RE: What is a person?
March 5, 2013 at 7:04 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2013 at 7:08 pm by jstrodel.)
(March 5, 2013 at 4:13 am)paulpablo Wrote: I would say it's a human being, any human being.
Quote:jstrodel Wrote: If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.
It's a good job you do believe in god jstrodel because you obviously have no natural empathy, the way you speak makes me think that without a belief in god you would behave like a psychopath and probably be in prison.
Are people bound to obey empathic feelings only if they have them?
(March 5, 2013 at 3:13 am)MysticKnight Wrote:(March 5, 2013 at 3:04 am)jstrodel Wrote: If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.
I think reason is a light/ocean/tree/garden and that it is both unified and complex. Language makes it complex but it's reality is one and indivisible.
Reason includes logic, morality, praise, honor, and value.
When you try to apply it to all sorts of things, it is divisible and complex.
When you reflect upon it's nature it's a vast ocean that is a light. It is a upside down tree that is rooted deep in unity but branches out in complexity.
Not really sure how this answers my objection.
