When I die

Pages:
1
2
3
…
8

When I die; this is what i'm going to get
Tweet Topic Started: Aug 11 2011, 07:17 AM (3,403 Views)
The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 13 2011, 06:24 AM Post #31
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Nihilism keeps me warm at night; ever since I have assimilated nihilism into my lifestyle, I have made enormous improvements in my professional livelihoods, and in my character. I do no believe I have felt better at any time before. Thanks, nihilism!
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 06:59 AM Post #32
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:50 PM "We are like bacteria in a petri dish." We are stuck with a finite space to live in, and we consume more and more of the resources available to us until we use them all up. "There is no value or meaning to life. Mindlessly reproduce and die." Hmm, well...oh no, wait, he didn't say that. Okay. Quote: "We are animals." Yes we are. That doesn't help your argument. Quote: "There is no value or meaning to life. Mindlessly reproduce and die." Hmm, well...oh no, wait, he didn't say that. He inferred it, and judging by other posts of his throughout the years, it's an educated guess. Edited by DragonLegend, Aug 13 2011, 07:03 AM.



Incog	Aug 13 2011, 08:12 AM Post #33
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Quote: wars fought for conquest, economic interests, so on and so forth. I don't think there has been a war fought for other reasons.. there's always a REASON. At least the USA prevented conflicts from escalating to a too big size. Vietnam and Korea were both wars fought to prevent communism's expansion. Indirectly, peace was assured as the USSR wasn't sure if it had the capabilities to take on the USA, as proved by the cuban missile crisis. Quote: It was the soviets that backed down from the cuban missile crisis, thus ending the possibility of a nuclear showdown. Exactly, they did so after the USA's ultimatum. It was the right thing to do, could the USA have really let the USSR just put missiles that could reach the USA so easily? It was almost an act of war in itself. They managed to avert war itself, even if it meant a deadly ultimatum. YES, the USA fucked up for quite a few wars and no, there isn't peace everywhere, but there's still peace between the nations that would do severe damage to everyone if they did end up fighting. So yeah.. Quote: It is not natural for humans to kill each other. Wars and conflicts exist because of their underlying causes: money, land, power, religion. All of which are not part of human "nature". Money, land, power etc are all our equivalent of a lions food, territory and mates (male lions fight quite hard for females). It's sort of natural because it's quite comparable to what we see in nature. Peace is kept when there is no competition for survival between nations or greed resulting from the disparity of resources. Peace is also kept when there is no dividing force between ideologies that creates animosity. Animals kill for survival, a fox will only kill another fox if it is in desperation for food or in danger from another fox, etc. If it is natural for humans to kill each other why are you not going on a rampage after being dormant for so many years? Because our laws forbid it. Do you think that, were murder NOT illegal, people wouldn't do it more? People are afraid of the consequences of their acts, hence don't act. That's why people don't kill each other at an individual scale. We do it at an international scale instead, where it's quite legal if you can get a good excuse. Sometimes the excuse sucks too, like it did for the World Wars. Why is it that murderers are usually poor, mentally unstable, racist, religious extremists, or radicals? Or drug dealers and all that jazz We evolved from primitive apes when we began to use tools ranging from a variety of different reasons, but the REAL big leap was when the first recorded piece of jewelry constructed purely for aesthetics was created. Mehhh, ever seen magpies? They nick a lot of shiny shit and put it in their nests. Racoons are similar. It's just that we make our trophies instead of stealing them. Actually we steal trophies too... Also many animals do attach importance to their appearance, as we do. Male birds are so colorful when trying to get laid. That is how our minds began to evolve and we transitioned to a modern society and sophistication through organization, rituals, etc. I wouldn't say that our society makes us different than other animals. Our societies are definitely more complex than that of gorillas or dolphins or orcas or gazelle or elephants or a number of other social creatures. But we still have the same basic idea as they do. What really sets us apart is our ability to think of ourselves out of the box. Imagination and all that shit. Philosophy left a much bigger mark on me than I would have ever thought possible btw. The people of the united states are not evolving in any shape or form by fighting the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no social Darwinism which you seem to believe in. It's nonsense and dangerous. it's teh truth mate[/b] Edited by Incog, Aug 13 2011, 08:12 AM.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


gs	Aug 13 2011, 09:00 AM Post #34
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:52 PM Nihilism is the belief that there can be no objective basis for truth. isn't that simple fact though...? people are using the word objective much too lightly



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 13 2011, 10:39 AM Post #35
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	gs Aug 13 2011, 09:00 AM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:52 PM Nihilism is the belief that there can be no objective basis for truth. isn't that simple fact though...? people are using the word objective much too lightly It must be understood that, "Logys," and, "Isms," are all attempts at more vividly expressing sensations that humans have felt for centuries beyond measure. They are said to be advanced ideas; studied concepts and meticulous arrangements; when in reality they simply apply a word to a form of revelation or understanding which is sometimes even primitive in its essence. Nihilism is not a steady and conscious accretion of a feeling; the nihilist attitude can be obtained overnight during a period of insupportable distress - experience is as to intensity, and not duration - and it requires no education or philosophy to grasp. A man who is miserable can be said to already be a nihilist if his misery has any promise of persevering. You may choose to despise a nihilist, or for that matter attempt to argue him out of it, but happiness isn't something that is attained through mere conviction; you do not simply convince yourself to be optimistic, and therefore all nihilist principles will vanish from your mind. Existential nihilism is not a mournful perspective more than it is a form of truth; existence does not possess an objective value besides what humans might apply to it... in which I agree with what gs said and stuff.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Vondongo	Aug 13 2011, 11:36 AM Post #36
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	For a long, long time, I've been of the view that if you don't believe in some kind of higher power that sets the moral ground rules for humanity, then you've got no basis with which to behave at all. That is, either you have an affirmed belief in something and follow it, or if you don't, then there is absolutely no moral basis with which to judge anything because it would then be entirely subjective regardless of situation or "severity". It wouldn't be any better to give someone a gift on their birthday than it would be to steal from them. Disagree? How can you? With no moral core, how is anything defined as "good" or "better" in any qualitative way? How can you assign a meaning of what separates the two actions? And how would you? If you did, that would be setting an arbitrary double-standard to fit how you think things should be. Except that when there is no rock-solid basis for morality, there is no "should." There just "is."



gs	Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM Post #37
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in. and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own?



Jam	Aug 13 2011, 02:55 PM Post #38
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Quote: Quote: "We are animals." Yes we are. That doesn't help your argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal Quote: Quote: "There is no value or meaning to life. Mindlessly reproduce and die." Hmm, well...oh no, wait, he didn't say that. He inferred it, and judging by other posts of his throughout the years, it's an educated guess. He didn't infer it, you are the one who drew that conclusion, one which does not follow from the post. Humans are not as special as we like to think we are, so there is no meaning in life and no reason to believe in anything?
	Long live Carolus


Jam	Aug 13 2011, 03:09 PM Post #39
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	What is moral? It would be very convenient if morality was 'written in the stars' so to speak, but an action is not morally good in the same sense that a rock is a rock. It must be taken as part of the conscious process; as a mountain is beautiful, morality does not exist in the absence of at least one observer. It is then that the question of morality comes into being by observers for themselves to describe how they should treat themselves and others if they wish to participate in a community. To answer the original question: you have to have a definition of what good is, and then how that good can be achieved determines what actions are moral. First the premise of moral truth must be laid out. 1)If it is true then it is true for everyone 2)Morality is for the benefit, equally, of all people involved in its system 3)Good is what an individual desires to be true and bad is what an individual desires to not be true, subjectively How then do we determine what is moral? Some would say that this is impossible because the subjective nature of the individuals who make it be. However all living beings share the same base needs and all desire the freedom to exert their will, as in the first premise. The needs and wants are simplistic so I will cover them first. That which grants a person's needs and desires is morally correct; that which deprives a person of their needs and desires is morally wrong. The freedom of will is more complicated. It is freedom of will that allows an individual to live according to their desires and is therefore inherently good. However not all people have the same preferences so to avoid conflict it should be restated as the freedom of an individual to exert their will over their own affairs; so as not to violate the second premise. Even so, if one does not live in isolation then it is inevitable that there will be situations in which the wills of individuals come into conflict with one another. As there are individual affairs there are community affairs. Compromise must be made in community affairs as to respect the second premise. That which preserves the freedom of individuals is morally correct; that which deprives individuals of their freedom is morally wrong. Thus a standard basis for morality is presented: Premises: 1)If it is true then it is true for everyone 2)Morality is for the benefit, equally, of all people involved in its system 3)Good is what an individual desires to be true and bad is what an individual desires to not be true, subjectively Conclusions: 1)That which grants a person's needs and desires is morally correct; that which deprives a person of their needs and desires is morally wrong. 2)That which preserves the freedom of individuals is morally correct; that which deprives individuals of their freedom is morally wrong.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 04:13 PM Post #40
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Aug 13 2011, 02:55 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal Again, if he believes humans are nothing but animals, no different than a bug or bee, that doesn't help your argument. Quote: He didn't infer it, you are the one who drew that conclusion, one which does not follow from the post. Humans are not as special as we like to think we are, so there is no meaning in life and no reason to believe in anything? He has said, in previous posts, that there's no special meaning to life. You simply reproduce, then die. Based on that, it's safe to assume he was reiterating that in his posts here.



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 04:15 PM Post #41
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Aug 13 2011, 09:00 AM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:52 PM Nihilism is the belief that there can be no objective basis for truth. isn't that simple fact though...? people are using the word objective much too lightly How can you believe the nonexistence of objective truth is an objective truth?



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 04:16 PM Post #42
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in. and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own? Such views truly frighten me. I'm just speechless.



gs	Aug 13 2011, 04:36 PM Post #43
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 04:15 PM gs Aug 13 2011, 09:00 AM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:52 PM Nihilism is the belief that there can be no objective basis for truth. isn't that simple fact though...? people are using the word objective much too lightly How can you believe the nonexistence of objective truth is an objective truth? wait correction. there is no objective morality. there is objective truth/reality but it's not certain we know what they are. i thought jam said nihilism is the belief that we can never know what the objective reality is. dunno why i thought that DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 04:16 PM gs Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in. and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own? Such views truly frighten me. I'm just speechless. i just said i'll do anything except when the law tells me not to. how is that fightening? it's frightening when people say they'll blindly follow a book which tells you to kill every non believer, or do whatever they want despite the law.



Jam	Aug 13 2011, 04:50 PM Post #44
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 04:13 PM Hyperactive Jam Aug 13 2011, 02:55 PM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal Again, if he believes humans are nothing but animals, no different than a bug or bee, that doesn't help your argument. Really? Humans are animals and obviously we are different than bees. Are you seriously suggesting that if a whale is an animal and dog is and animal then therefore a whale is not different than a dog? If you say yes then I'm done with you.
	Long live Carolus


gs	Aug 13 2011, 04:51 PM Post #45
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	lol dragon you could've at least put a mammal instead of an insect



Big Richard	Aug 13 2011, 05:00 PM Post #46
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	Redemption Aug 13 2011, 11:36 AM For a long, long time, I've been of the view that if you don't believe in some kind of higher power that sets the moral ground rules for humanity, then you've got no basis with which to behave at all. That is, either you have an affirmed belief in something and follow it, or if you don't, then there is absolutely no moral basis with which to judge anything because it would then be entirely subjective regardless of situation or "severity". It wouldn't be any better to give someone a gift on their birthday than it would be to steal from them. Disagree? How can you? With no moral core, how is anything defined as "good" or "better" in any qualitative way? How can you assign a meaning of what separates the two actions? And how would you? If you did, that would be setting an arbitrary double-standard to fit how you think things should be. Except that when there is no rock-solid basis for morality, there is no "should." There just "is." your morals are backed up by fear of punishment or hope for reward, then. A truly moral action can't be one that is made under this influence. Also, if you follow the moral code of your God and for example, choose never to lie, than what would you have done in WWII while you were hiding jews in your attic and Nazis came to your door asking if you're hiding any nazis. What would you say, then? Wouldn't it be more morally correct to lie to the Nazi's in this situation? This is why the Bible and other such books can't be taken seriously when it comes to deciding what is moral and what isn't. What do your morals dictated unto you by your "god" have to say about genetic engineering? Cloning? Stem cell research?



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 05:01 PM Post #47
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Aug 13 2011, 04:36 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 04:15 PM gs Aug 13 2011, 09:00 AM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:52 PM Nihilism is the belief that there can be no objective basis for truth. isn't that simple fact though...? people are using the word objective much too lightly How can you believe the nonexistence of objective truth is an objective truth? wait correction. there is no objective morality. there is objective truth/reality but it's not certain we know what they are. i thought jam said nihilism is the belief that we can never know what the objective reality is. dunno why i thought that DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 04:16 PM gs Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in. and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own? Such views truly frighten me. I'm just speechless. i just said i'll do anything except when the law tells me not to. how is that fightening? it's frightening when people say they'll blindly follow a book which tells you to kill every non believer, or do whatever they want despite the law. So, in a nutshell, your moral code is, "Do whatever you want, as long as it's not illegal"? Jam, that's not what I said. A whale and a dog aren't the same creature, but they are the same type of creature. If Incog thinks there's nothing special about humans (intelligence doesn't count; that's purely a physical quality), that we're just animals, then, again, that doesn't help your argument.



gs	Aug 13 2011, 05:05 PM Post #48
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:01 PM gs Aug 13 2011, 04:36 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 04:15 PM gs Aug 13 2011, 09:00 AM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:52 PM Nihilism is the belief that there can be no objective basis for truth. isn't that simple fact though...? people are using the word objective much too lightly How can you believe the nonexistence of objective truth is an objective truth? wait correction. there is no objective morality. there is objective truth/reality but it's not certain we know what they are. i thought jam said nihilism is the belief that we can never know what the objective reality is. dunno why i thought that DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 04:16 PM gs Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in. and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own? Such views truly frighten me. I'm just speechless. i just said i'll do anything except when the law tells me not to. how is that fightening? it's frightening when people say they'll blindly follow a book which tells you to kill every non believer, or do whatever they want despite the law. So, in a nutshell, your moral code is, "Do whatever you want, as long as it's not illegal"? Jam, that's not what I said. A whale and a dog aren't the same creature, but they are the same type of creature. If Incog thinks there's nothing special about humans (intelligence doesn't count; that's purely a physical quality), that we're just animals, then, again, that doesn't help your argument. i don't have a moral code i handle rationally and purely based on how the action affects myself in the short and long run. maybe i should mention though that i never want to do something thats harmful to someone else because i do care what people think of me, and harming other people usually has all kinds of negative consequences for oneself as well. so it's not like i do whatever pops into my head, i carefully consider the consequences before doing something.



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 05:07 PM Post #49
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	But that's 100% selfish and self-centered... That's somehow both immoral and amoral.



gs	Aug 13 2011, 05:10 PM Post #50
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	idk what you would call something that's without morality but that's what it is. and yes, purely selfish. however, helping someone out can sometimes make me feel good too and i've done my share of that. everyone will tell you i'm a nice guy in real life. but that doesn't make me any less selfish. @ everyone: Quote: but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in.



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 05:16 PM Post #51
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	So you admit your amorality. And thus crumbles the argument that nonspiritual atheist nihilists can be moral.



Jam	Aug 13 2011, 05:19 PM Post #52
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:01 PM Jam, that's not what I said. A whale and a dog aren't the same creature, but they are the same type of creature. If Incog thinks there's nothing special about humans (intelligence doesn't count; that's purely a physical quality), that we're just animals, then, again, that doesn't help your argument. Doesn't help my argument doesn't hurt it either. Please explain how humans being animals means that there is no point in life. It's a biological fact that humans are animals, and yes our capacity for intelligence and compassion is what makes us special, this should be obvious. Unless you are trying to argue that humans have souls then I don't know what your point is. Quote: nonspiritual atheist nihilists Militant redundancy. Did anybody even read my post about morality? Post 39
	Long live Carolus


Big Richard	Aug 13 2011, 05:23 PM Post #53
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	Incog Aug 13 2011, 08:12 AM Quote: wars fought for conquest, economic interests, so on and so forth. I don't think there has been a war fought for other reasons.. there's always a REASON. At least the USA prevented conflicts from escalating to a too big size. Vietnam and Korea were both wars fought to prevent communism's expansion. Indirectly, peace was assured as the USSR wasn't sure if it had the capabilities to take on the USA, as proved by the cuban missile crisis. Quote: It was the soviets that backed down from the cuban missile crisis, thus ending the possibility of a nuclear showdown. Exactly, they did so after the USA's ultimatum. It was the right thing to do, could the USA have really let the USSR just put missiles that could reach the USA so easily? It was almost an act of war in itself. They managed to avert war itself, even if it meant a deadly ultimatum. YES, the USA fucked up for quite a few wars and no, there isn't peace everywhere, but there's still peace between the nations that would do severe damage to everyone if they did end up fighting. So yeah.. Quote: It is not natural for humans to kill each other. Wars and conflicts exist because of their underlying causes: money, land, power, religion. All of which are not part of human "nature". Money, land, power etc are all our equivalent of a lions food, territory and mates (male lions fight quite hard for females). It's sort of natural because it's quite comparable to what we see in nature. Peace is kept when there is no competition for survival between nations or greed resulting from the disparity of resources. Peace is also kept when there is no dividing force between ideologies that creates animosity. Animals kill for survival, a fox will only kill another fox if it is in desperation for food or in danger from another fox, etc. If it is natural for humans to kill each other why are you not going on a rampage after being dormant for so many years? Because our laws forbid it. Do you think that, were murder NOT illegal, people wouldn't do it more? People are afraid of the consequences of their acts, hence don't act. That's why people don't kill each other at an individual scale. We do it at an international scale instead, where it's quite legal if you can get a good excuse. Sometimes the excuse sucks too, like it did for the World Wars. Why is it that murderers are usually poor, mentally unstable, racist, religious extremists, or radicals? Or drug dealers and all that jazz We evolved from primitive apes when we began to use tools ranging from a variety of different reasons, but the REAL big leap was when the first recorded piece of jewelry constructed purely for aesthetics was created. Mehhh, ever seen magpies? They nick a lot of shiny shit and put it in their nests. Racoons are similar. It's just that we make our trophies instead of stealing them. Actually we steal trophies too... Also many animals do attach importance to their appearance, as we do. Male birds are so colorful when trying to get laid. That is how our minds began to evolve and we transitioned to a modern society and sophistication through organization, rituals, etc. I wouldn't say that our society makes us different than other animals. Our societies are definitely more complex than that of gorillas or dolphins or orcas or gazelle or elephants or a number of other social creatures. But we still have the same basic idea as they do. What really sets us apart is our ability to think of ourselves out of the box. Imagination and all that shit. Philosophy left a much bigger mark on me than I would have ever thought possible btw. The people of the united states are not evolving in any shape or form by fighting the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no social Darwinism which you seem to believe in. It's nonsense and dangerous. it's teh truth mate[/b] Vietnam and the war in Korea were fought under that premise but in reality the US and the USSR were both trying to grab as much influence as possible. The US was no better in this situation. The US is fighting its longest war to date as we speak. Also "war for peace is like fucking for virginity" as the great George Carlin would say. As for the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviets moving the missiles in were in RESPONSE to Cuba's request AFTER the US tried and failed twice to overthrow Castro (operation Mongoose, Bay of pigs invasion) and the Soviets backed down in exchange for a U.S. public declaration and agreement never to invade Cuba. The US also had to agree that it would dismantle all U.S.-built Thor and Jupiter IRBMs deployed in Europe and Turkey (which were so close to the USSR that under your logic would be almost an act of war in itself). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis The US fucked up way more than quite a few wars. It's also been the biggest sponsor of terrorism throughout its bloody history. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg1QuYv__wY There is only a temporary peace between powerful nations and thats to allow the US to freely rape smaller nations without competition. That is the sole reason and there's no denying that any historian would agree. No money, land and power are the equivalent of manifestations of the greed instilled on a population based on their worship of wealth. There is no such worship in a Marxist society (truly Marxist) and are not natural to mankind. Lions fight for mates because their natural need to have sex and make kitties :D. They fight for territory for safety and food to survive. Humans have territory but always want more, humans have enough money for food and basic necessities but always want more, humans don't need power but always strive for it. That is not natural that is common behavior but it is not natural behavior and is susceptible to change. If its a human need to kill one another and it is as natural as our other drives than laws would not be able to inhibit our will to do so. If the law stated to not eat or drink, have sex, or shelter yourself would you abide by it? A lot of people don't smoke weed because its illegal. Don't you think that, were smoking weed NOT illegal, people wouldn't do it more? Does that mean smoking weed is a natural part of human behavior? Drug dealers are poor, unless you mean drug lords (which don't do any of the killing). I'm saying instead of evolving through conflict humans evolved into an organized society through the development of the frontal lobe region which is for higher level thinking than what we require to kill each other. Had we just kept fighting humans wouldn't be using much bigger tools than spears and arrows lol. If by basic idea you mean safety and survival than yes. But thats over-simplifying it. Our society is much more than that.



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 05:35 PM Post #54
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Aug 13 2011, 05:19 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:01 PM Jam, that's not what I said. A whale and a dog aren't the same creature, but they are the same type of creature. If Incog thinks there's nothing special about humans (intelligence doesn't count; that's purely a physical quality), that we're just animals, then, again, that doesn't help your argument. Doesn't help my argument doesn't hurt it either. Please explain how humans being animals means that there is no point in life. It's a biological fact that humans are animals, and yes our capacity for intelligence and compassion is what makes us special, this should be obvious. Unless you are trying to argue that humans have souls then I don't know what your point is. Quote: nonspiritual atheist nihilists Militant redundancy. I'm talking about the spiritual differences between humans and animals. If you don't believe in them, there's nothing more to say, I guess.



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 05:40 PM Post #55
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	I read the post, but I disagree and don't want to elaborate.



Jam	Aug 13 2011, 05:41 PM Post #56
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:35 PM I'm talking about the spiritual differences between humans and animals. If you don't believe in them, there's nothing more to say, I guess. So then how is there a requirement to believe in souls in order to find meaning in life.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 05:45 PM Post #57
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Spirituality is what gives life meaning, or purpose. Everything physical (including intelligence) is empty, temporary, and ultimately meaningless.



gs	Aug 13 2011, 06:10 PM Post #58
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:16 PM So you admit your amorality. And thus crumbles the argument that nonspiritual atheist nihilists can be moral. i wouldn't say they can't be moral. i just know i'm not. and i'm not atheist. there is no way to know for sure that there is no higher power. there is nothing that points to it, but it's possible. if i have to put a label on myself it would be agnostic. and nihilist only applies to me when it comes to morality.



Vondongo	Aug 13 2011, 06:53 PM Post #59
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	gs Aug 13 2011, 12:43 PM but if you believe in a higher power that sets ground rules, how would you know what those ground rules are? you still don't have a basis. unless you're following some sort of man-written book which has no relation at all to the higher power you may or may not believe in. and who needs an objective basis anyway? we have the law to keep us in check, and apart from the law we can do whatever we want. freedom. why follow someone else's morals when you can make up your own? 1. That's an empty statement to make. No faithful Christian, for instance, is going to think that the Bible, its principles and its accounts are irrelevant to God's word and structure for humanity. If I believe in God, I kind of have to recognize that Bible's legitimacy (especially with Christ's teachings) or I don't really "believe in" Him. 2. And how do you suppose we have such a thing as law? Underlying moral principles. No moral principles means no laws, plain and simple.



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 07:00 PM Post #60
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Aug 13 2011, 06:10 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:16 PM So you admit your amorality. And thus crumbles the argument that nonspiritual atheist nihilists can be moral. i wouldn't say they can't be moral. i just know i'm not. and i'm not atheist. there is no way to know for sure that there is no higher power. there is nothing that points to it, but it's possible. if i have to put a label on myself it would be agnostic. and nihilist only applies to me when it comes to morality. You can't be a nonspiritual, atheist/agnostic nihilist and believe in objective morality. And since the only morality is objective morality, nonspiritual atheist/agnostic nihilists can't be moral.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
…
8