dimreepr

I wonder if you'd be saying that 100 year's ago? The parable of the madman, is nearly always out of date.

Okay... I guess you have to walk a mile in another man's shoes, if want a blister.

No, not when you take into account the context of his life. Besides, if you search for a truth you expect to find, you can't be scared of it.

In this case it's just a matter of ease, I was listening to a podcast on my google tab, and I had that image saved. It's only a poor approximation of the real translation/quote (but close enough) that was taken from a letter he sent to his sister explaining, if memory serves, why he's turned his back on the church. Every true faith is infallible. It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search. Friedrich Nietzsche

I only introduced it as an illustration of what you were saying, also in keeping with OP, his belief and then rejection of God was due to his father (devote priest), and his illness and death, which is a big tick for nurture, because his nature is very rational and deep thinking, until, later in life, his decent into mental illness.

That's up to you. We could discuss how your interpretion of his work differs from mine, or we could discuss how he basically answer's the OP, with his body of work.

I think, trying to solve the problem is only complicated because we think it has to be solved within the current economic system; which seems determined to crash into the mountain, rather than land before we get there. The human race can afford to house and feed everyone...

What did Kant say about religion?

Indeed, although I had to read your posts in the truth conversation twice, once with me spec's off. I think Nietzsche spent his life, once he lost his faith, trying to find a replacement for God, for the athiest.

Sounds like "a brave new world"...

You could just spit it out, but that would be rude... 🙂

Because you're talking about it, instead of grinning... 😉

Which is what we've all argued against, several times. Imagine you're just minding your own business, going about your daily routine, not necessarily happy but content to survive on the floor, where they've fallen, until a Samaritan offers a helping hand. What your offering, is a contract that state's "if you can't get yourself off the floor, it's the hemp fandango.". Don't imagine that you're immune to life.

No one is asking you too, it's up to you if you want to aquire a taste; so, why are you still arguing about it? If you don't like it, don't taste it; but you'll have to accept a certain amount of societal pushback, think of it like your mother saying "if you don't eat your greens, you can't have any pudding.": the other side of the coin, so to speak, IOW sometimes it's better to just grin and bear it; it's not a poison, it's just yuk. 😝 See above. 🙄

I doubt I can teach you anything, but it's worth a try...

The merits of eugenics is as specious as your argument... 🙄

Well, it's certainly biased...

Well, I'm guessing that you're employed, boss...

So what happens when you run out of work? It's like saying, no work no value; and we all know where that ends... 😉 In answer to the OP, every person should be included, just in case they're valuable. 🤞

Reductionism fails because of tomorrow and becomes less and less relevant with every succeeding tomorrow. You can't reduce consciousness, mostly because we can't understand the concept beyond ourselves; but also it's binary, because at the middle the spectrum consciousness is a switch and therefore it's a binary question; how do you reduce a binary question?

Yup fair enough +1, I read his post through the lense of my bias, sorry @Genady...

Don't worry, you'll only get into trouble, here, if you use bad faith arguments 😉 or insult's (in this context). It does in the context of the thread, assuming we consider a geologist is a scientist and therefor is considered rational in their beliefs; scientifically it's not rational to believe the earth that old. So @Genady suggesting that, is conflating that one belief with religion; it's like saying science isn't rational because of phlogiston.

And that just begs the question... 🤔

You're scraping the barrel, with that argument in the context of this thread.

I thought I did... What about the idea of karma, do you disagree with?