Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's not the issue. Deciding if and when it is permissible to end a human life, what it means to be human, and how to make and live in a just society has very little do with what someone believes about the afterlife. Whether we acknowledge it or not, everyone has a philosophical world view.

Personally, I find non-theistic appeals to the "golden rule" and evolved empathy to be such loosely held principles that one could justify almost any horror that is personally or collectively convenient at the moment. That is not to say that poorly formed and rigidly held philosophical and religious convictions don't often result in judgmental and heartless choices, but corrective measures and restraints are contained within those traditions that are not available to atheistic ones.

When societies spiral into war and atrocities are committed I don't imagine it is on account of which philosophical world view the main players hold.  I mean that in the sense that such considerations rarely factor in for the worst of the worse.  What they do then doesn't follow from their failed philosophical views but from their particular psychological twistedness and character failings.  You can say, "well if they'd just embrace xtianity this would never happen" but you know, it wouldn't happen either if I was simply appointed absolute ruler of the earth.

Sure. 90% of all wars are about natural resources and imperial aspirations. I guess I just have a pre-modern sense that philosophy is not simply an academic disciple; but rather,a means to improve one's character by the pursuit of knowledge and virtue. I always have. I also believe, like John Adams, that a free society that preserves individual liberty can only be maintained by a moral populace. IMO, the Anglo-American slave trade wasn't upheld by any firm principle. Instead it was thoughtlessly tolerated as a seemly practical necessity for an oligarchical economic system. The supposedly 'natural order' rationalizations and 'biblical' cover for the practice were there just so people didn't have think too much about what was really happening. It wasn't until people with strong religious and moral objections to it did things actually change.

And I don't mean to derail the thread, but in my mind, abortion is very similar in the sense a truly horrific practice is permitted based almost entirely on the material convenience of adults or disingenuous concerns about a child growing up in poverty. The whole notion that a woman's bodily integrity and volition are the only things at stake depends on denying the humanity of a very young human being. Similarly, even if a someone's health is so severely compromised that they seem completely unresponsive to life on what basis does someone else decide for them if their life is "worth living." What is it exactly about human life that makes it valuable? If we don't have any convictions about that then making a decision on-the-spot and persevering through the long-haul IMHO would most likely be based on one's personal convenience and practical needs. The case of Martin Pistorius comes to mind.

I have to wonder, when confronting fears and apprehensions about how their life will be affected by bring the child to term or caring for the severely disabled, and if people truly considered what it means to be human, they would make much different choices in such dire circumstances. These are not the only issues. We could just as easily be talking about any number of issues; I just went for the low-hanging fruit.