Einstein kept science and religion separate. One can be religious and be a scientist, but mixing the two produces nonsense.
Of course, but beliefs by themselves are harmless. If you want me to adddress actions you will have to be specific.
I'm not dancing. I'm trying to find the words that make you understand. Beliefs and actions are different things. Sometimes beliefs influence actions and sometimes they don't. Sometimes actions influence beliefs and sometimes not. Your patronizing questions are, frankly, ridiculous. Your demeanor says I should be impressed with your astute questions. I'm not.
The idea that actions are dissociated from beliefs hits me as weird - maybe even schizoid. One might moderate acions based on political ralities (like, showing too much disdain for the poor could be socially awkward). But, if actions are actually separated from belief I would suggest help is needed.
Ah... the religion of Albert Schweitzer, who saw "reverence for life" as the ultimate goal of Christianity. [He lived his beliefs, abandoning a career as a famous concert organist in Europe, to set up and manage a hospital in poverty-stricken Africa]. Re abortion: yes, abortion is philosophically fraught - and horrible, but in this broken world of gross disadvantage (largely due to political/economic choices of individuals) - abortion may become a necessity in practice. Eliminate the gross economic disadvantage, and the necessity for abortion as a 'escape' from unendurable economic reality is diminished. But how far does your "respect for human life" extend? eg, as far as supporting an international rules-based system, ie, extending the rule of law to deal with relations between nations, which implies the de-legitimisation of war, and eradication of poverty?
My meaning for the 2nd paragraph in the above post is better expressed thus: Re abortion: yes, abortion is philosophically fraught - and horrible, but in this broken world of gross disadvantage (largely due to political/economic choices of governments) - abortion may become a necessity in practice. Eliminate the gross economic disadvantage, and the necessity for abortion as an 'escape' from unendurable economic reality is diminished.
No, I'm quite aware of the Epstein saga....did you change the topic from abortion? I said abortion is related to economic disadvantage. And poverty is associated with higher birth rates, as you know.
Copulation is not considered to be a 'faith' issue, whereas abortion is held to be as such, on the conservative religious Right. (I wonder how many abortions have resulted from the Catholic Church's ban on birth control....)
You mean...is sex related to abortion (or vice versa)? Well.. didn't you learn about the birds and the bees, and all that stuff? (I'm waiting for you to make an intelligent point re abortion)
Let's see... "Respect for life"? Including a rules-based system to aid in the achievement/maintenance of same? Or maybe Anarchy (in the Libertarian definition of social organisation without government )? Or maybe religious dogma ( but you claim not to be religious) Too far off topic? Ditto for abortion and "respect for life"? You are entitled to disagree, preferably as well as demonstrating the capacity to explain your position. Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology) <<Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defence mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.>> Time for some reflection?
So you're still dodging the question. No surprise there. You're going to be waiting at least as long as it takes you to develop the capacity to recognize an intelligent point - sorry for any inconvenience.
As per previous, I strongly doubt your actions are divorced from your beliefs other than for near term practicality or trade offs with personal benefit.
If you make an important decision, and your emotion goes one way and your intellect goes another (let's ignore any distinct volition for the sake of argument), would you expect there to be many decisions where you would go against your intellect?
1. You have contradicted yourself: you claim (a) I am dodging the question, and (b) I am not intelligent enough to understand the question.....which of these contradictory claims is correct? Obviously if (b) is true, then (a) is wrong.... In any case, you can persist with your little game... I prefer the substantive debate which is: The concept of "respect for life", and what are the implications of this concept for one's thoughts, actions and beliefs. [I noted some of the problems re the (in particular) Left/Right debate on abortion, from the viewpoint of "respect for life"]. Perhaps you might assist 'fmw' who wasn't able to describe/define "respect for life" (in his post 730).... or even 'Spooky' who wasn't able to discuss the problems inherent in identifying Jesus with Jehovah (in post 727)….. difficulty possibly based on cognititive dissonance which I explained in post #745. So, even if I'm just not intelligent enough to engage in debate with you, perhaps you can condescend to assist those fellow debaters on this thread ...
Ah...(Just wondering if it's not my lack of intelligence that's the problem after all, but maybe comprehension skills): I took your question to read: <<How about copulation: is it related to abortion>>. Answer: Obviously yes....doesn't need answering. But if your question reads <<How about copulation: is it related to economic disadvantage>> Answer: no; rich and poor copulate, depending on factors not related to (but may include) economic disadvantage. (How am I doin'….?)
