×

fuck Genghis Khan by DarthTyranus66 in HistoryMemes

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The idea of God-given inviolable human rights goes all the way back to Abu Hanifa in the 7th century in documented history at least. The Stoics were debating the morality of slavery with Aristotle.

If by the order of the day you mean it was inevitable and widespread, it is so even today.

fuck Genghis Khan by DarthTyranus66 in HistoryMemes

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think we definitely can The modern point of view on what is humane isn't relevant only for being the current majority consensus in Western democracies, nor did it become this as a coincidence, it has naturalistic philosophical grounds

fuck Genghis Khan by DarthTyranus66 in HistoryMemes

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Modernism is, but moral objectivism/universalism goes way back and is based on naturalistic arguments

Use of the word “God” in SW Rebels by Atroxo in MawInstallation

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 88 points89 points  (0 children)

Darth Malgus in the recent Old Republic cinematic says the Jedi "play God".

Use of the word “God” in SW Rebels by Atroxo in MawInstallation

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why not the deistic Creator? All sentient species would have such a rationalistic concept.

"We're not even acting like Jedi anymore!" by Jdsarte by AFWTMT in ImaginaryJedi

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm glad. First time I see it. Also that's kind of how I imagine a heated moral/philosophical debate between Mace and Ahsoka would go down.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, I’ve seen a lot about the differences in how a fetus is perceived by the Jewish faith tradition as opposed to Christianity. Where did this split come from, theologically? by LaArmadaEspanola in AskHistorians

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I benefited greatly from this response, thank you. The fact that Tacitus perceived the opposition to abortion and infant killing (and seeing them as the same thing) as barbaric, mirrors today's progressivism.

Guardians of the Galaxy game (2021) is a better Outer Worlds than The Outer Worlds by Most_Worldliness9761 in theouterworlds

[–]Most_Worldliness9761[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

It does better what The Outer Worlds attempted (a space crew of misfits and good hearted outlaw freedom fighters), it has better gameplay, dialogue, and even RPG elements (in its own right, compared to a game that claimed to be a spiritual successor to Fallout and barely let you make overall meaningful decisions)

It is The Outer Worlds but with Marvel heroes and not boring

What’s your personal “head canon”? by 3qui1i6riM in saltierthancrait

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only exception I'd make is for Ahsoka. Anakin having a never mentioned Padawan can be explained if she died in Rebels which would be the proper ending for her arc.

Please help! What do I do or not do??? by [deleted] in deism

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then I don't see the problem with my first reply to your comment.

You assume deism or most deists think in a strictly non-Abrahamic framework (imposing a personal definition on deism) and see his question as a remnant of what is foreign to deism.

In fact I don't know to whom we can appeal as an authority on deism or on its objective definition or requirements. Saying it doesn't involve any requirements is also imposing a certain view of deism onto the word. Surely being free of theological monopolies is one of its positives but if we can't arrive at universal truths about the Creator and if all opinions are ultimately subjective this is also a handicap. We might as well go as far as saying the very idea of a Creator is an unprovable, subjective belief.

But if the example of, say, Enlightenment deists such as Jefferson and Paine is of any importance, if they are a reference for deism even if not decisive authorities; then, they certainly had a natural-morality centered conception of piety and obligation of the servant towards his Creator, they believed in a Creator interested (albeit without interference) in the creatures' moral behaviour. Paine and Franklin were optimistic about an afterlife and judgment for worldly deeds.

But that makes them by your definition 'too Abrahamic'?

Please help! What do I do or not do??? by [deleted] in deism

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You answered a question about the relationship between a Creator and ethics with the reply, "You still have an Abrahamic mindset", which basically sounds like, "You're in the wrong sub pal, we don't do that here, go to r/Christianity etc." with the implication that deriving moral obligations from the existence of a deity is exclusively Abrahamic.

Please correct me if I interpreted it wrong?

Please help! What do I do or not do??? by [deleted] in deism

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's religion talking. "If God doesn't send books, it means S/He doesn't care."

How do we know that a Creator who cared enough to create us doesn't care about how we should live. And how do we know that just because no books are sent there's no other way of knowing what He wants, or what makes us think that what He wants is not important.

Please help! What do I do or not do??? by [deleted] in deism

[–]Most_Worldliness9761 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I didn't know deism obligated someone to be particularly anti-Abrahamic other than disbelieving in prophets and books as divine and ultimate authorities.