Answer the previous poster's question.

[afleitch]

It seems inarguable to me that the average human being is noticeably more virtuous today than 2000 years ago, 2000 years ago than 10000 years ago, and so on. Progress is slow and with a lot of backsliding, but it does prevail in the very long run. Rousseau was full of sh*t.
How do you define philosophy?

I’d define it as an idea you should your live your life by. It could range from Confucianism to Islam, or even following what Elle Woods says in Legally Blonde.

What is your opinion on dianetics?

Anyone who sells that sh-t to people should be in jail. It's a cult.

What aspect of belief do you hold is something you don't actually believe but subscribe to because it's expected of the wider belief system.

[afleitch]

The latter. And it's not an argument entirely without merit, because laws not concerning morality were to be fulfilled in the Second Covenant.

Is it possible to believe that non-human animals have a right to humane treatment without elevating animals to the same status as humans? Can non-humans have any rights?

Yes of course. And given some people treat their dogs better than other humans, elevating animals to the same status as humans based on human preference alone has downsides. But animals have rights. But we also eat them. So there has to be balance.

Has anyone tried any other faiths? Not like breakfast cereal Christianity hopping (which Americans seem to be adept at) but anything outside of that?

[afleitch]

Question: Is dialectical materialism a religion?

In the context of its elevation by the Eastern Bloc's reverence of ideology, arguably (Ceaușescu once compared applying the theory to cocaine use), but there it was fairly removed from its original state, in which I'd say it's no more or less religious than any philosophical principle.

Do sexuality and religion have any intersection in your view? Does religion have a place in restricting or promoting any form of sexuality? Do you believe that sexuality can be harnessed for magical or ritual purposes?

I think promoting healthy sexual relationships is fine. But declaring married man-woman units as the only vessel to express it, or assuming that there's something 'moral' about that vessel regardless of the nature of the relationship within it is inherently unhealthy.

Any religion that disposes of or dissaproves of non heteronormative relationships based in the descriptor without caring about the value of the relationship is, and I mean this sincerely, abusive.

Favourite Scottish philosopher?