3 ms·
> Nature does not exist for humanity's comfort or aesthetic preferences To be fair, in most religions (including christianity and atheism) it kinda does
by nlitened 1y ago
> Nature does not exist for humanity's comfort or aesthetic preferences
To be fair, in most religions (including christianity and atheism) it kinda does
- goatlover 1y agoDoesn't matter what those religions claim, nature existed long before humans and exists beyond humans and will exist long after us. On earth, there are living creatures with their own motivations that inhabit all the remote wildernesses and deep seas. And life may exist on other planets.
- nlitened 1y ago> nature existed long before humans and exists beyond humans and will exist long after us If this is true (and I believe it is), then it does not really matter much what humanity does in the big picture. Might as well drain some swamps and seas to reclaim some land. > On earth, there are living creatures with their own motivations that inhabit all the remote wildernesses and deep seas You can both acknowledge that, and believe that human must do what's good for humans and animals that are good for humans.
- Scarblac 1y agoAtheism isn't a religion and as an atheist I find that an offensive statement. Nature existed before we did and will exist after us, it can't be true that it exists for us.
- nlitened 1y ago> it can't be true that it exists for us You're saying it as if you assume some external entity judging whether something exists for somebody or not. As an atheist you would acknowledge that the entire concept of "existing for something/somebody" is entirely a construct of human mind, which human mentally applies to the observable universe around them. So for an atheistic human mind, everything exists for human, as there's nobody else to exist for.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rexpop 1y agoWe're putting too much pressure on the word "for", here. There are no great truths to be found at this level of linguistic imprecision .