Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that put a strange significance on making new people? There's some boundary where you can't abort or your child is born and then they definitely have a purpose, even though 5 minutes before reaching that boundary, they didn't
> There's some boundary But there's nothing that says that boundary has to be birth. It would depend on when you think a person exists. Some people would say that happens at conception. Others would say it doesn't happen until well after birth (indeed some philosophers have said it doesn't fully happen until adulthood).
There's a place for everyone
71–77 of 77 posts
Re: There's a place for everyone
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Etymologically speaking, spirituality is related to, well spiritus, related to soul, spirit, vital principles and so on. Religion on the other end comes from religare, which means to bind. Can you see the difference in meaning of this two words ? One talks about ethereal things without boundaries but the other bounds you to something… To answer your point, spirituality is broadly speaking your relationship with the i…
> spirituality is broadly speaking your relationship with the invisible world. Is life to you purely material, explored only through the senses or is there more ? By "invisible" I doubt that you mean simply "unable to be seen with the naked eye," since there are of course many things that are only visible using tools (microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras, etc.) By "invisible" you might mean aspects of the world…
But, I enjoy the arguments you brought forth, so let me try some more :)
>The assertion that an immaterial thing exists, but its existence and any effect of its existence are utterly unobservable, is no different from asserting that the thing does not in fact exist.
The "unobservable" part here is where we differ : I had subjective experiences that no one could ever, ever deny happened that prove, to me, that spirits exist. Now, when I told my friends about it, they did not believe it. Mostly because drugs were involved. I get it, I would have said the same before the event happened, but now, it totally changed me as a person.
So-called quantum changes exist, inside and outside the context of drugs : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15048692/
>So life is effectively purely material. One may assert that there is an unobservable unsensible immaterial reality, but this assertion is ultimately meaningless to us.
I find funny that for the most part of humanity, your view would have been deemed incorrect. It was mostly after the so-called Enlightenment that we have globally accepted this as true, but take any being from the year 1500 and below, and bring them here, they would deem us crazy. Are we truly more evolved than those cultures of yore ? Is our world driven by advertising, mental crisis epidemics, ultra-processed food and commoditisation of everything really gives us the right to call us more evolved, and therefore, to say that our view is more correct than the ones before ? More and more I don't think so.
But again, that's the beauty of my system : it encompasses yours. You don't have to have faith for the spirit world to engulf you, and you may give it several names, like "luck", "randomness", "coincidence", whereas my system will at least try to give it meaning, and therefore connect it to something.
Both work !
Re: There's a place for everyone
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's some boundary But there's nothing that says that boundary has to be birth. It would depend on when you think a person exists. Some people would say that happens at conception. Others would say it doesn't happen until well after birth (indeed some philosophers have said it doesn't fully happen until adulthood).
Is evolving into something with purpose also a purpose? Then unfertilized eggs have a purpose - to become fertilized - and if you aren't making that happen nonstop it's as bad as killing someone.
(Note that unfertilized eggs do not "evolve into" humans--only fertilized eggs do. So even on its own terms your argument is not valid.)
Re: There's a place for everyone
#74Well my place in the job world was just outsourced overseas to one of the billions of unique people over there.
Re: There's a place for everyone
#75How many of these niches actually pay enough (or provide enough other benefits) to have a decent quality of life? I think that's the real limiting factor in "finding your niche".
That's a fair point. I kind of hate that the world has come to this. Everything needs to be justified through an economic lens. I wonder if life was easier in the past with regards to this.
Re: There's a place for everyone
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is evolving into something with purpose also a purpose? Then unfertilized eggs have a purpose - to become fertilized - and if you aren't making that happen nonstop it's as bad as killing someone.
The article says every person has a purpose. As I said before, people's opinions might differ on exactly when a person exists during the human developmental process, but as far as I know nobody has ever argued that unfertilized eggs are persons. (Note that unfertilized eggs do not "evolve into" humans--only fertilized eggs do. So even on its own terms your argument is not valid.)
I think if fertilized eggs are people, so are unfertilized eggs. There's really not much difference between them.
Re: There's a place for everyone
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article says every person has a purpose. As I said before, people's opinions might differ on exactly when a person exists during the human developmental process, but as far as I know nobody has ever argued that unfertilized eggs are persons. (Note that unfertilized eggs do not "evolve into" humans--only fertilized eggs do. So even on its own terms your argument is not valid.)
Unfertilized eggs have the purpose of turning into fertilized eggs, which either are people or have the purpose of turning into people. I think if fertilized eggs are people, so are unfertilized eggs. There's really not much difference between them.
The article doesn't say or imply this. Unfertilized eggs aren't persons, and the article only says every person has a purpose.
> I think if fertilized eggs are people, so are unfertilized eggs. There's really not much difference between them.
Fertilization doesn't count as "much difference" to you? Hmm.