Fear of being held responsible and of being put on display and fear of reprisals. — Tom Storm

How do you know that?

Can you substantiate your claim with empirical evidence, or is it just conjecture?

A quick test is developed for the presence of this structure. You take it, and of course, you are positive. Unfortunately, your loved one is negative: They are a P Zombie.

How would you respond? — hypericin

People tend to treat others like zombies anyway: "You are whatever I say that you are. You feel whatever I say that you feel. Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are." People tend to treat others as if those others don't really exist, as if they are merely shells with no inner life, other than the one stipulated by other people.

I would thoroughly enjoy abusing them, although I'm not sure I would enjoy it actually, knowing that they aren't actually suffering. — bert1

You can never know that anyway. It's why revenge is such a drag.

a women — _db

A womAn.

Asian culture, whatever it might historically have been long before America was a twinkle in anyone's eye, must play some role internally here as well, meaning their values must also be leading them toward STEM based occupations, without manipulation by the powers that be. — Hanover

Yes. There's research on this, e.g. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why.

A suicidal doesn't expect to fail the attempt — javi2541997

Presumably some suicide attempts are intended to fail to begin with (the harm inflicted upon oneself is clearly not grave enough).

To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent. — Bartricks

The problem with the innocence of infants is that it doesn't last, it's corruptible, inherently so. It's not innocence proper, one that would last.
For your argument to work, the person would need to remain innocent, be incorruptible. Corruptible people get what they deserve.

One does not have the right to impose a lifetime of injustice on another person just because you want to have a little baby to look after. — Bartricks

But what do you make of the _fact_ that people are able to do so and do it?

How can we intelligibly talk about the _right_ to have children, when there is no instance that would grant or revoke that right; instead, people just do as they please (and many do have children)?

If you can do something (ie. if you're able to do something), this is already an indication that the universe works in such a way as to grant you that, ie. it gives you that "right". It is in the case of you wouldn't be able to do something that the question of whether you have the right to or not can be brought up.

Nevertheless... we have to highlight that Adolf Hitler killed himself before seeing the loss of Nazi Germany — javi2541997

Not just he, but many other Nazis as well.

So death is a great harm to the one who dies. A huge harm. It's one of the biggest. — Bartricks

What's the bigger harm (or harms)?

Suicide causes immeasurable pain and suffering to those who knew the deceased. Parents never get over it. You'd be causing immeasurable suffering to your parents and siblings. — Moses

More likely, it's those same parents and siblings -- and friends or a spouse -- who actually drive a person into suicide.

More pertinent than suicide is the prevalence and relevance of people wishing that someone would kill themselves (or generally, that they would die).

Do you agree that it is contrary to one's interest to kill oneself, extreme unending agony aside? — Bartricks

The sad irony of it all is that it can be the same people who tell you not to kill yourself who also wish you would be dead.

I have responded to many individuals who wanted to kill themselves. In every case I've seen it is because life has become unbearable through chronic pain, the loss of a loved one, major depression, sexual abuse, trauma - that kind of thing. Most people do find a way to work through the issues and

find reasons to live. — Tom Storm

The real question is whether those people who failed in their suicide attempt "found reasons to live" because those reasons were somehow already present for them prior to the suicide attempt, or did they find them precisely because they seriously attempted suicide.

It is imaginable that a serious suicide attempt (one where the reasonably predictable outcome of the method is death) brings about a special change in the person's cognition (on a biochemical level).

Note how suicide survivor stories differ: those who survived falls from great heights or gunshot wounds to the chest or abdomen seem to be far more optimistic than those who survived a medication overdose or slit wrists.

how does that apply to Asians? — Hanover

I heard (in a documentary about immigration in Australia) that Asians, specifically, the Chinese, tend not to be interested in politics and government, because the Chinese hold politicians to be a "lower class of humans", they don't see going into politics as a respectable career choice; they see it as something necessary, but not respectable. This is one of the reasons the Chinese tend to be underrepresented in politics and government in multicultural settings (such as Australia).
I suppose similar could hold for other Asian ethnicities.

Good riddance; and good luck, comrade. — 180 Proof

He's not your comrade and you're not his, and you know it.

And this is how right-wing authoritarianism wins: By "good people" doing nothing and just being all politically correct, destroying some small offenders while letting the actual villains be.

Dogs bark, and the caravan goes on, straight into hell.

Misogyny at its finest.

Because the whole world doesn't revolve around you ...

*sigh*

On the contrary. It was the Church who was in favor of the separation between Church and State. The Church had good foresight: this separation is actually in the Church's favor. It's because of this formal separation that the State (and outsiders to the Church) are not allowed to interfere in matters of religion.

Jesus said pray in private. We know the agenda of those who pray in public--nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus. — Jackson

Irrelevant. Outsiders are not in the position to judge the contents of a religion or whether a particular religious person adheres to their professed religion. The secular constitution gives religious people the freedom to "practice their religion in accordance with their conscience" and this trumps every objection from outsiders.

Honestly I don't think it was coercive. An atheist can stand by respectfully while the Christians do their rituals. That's emotional maturity. — Tate

"Emotional maturity" that results in favoring Christians.

Christians do not respond with the same "emotional maturity" when atheists want to do their atheist things.

Or the coach can have some maturity and stop doing the prayer when asked.

Then he'll complain about his right to freedom of expression of religion is being denied.


More to the point, if a student's coach or mentor has strong religious inclinations, this can reflect in how he treats his students, ie. by prefering those who have the same religious views as he. The coercion needn't be explicit to be powerful.

Unless a student has a powerful mummy and daddy, it's probably best to publicly go along with the coach's religious views (if the student's sport aspiration is vital for the student), or else change sports.

As someone who works in addiction and metal health services there are many people who find the theism of AA and NA counterproductive and unhelpful. God is also a barrier. They prefer SMART recovery models. I personally think whatever works is useful because it's better to be a nascent theist than a dead heroin user, right? — Tom Storm

Don't forget that in some (Western!!) countries (democracies!!) the person doesn't actually have a choice as to which recovery program they will join or which the court mandates them to join.

No, I'm talking at least about some Hindu doctrines of karma, Buddhist doctrines of karma, popular doctrines of karma.

It seems you're implicitly trying to figure out which doctrine of karma is the right one, yes?

Which account of karma are you assessing? — Tom Storm

Seconded. It's meaningless to discuss "karma" without reference to a particular doctrine of karma (there are several of them).

Based on what evidence? The technologies created by scientists are open to abuse by the nefarious and by self-interest or just incompetent decisions made by those in power. — universeness

Not at all. Already the "regular" use of scientific achievements is what causes pollution. Plastic waste is plastic waste, regardless whether produced by an honest, hardworking man or by a glutton.

Again, keep to the text:
— baker

Again, try to improve your clarity.

Look up a textbook for learning English, under the chapter "Giving short replies".

The dismissal of those with existential concerns is done by those who have relatively low aspirations in life.
— baker
Do you consider such people a large majority of the global population?

Yes. Look up the DSM; "a religious problem" and other existential issues are actually listed as signs of mental illness.

We live in very imbalanced rich/poor conditions. It is harsh to judge the aspiration level of any individual who has had poverty imposed upon them since birth and very limited or no opportunity to escape it.

Having relatively low aspirations in life has nothing directly to do with poverty. There is plenty of very rich, very educated people who nevertheless have relatively low aspirations in life. Their aim is the pursuit of sensual pleasures in their various forms, and that's it.

I assume you are not female.

Why do you assume that?

No woman I know has ever raised any concern about such.

Because they know that for a woman, it is best to be a fool, a beautiful little fool.

So even they spell it as "as a women, I ..."

Just like any other case where if you know it will harm, and it is unnecessary to do so, you wouldn't do it. — schopenhauer1

What is "unnecessary"?

Is refusing oneself the satisfaction of one's ego "unnecessary"?