My oginal point still stands: superman wouldn’t murder some CEO, a supervillian on the other hand? That’s an entirely different story.

That’s a supervillan. CEO’s don’t have superpowers.

Explain to me how Superman couldn’t have stopped him without deadly force? He easily could’ve, doesn’t make any sense. This context is also absent of the knowledge of the value of the extremes of the selflessness being common knowledge.

I didn’t even imply that people aren’t heroes. I said: they’re superheroes because they have super powers; humans don’t have super powers. Humans aren’t superheroes

I think the closest we get from a real world’s point of view—in contrast to anything thats ever existed, would be our capacity for selflessness, not only individually, but especially collectively.

I’m not saying I agree with the ethical choice this hypothetical superhero in question made.

No they’re not. They have no super powers, they’re only human. One of which you would be yourself if you shared the same circumstances.

Supervillians are one in a million (friendly reminder that they dont even exist). There’s seemingly an infinite amount of people that would replace every last CEO we kill. And behind every dead body, is a family, friends and who knows who else that would only be given the incentive for revenge; The “vicious cycle” of an eye for an eye.

Yeah but that’s a supervillian, not yet another CEO admist the sea of all the others. Superheroes don’t want to have to kill at all but against evil of that magnitude, they feel as though they must because to not would mean the lives of countless others, so they make that age old ethical choice of killing one to save the lives of potentially even millions.

Superheroes aren’t murderers.

Superman wouldn’t do what that murderer did.

Hey I just wanted to let you know I’m going to be taking the time with your comment at some point either today or tomorrow. I’m sorry for the delay I’ve been too busy. And I want thank you for taking the time at all, can’t tell you how much I appreciate it.

By the way if you’re looking for more evidence check out my post: Socrates, The Story of Jonah, and Jesus.

Never said I did, and it takes far more then that to be considered a Christian to Christians, depending on which type of Christian you’re asking of course. (There’s 35-40 thousand different types to ask apparently)

It worked in gaining India’s independence, amoungst other examples. Things like the idea of Democracy were also seen the same way as you’re seeing our capacity for selflessness now, and returning good for evil done specifically.

“The hardest to love are the ones that need it the most.” - Socrates. Based off my 10 years experience working with them, I can tell you you’re absolutely wrong in ever way in that regard. And it’s less about getting them to stop being a bully, and more about teaching others the relevance of resisting the selfish barbarian within all of us when met with what we hate, to find alternative solutions our inherent ability to logic and reason shows us; like collective love opposed to collective hate, that only ever leads to more hate.

I’m clearly not merely quoting ancient philosophers; especially considering Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK are amoungst them.

You’re only referencing the standards and societal norms of the day. 2+2 is still 4 regardless who says it and who they happen to be underneath; responding to hate and evil with equal parts love and goodness is more logical, regardless if it’s Jesus or Hitler saying it.

Challenging ones own assertions is a huge emphasis of what I have to say: “to never take an oath at all.” And you didn’t challenge my assertions at all, you did nothing but label them and consider them useless as a result.

My argument still stands. You have no idea what your refuting because you haven’t even bothered with what’s being refuted yet; resulting to you walking into contradiction after contradiction. I still have no idea that you have any idea what I’m talking about.

So you’re saying people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi etc didn’t present any evidence? And what they had to say isn’t worth considering therefore? Because again, the evidence they put forth based off their observation, is the same as mine.

The evidence I present is there, if you would read what I have to say to understand it—opposed to not even bothering with it at all and assume it’s nothing but stoner this or drug addict that—then that’s what we would be talking about right now.

What do you think things like the Big Bang Theory are? Scientific theory, based purely off our ability to observe the world around us. Not to mention philosophy. Why do you bother with anything on this sub then? All you’ll ever find is almost exactly what you just said: personal opinions based off observation.

What makes my personal opinions based off observation any different? I don’t know why I even bother to ask, because you’ll either not reply, or just chalk it up to pontification, despite pontificating to any degree absolutely not something that’s no longer worth considering, not by any means.

The meaning is selflessness; God or not.

I’m not religious. In fact, what’s being stated above is the opposite of what a religion would advocate—to hold it as unquestionably true, opposed to true but not that it’s no longer up for question, and considered what’s called “infalliable” or no longer capable of error.

Now that I’ve put forward plenty of evidence to support my claim, would you be willing to be the first person after days of posting different opinions regarding the same general topic, to give legitimate reason as to why I’m wrong? Opposed to only insulting me and passing off what I have to say (which is what people like Socrates, Leo Tolstoy and Gandhi had to say—these men were far from “drug addled,” they also seen religion from my same perspective) as “stoner pontification,” as an example.

Consider shedding the hate that’s clouded your mind and thats led you to be so close minded, and allow love (your sense of selflessness) to clear it up, only leading you to consider the new knowledge or foreign influences that would undoubtedly lead your imagination to become even more powerful and detailed than it already is.

I’d love to, and thanks for the opportunity. If we look at humans the same way we do any other species, then we can plainly see a collection of concious beings with the most capacity for either ourselves, or everything else. I think therefore the less barbaric or more righteous way to live would be to dismiss yourself; to set yourself aside, so to speak. Because we’re the only living things to be able to even go as far as to suffer to strive to do so. Please check out my other few posts regarding the same topic as further evidence.

Truth to me is what reality consists of, despite anyway mankind has presently organized itself and manipulated its environment.

And ultimately what I’m trying to say here, is that ironically, the people that would be seeing the psychology and sociology within religion, by seeing the words and the logic they connotate as nothing but that—aren’t. Because again ironically, the people that see the value and potential to it, aren’t teaching it along with the way people like even Jesus advocated for it to be taught: to never see anything man made as unquestionably true. To see things as true, of course, but never where it’s no longer up for question, and that it’s no longer capable of error.

Obviously a big claim regarding Jesus, but it makes perfect sense if you consider the extent “oath-taking”—I like to call it—divides us. Whether it be the division between nations all the way down to things like racism or slander and collective hate. And if you consider the potential of the opposite, of the masses being taught to never be lead to feel as though they would kill, harm, hate, or be iniquitous in general for the sake of any man made thing—or to always be re-examining their life as Socrates put it, then I can’t help but to think this would undoubtedly hold the most potential for unity, in contrast to any amount of the opposite.

Wow, I’m speechless, this is fantastic. Genuinely, thanks for taking the time to write this up, it makes me feel fully understood, and “healing begins when you begin to feel heard.” So thanks for that honestly.

I’ve been talking to a lot of pastors about this for the past few years, so I guess I end up wrongly assuming that people will understand things like the “skin and wine” reference I guess you can say, for example.

It’s seeing selflessness and our capacity for it from a more reasonable point of view, because it’s reason and logic that serves as the basis of selflessness.

Without us, there is no potential for selflessness to the extent we can choose to even suffer for it; not to mention collectively, and the extent that could potentially benefit everything else in the process.