if you don't like it, hey at least I tried

[attemptatthought]

The actual answers to your questions

1. Where did the world and humanity come from? What is the origin of life?

The universe always existed, but it evolved from an initial state via a process called the Big Bang. Life arose from non-living matter via a process called abiogenesis. Humans are primates, and share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other primates that existed several million years ago. Anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago, before gradually migrating across the globe.

2. What is the purpose of life? Is there a deeper meaning to existence?

There is no “purpose” of life. There is no “deeper meaning” to existence.

3. What is right and wrong? How should individuals conduct themselves in their actions and relationships?

Right refers to utility, wrong refers to disutility. Individuals should seek utility and avoid disutility in all pursuits.

4. Who are we as individuals? What is the nature of the self or soul?

There is no soul. Consciousness, the self, is an emergent property caused by neurological processes.

5. What happens after death? Is there an afterlife, and if so, what does it entail?

There is no afterlife. Death is followed by oblivion, a cessation of experience.

6. Is there a higher power, deity, or divine force? How does it relate to the world and humanity?

There is no higher power, deity, or divine force.

7. Why does suffering exist? How can one deal with pain and adversity?

Suffering likely evolved as a survival mechanism, to inform the subject they are in some kind of danger and to react accordingly. Beyond that, there is no deeper reason as to “why” suffering exists. Both suffering and death exist, ultimately, as simple aspects of sentience [suffering] and life [death]. One can seek to remain calm in the face of hardship, and find practical ways to mitigate its presence.

[attemptatthought]

Another update to my view on abortion

What should be allowed

          Aborting a non-sentient unborn

                    Aborting prior to the 3 weeks

                    Aborting an already dead unborn

What definitely should not be allowed

          Aborting a sentient unborn

                    Aborting after 3 weeks

Addressing proposed exceptions to the 3 week rule that I see as worth discussing:

Danger to the life of the pregnant person but not to the child

Aborting for this reason, though easy to sympathize with, ultimately seems like too much of a selfish act. I believe the more moral thing to do would be to accept your own death by allowing the child to be born. It is a hard thing, but we should be putting the lives of children ahead of our own. This is altruism.

Danger to the life of the pregnant person and to the child

This situation is truly nightmarish. It may be the only time when I think it would actually be justified [I shudder to use that word even now] to kill an unborn child. This is purely a “lesser of two evils” scenario. The two evils are as follows. Do not abort, and both the pregnant person and their child will die. Do abort, and only the child will die. In the former evil, two people die. In the latter evil, one person dies. Even though the latter evil is something as horrific as the death of a child, I am forced to admit it is the lesser of two evils in this extreme situation. But having said that, I emphasize extreme caution and proactiveness. We should never be loose with our definition of “danger”. These are sentient lives we are talking about. And if the truth, however obscured, of a situation is that no sentient life needs to die, not the pregnant person or the child, then we are without excuse to insist or allow that one or both die.

[attemptatthought]

God is a twisted idea

I am a perfect being

I will now create a universe

This universe will have imperfect beings

And they will worship me

Or else

If they don’t worship me I will punish them

If they don’t love me and praise me I will harm them

I will make them suffer and die

This is my universe, these beings belong to me

I can do no wrong

I am a perfect being

[attemptatthought]

Slight update to my view on abortion

Life is directly morally relevant when that life is sentient

Sentience is the most honest basis for personhood

This is why I view other animals as people, as they are sentient as well

Even if something is non-living but sentient, like an AI, they are morally relevant and a person

But hypothetical artificial intelligence and non-human animals is not why I am musing this

I am writing this about the unborn humans

If life is morally relevant upon having sentience, then the question of the morality of abortion rests on the sentience or lack thereof of the unborn

A newborn child, or neonate, is sentient and will continue to be

Logically, this means that not long before birth the child was also sentient

But the further we go back, the more debatable the question of sentience becomes

The biological basis of sentience, and by extension personhood, is the nervous system

Among humans, the nervous system begins to form at 3 weeks of gestation

The human nervous system completes development around 25 years after birth

This is why I believe that 25 years is the beginning of adulthood, rather than 18 years

But by this logic, I am forced to acknowledge that the beginning of childhood is 3 weeks of gestation

The beginning of life is conception, the creation of the zygote

However, this life does not become sentient until 3 weeks later

If a human life is truly not sentient prior to 3 weeks, than I have little excuse to call that life being destroyed for the sake of sentient life immoral

Life that will, if uninterrupted, eventually become sentient is not something I see as trivial, but I don’t see how eventual sentience can take priority over current sentience

So if I was to choose a form of abortion that I believe could be morally permissible and as a result legal would be abortions that take place before 3 weeks of gestation

For the same reason, lack of current sentience, I would allow the abortion of an already dead unborn [this technically counts as abortion but I seriously doubt this is what most people think about when they hear that word]

[attemptatthought]

Subjective and real

Depending on how we interpret the term “real”, moral realism could be correct even if we were to assume that morality is subjective

Subjectivity is part of reality, it is real

Morality is “real” in the sense that people really do subjectively experience moral feelings

And to call feelings “fake” would be to deny reality

Of course feelings are real, they are physical processes in our brains

Following this, moral “facts” are “real” in the same way that emotional “facts” are “real”

When you feel sad, that sadness is real, it is objectively part of your subjective experience

Someone making you feel sad is, at the very least from your perspective, “bad”

This feeling of badness is closely tied to feelings of sadness and any kind of unpleasant emotion that, while feeling, we would rather not be

So when we feel unpleasant emotions, we are also feeling “bad”

If badness is a feeling, or a generalization of unpleasant feelings as a whole, than badness is not really “fake”

To claim badness is “fake” because it is “just a subjective feeling” is like claiming sadness is “fake” because it is “just a subjective feeling”

Being able to describe an observable phenomenon, such as feelings in the brain, in terms of how it physically exists does not make it “fake”, in fact I would argue that is how we know it is probably “real”

So in this way, it is a moral “fact” that harming someone is “bad” because harming someone makes them feel “bad”

And if there are moral “facts”, this means moral realism is correct

[attemptatthought]

What may be the only necessary rule

Life needs one rule:

Be kind

Period.

Everything else is either unnecessary or another way of saying, “Be kind”.

Be kind to who?

Well it just says “Be kind”.

It doesn’t specify who, because you should be kind to everyone.

What if someone wants you to do something wrong, would it be kind to listen to them?

Ask yourself why what they ask from you is wrong

Is it because it needlessly harms someone?

If yes, that means it is unkind.

And because it is an unkind request, by following the rule of “Be kind” you can’t accept it.

Under the tenet of “Be kind”, murder, rape, torture, assault, slander, abuse, manipulation, intimidation, discrimination, hatred, negligence, classism, racism, sexism…

All the agents brought problems in the world are outlawed, under this tenet of kindness.

So what does it mean to be “kind”?

Being “kind” is having or showing a friendly, generous, and considerate nature.

Being “kind” is being affectionate or loving.

A consistently friendly, generous, and considerate person does not murder.

A consistently affectionate or loving person does not let hatred consume them.

The two biggest problems we face are suffering and death.

By consistently following a principle that holds kindness as paramount, we seek to assuage suffering as much as we can, to prevent or even conquer death.

By following a consistent principle of kindness, we confront suffering and death.

By confronting suffering and death, we confront all the essential problems of existence.

Therefore, the way to make the world a better place for everyone is to “Be kind”.

[attemptatthought]

quick post about big religions

The major religions of today can be divided into two categories.

The Abrahamic religions and the Dharmic religions.

The oldest Abrahamic religion is Judaism, though it is also the least practiced among the Abrahamic religions today.

The oldest Dharmic religion is Hinduism, and is the most practiced among the Dharmic religions today.

Hinduism is older than Judaism, though both of them have common roots.

Judaism evolved from Yahwism, which itself derives from the religion of the ancient Canaanites.

Hinduism was largely shaped by the historical Vedic religion, which has its own origins in the religion of the Indo-Iranians.

The respective religions of the Canaanites and Indo-Iranians can both be traced back to the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology.

There are differing schools of thought as to the origin of this mythology, but most scholars believe the myths came about to explain natural phenomena.

These natural phenomena ranged from social rituals and classes among humans to meteorological phenomena.

The major religions of today can be traced back to a common ancestor, which was likely formed as a means to explain phenomena.

These phenomena could more reliably be explained with natural and social sciences.

[attemptatthought]

Ending all life is NOT the answer (this shouldn't even be a debate)

The only humane and justified form of omnicide would be if every single living organism in the universe was fully aware of the existence of an eternal afterlife following their death, that this afterlife is preferable to being alive, and that they all voluntarily agree to commit suicide to go to that afterlife instead of unnecessarily having to keep dealing with this world

This is not the situation we are in, so an omnicide would be unethical and unjustified

We don’t possess certain knowledge of an afterlife, and if this afterlife would be preferable to being alive

Even among those who believe such an afterlife, the vast majority of them would rather not choose death prematurely in order to go there

And even if we assume they all did, there would still be several people who don’t believe and who, perhaps for different reasons, do not want to die

There is also the problem of how not only would not everyone agree to an omnicide, no matter what they believed followed it, there exist several individual organisms that aren’t even capable of consenting to something like that in the same way that we are

Several other animals, and all plants, protists, fungi, and monerans would be unable to consent to suicide

Several humans would also be unable to consent, such as children and the mentally disabled or otherwise impaired

Basically, this all means that under realistic circumstances, an omnicide would not be ethical, humane, justified, or moral

This is because it would be non-consensual killing, potentially lead to more suffering [if there is a worse afterlife], and [if there is no afterlife at all] could lead to the loss of all perception

If following death is the loss of all perception, this wouldn’t just be the end of suffering, it would be the end of happiness too

Ending happiness forever doesn’t sound like a good thing to do, especially when we could just try to make life better instead of being so caught up in the downsides of it that we consider putting an end to it all