I do have family and this discussion shouldn't be about religion it should be above religion.
Its not about a believe its about thinking beyond.
Religious believes are not that deep. They provide a basic answer without depth to questions we have.
'Sacred' is just a very basic answer to a complex topic. Its like 'where is my goal post? Oh its over there by 'Sacred''.
You need to be above religion to be mental free btw. and you also make a basic mistake: Just because i have certain views on one level, doesn't mean that I live them like this.
You've misunderstood if you think I am making a religious argument. I am simply pointing to the religion as evidence that the belief in the sacredness of infant life is universal.
You are the outlier with your misanthropic belief.
And you don't understand that my point of discusison is not a point of the masses but a logical one.
It doesn't matter if religion also sees this as sacred because religion and religous people stoped thinking and moved their goal post to "the bible says and god".
Alone having your goal post at this point is a strong indicator that the thinking is flawed.
Logic does not have any bearing on what is sacred; meaning arises from a domain of experience that lies outside logic. That is well known both ontologically and in the realm of neuroscience - not that someone with such a narrow view of the world as you would care. It's clear all you are trying to do is defend a view you hide behind. What is below that is despair, and below despair, fear, and below fear, feeble mindedness.
Nature is not inhernatly good and evoluitionary behaviours are also not. You have to separate yourself from this base and think through it holisticly.
You just don't break through through your indoctrinational thinking.
And while religious people see humans as 'sacred', religous people have very little issues of being on the wrong side, constantly.
You remember the pope of the christians? Ratzinger? The figure of moral and ethik of religion for a while? You know what he said regarding the abuse of children? I will tell you: They thought this wouldn't create a lasting impact and felt its more critical to keep the facade for the church than speaking up about the abuse.
How many religious people want humans dead?
I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm not a person who hurts people i'm a person who helps. At least in 2 situation were no one else was helping.
I'm happy to discuss this properly until we get a combined view or a better discussion.
You started with this statement: "It is their capacity for consciousness (however nascent) that makes them human, and therefore, sacred." without any real argument.
I criticie this directly because saying something is 'sacred' is not a conclusion. You are either going in the direction of anthropocentrism or spiritual humanism but thats it. The discussion has ended for you. You accepted in your thinking that humans are 'sacred'. Without an real logical argument.
Its the same thing a lot of people just do. They stop when they found something which looks satisfactory to them.
You state then in the next comment, that you also thinking through stuff like this for a while and argue that just because others came to the same conclusion than you, that this is correct / more correct than others.
You don't explain how 'sacred' is not just a goalpost and you argue that others have the same result makes it valuable.
I counter argue that just because historical people say this, doesn't mean anything.
"Logic does not have any bearing on what is sacred; meaning arises from a domain of experience that lies outside logic."
This is uterly ignorant in my opinion. If you believe this, you are BELIEVING but you are not arguing and its not logical. There is no way for us than to align because either we have the same 'experience' or not.
But logic is more and its narrow. The cognitive bias link to wikipedia i send, is the 'experience' part you speak of. We has humans need to surpass these 'experiences' and think more rational about them to fix them to understand when and why we make mistakes.
Thsi is the reason why someone might believe in a wonder vs. the other person questioning it and finding out that the tears of that one statue has a logical conclusion and has nothing to do with a wonder. We are fundamentaly flawed as a human.
I really try to understand you, i really try to convay my thinking.
I came to the logical conclusion of nihilism by 14. I'm not living as a nihilist but i fully accepted it. I do understand how people perceive this world including your viewpoint of sacred, this doesn't change the underlying principle of our being: We are fundamentaly a result of evolution, consciousness might just be an emerging feature of the complexity of our brain / neural network and can happen in a machine. We do not know how/why the universe was created in what space and why we exist. There is no conlusion to this and we just don't know.
Our uniqueness and everything which had to come together to form us, is special because I or you define it as special which is okay but thats a self defined property of some people. Biological speaking / evolutionary speaking, we do have patterns in our brain which support this due to very basic evolutionary things.
You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and badly in this thread as well. We ban accounts that do this, if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
Also, could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We also ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
