3RU7AL

(OR) I can simply ask in regards to the action alone (which I did).

HOW you attempt to "provide for someone" specifically is an action.

I get that, I was simply asking in regards to this.

two different terms that the definition specifically kept separate.

providing for someone isn’t a motive

(that included the term "motive")

That’s because the discussion wasn’t in regards to every facet of the definition.

Like what SPECIFICALLY?

Every human action sprouts from SURVIVAL INSTINCT.

That’s simply not true, take the action of donating to charity for example that has no bearing on your survival (if anything it makes you less likely to survive, especially if you donate your whole livelihood away).

Because they feel too "cowardly" or "weak" to kill themselves. Do they cut themselves to avoid pain? 

If they wanted to maximize their time and interests while alive, they'd stay in physical and mental health by exercise of both the mind and body, but often do not.

People 'would care to continue doing things, but also would care not to bother thinking and working at self care to greater or lesser extents.

Sure, it's logical to care for others. Though sometimes that care is that a man feels towards his chicken or cow, care until one slaughters and eats it.

And plenty of suicidal people don't value avoiding pain. 

A.F.S.F.S.M. doesn’t tell them anything that they don’t already know.

Great. Glad we agree.

You're joking right? Its pretty normal for suicidal people to consider themselves too weak to commit suicide, and thus, continue on living. Starving to death is painful, and one can be both afraid to die and not value their own life.

If the question is "why be moral if the universe doesn't care?" then the answer is the A.F.S.F.S.M.

Excellent Secular M!

Basically this is what your saying....'one-for-one',  one-for-all and all-for-one.

This is the only way humanity will have existence on Earth beyond 2232, as based on my 5-factor  formula prognostication for humanities end-times-on-Earth.

Just that, it doesn’t tell us that every living breathing human is caring for other living breathing humans.

No two humans are alike. You show me some human belief or voluntary behavior and I'll show you a belief or voluntary behavior that not every living breathing human shares.

The point isn't that we all do the point is that it is counterproductive not too.

But not commiting suicide does not necessarily mean that one values ones own life.

It is true that if you dogmatically reject any definition provided and you refuse to offer any that I agree with then neither of us could prove anything whatever. This is a breakdown in communication however which is quite different to conceding my point.

Ever heard of something called hatred? Well you can have that for someone you’ve made SOCIAL CONTACT with, are you seriously going to equate caring to hatred?

P1 you cannot survive without others to care for and about you.

Prove it.

I think one major problem is that this ethic can't apply to people who don't care about being alive. If someone doesn't care about being alive, does that permit them to use people as instruments?

Bottom line EVEN IF you are only in this for yourself you should still consider caring for and about others BECAUSE it is essentially self care.

...Hold the damn phone, are you suggesting that providing for someone else isn’t for someone else?

 Your syllogism is flawed period.

That is your argument? That if anyone benefits in any way then no matter how callous and uncaring an act is it is not selfish?

So if I commit an armed  robbery and take what doesn't belong to me for my own enrichment then so long as my fence also benefits (through the sale of my illicit goods) then I haven't done anything selfish?

If that isn't what you are saying then exactly what are you saying?

Who keeps setting up trolley tracks in this fashion? Surely whatever happens the trolley owner is liable for all damages not I and not Jim.

Which Texas’s state government failed to weatherproof after they got a report in 2011 which warned them of potential failure.

I think that technically, it's not. I'll add that to the other non-religious belief systems you mentioned. Thanks for the examples. Yes, they all seem to have suffered survivorship bias. Given their age, however, the Lindy effect suggests they will be with us for quite a long time to come. In my opinion, they deserve at least as much consideration as any of the Abrahamic belief systems.

A famous social experiment with a poll at the end using a sample size of three people. And you expect statistically significant accuracy out of such a poll? Absurd.

Both have elements of religion depending on the specific definition being used for each. Animism is described with the words "soul" and "supernatural". Transcendentalism describes a direct connection with "God".

Circumstantial, like coincidence, is not a factor to me.

.........Efficiently being able to sail against the wind takes more practice and skill than any other sailing endeavor. Doing this well will enable you to sail anywhere".'....

I considered Taoism and Confucianism to be quasi-religions but concede that they may not necessarily be.

Landlord homeless, unable to evict ‘deadbeat’ tenant thanks to COVID law

I choose to desire, and act to make it happen.

Perhaps Trumpism could be viewed as an oligarchal belief system that is neither religion nor science based and might benefit from the application of the precautionary principle.

Taoism and Confucianism would also be considered religious ideas.

Other than science and religion, both of which currently flourish,

have there ever been any other types of belief systems that no longer survive?

Do you have an example of other equally valid belief systems that did not survive?

don't seem really interested in an actual conversation - just being right 

While Fauxlaw and Co can be a tad annoying in as so far as we disagree, at least I can tell that they consider all of my argument - you just want to [speculation about speaker's motive] set up gotchas and don't seem really interested in an actual conversation - just being right 

I am currently not in the mood to deal with your particular brand of "argument", since you see no need to address most of my argument, I see no need to address yours.

but that has naught to do with my early desire to achieve.

Um... like the whole hanging and endless persecuting scientists for disagreeing with dogmatic all throughout history? Some going as far as completely hindering advancements for centuries? Doesn't ring a bell?