When I die

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
8

When I die; this is what i'm going to get
Tweet Topic Started: Aug 11 2011, 07:17 AM (3,402 Views)
Jam	Aug 13 2011, 07:02 PM Post #61
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:45 PM Spirituality is what gives life meaning, or purpose. Everything physical (including intelligence) is empty, temporary, and ultimately meaningless. So you aren't talking about the supernatural then.
	Long live Carolus


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 13 2011, 07:08 PM Post #62
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:00 PM 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. Couldn't you be believe in the objective morality that society maintains, or that which is ineffaceably forged into the human countenance?
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 07:26 PM Post #63
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Aug 13 2011, 07:02 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:45 PM Spirituality is what gives life meaning, or purpose. Everything physical (including intelligence) is empty, temporary, and ultimately meaningless. So you aren't talking about the supernatural then. Spirituality may or may not be exclusively supernatural. I'll have to chew on that some more.



DragonLegend	Aug 13 2011, 07:27 PM Post #64
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 07:08 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:00 PM 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. Couldn't you be believe in the objective morality that society maintains, or that which is ineffaceably forged into the human countenance? Societal morality changes all the time. It's not objective.



Vondongo	Aug 13 2011, 07:34 PM Post #65
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 07:08 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:00 PM 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. Couldn't you be believe in the objective morality that society maintains, or that which is ineffaceably forged into the human countenance? And this societal morality came from where, and is based off of what?



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 13 2011, 07:43 PM Post #66
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:27 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 07:08 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:00 PM 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. Couldn't you be believe in the objective morality that society maintains, or that which is ineffaceably forged into the human countenance? Societal morality changes all the time. It's not objective. And religious or spiritual morality does not? Religions and, more importantly, perspectives amongst the practitioners of a religion perpetually change. New testaments are written. Archaic superstitions are abandoned. Different communions within the same religious identity are formed; a number of faiths have been fiercely subdivided throughout the ages. If an objective morality must be indefinite, then how can any religion, which has undergone a vast of evolution, ever venture to establish one?
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 13 2011, 07:50 PM Post #67
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Redemption Aug 13 2011, 07:34 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 07:08 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:00 PM 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. Couldn't you be believe in the objective morality that society maintains, or that which is ineffaceably forged into the human countenance? And this societal morality came from where, and is based off of what? It is born of religion, of course, but the distinction between plain social morality, and matters of social morality influenced by religion, is so obscure that it is impossible to venture to refuse an adherence to one or the other. The morals of an individual are almost certain to be influenced by the society in which he was cultivated, and even if pre-eminently atheist, he is unlikely to relinquish his social proprieties for the mere fact that he speculates that they correspond to a religious civility.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Vondongo	Aug 13 2011, 08:22 PM Post #68
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	All morality originates from religious practice. No higher power means nothing that can set into place right and wrong in any kind of objective state. Otherwise it's just people deciding to pick and choose, and that doesn't mean anything that's objective.



Jam	Aug 13 2011, 09:28 PM Post #69
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:26 PM Hyperactive Jam Aug 13 2011, 07:02 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:45 PM Spirituality is what gives life meaning, or purpose. Everything physical (including intelligence) is empty, temporary, and ultimately meaningless. So you aren't talking about the supernatural then. Spirituality may or may not be exclusively supernatural. I'll have to chew on that some more. Btw, without our intelligence we wouldn't be able to comprehend what is right and wrong, we wouldn't be able to appreciate art and literature so it's silly to say that intelligence is meaningless and doesn't set us a apart from other animals.
	Long live Carolus


Vondongo	Aug 13 2011, 09:36 PM Post #70
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	That's what makes humans so unique as a species. Yes, chimpanzees are extraordinarily genetically similar, have family units, tool use, some degree of sign language skill if trained, but they lack sapience. No other species can think philosophically or existentially. No species besides humanity exhibits spirituality, and I don't just mean in terms of worship.



Atilia/Tyranitar	Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Post #71
Major Posts: 1,201 Group: A414A Member Member #15 Joined: December 17, 2007	Dragon what religion are you?
	Jack the IV How the fuck is she gonna find out? I post pictures of my dog on here, it's the same thing, both are bitches. Jack the IV Cause arm-penises are way cooler. B)


Jam	Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Post #72
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Redemption Aug 13 2011, 08:22 PM All morality originates from religious practice. No higher power means nothing that can set into place right and wrong in any kind of objective state. Otherwise it's just people deciding to pick and choose, and that doesn't mean anything that's objective. I would say that morality originates from principles, in the sense of fundamental truths that serve as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. If you mean higher power as in a god, then it's decree by the highest authority, and if people cannot objectively know right from wrong then how can they know if morality decreed by god is correct? To say that god is perfect and so it must be correct is to beg the question, for if it was not correct then god would not be perfect. A perfect god cannot be defined into existence. I assume that you can feel and understand why murder is wrong rather than simply reading it off of a list of 'things that are wrong' If you can understand why something is moral then it undermines the idea that people cannot determine right from wrong and need to be told. I explained some of my ideas for objective morality, but I think it got lost in the conversation. http://s15.zetaboards.com/A414A_clan/single/?p=8194552&t=7058491
	Long live Carolus


Vondongo	Aug 13 2011, 10:51 PM Post #73
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Redemption Aug 13 2011, 08:22 PM All morality originates from religious practice. No higher power means nothing that can set into place right and wrong in any kind of objective state. Otherwise it's just people deciding to pick and choose, and that doesn't mean anything that's objective. I would say that morality originates from principles, in the sense of fundamental truths that serve as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. If you mean higher power as in a god, then it's decree by the highest authority, and if people cannot objectively know right from wrong then how can they know if morality decreed by god is correct? To say that god is perfect and so it must be correct is to beg the question, for if it was not correct then god would not be perfect. A perfect god cannot be defined into existence. I assume that you can feel and understand why murder is wrong rather than simply reading it off of a list of 'things that are wrong' If you can understand why something is moral then it undermines the idea that people cannot determine right from wrong and need to be told. I explained some of my ideas for objective morality, but I think it got lost in the conversation. http://s15.zetaboards.com/A414A_clan/single/?p=8194552&t=7058491 The core problem with understanding and qualifying the actions of a "perfect" God is that we simply can't. God has traits, but these are traits that in a "perfect" world of humans would seem unnecessary, IE God having anger and vengefulness towards those that defy Him. But like I said earlier as a parallel, humans are the only beings that we know of that can think sapiently. And why stop there? It's entirely possible that there's another plane of thought (and many others) that humans are not capable of reaching or even understanding or conceiving, and that includes understanding the activities of a being that is on a higher plane of existence than we are. Non-sapient creatures don't know about sapience, because sapience is circular. To know of it is to be sapient, and to be sapient is to know of it. If you're not in that circle, you can't even imagine its existence. Basically, if God prescribes it, in a Christian moral context, you must go along with it, because there's no way of even having an idea whether or not it's "perfect" other than that God said to do it. A dog couldn't even begin to imagine why its master wants it to roll over or bark on command. As humans, we simply do not know the inner workings behind what God tells people to do in the Bible for example, except that God said to do something and someone either did it or suffered some kind of terrible punishment. Same thing goes with a disobedient dog in the hands of a disciplinarian of a master. We can only assume that God is perfect in good faith to His declaration of omnipotence and omnipresence. God says "this is good" and "this is bad" and we, being a lower form of being, really have no authority to take liberties with it as we see fit. Like you said, we can't define a diety's existence as perfect or not. You either accept what they say or you reject what they say. If the former, you have to take it in absolutes and, as a result, you have the means of objectivity. The difficulty with the "needs and desires" theory is when conflicts between individuals and between groups and group vs individual arise. How does one measure what is good in what way, to what degree, and then apply it so as to define it as right or wrong in an objective manner? I would consider that a strong, reasonable subjective moral map but it's so theoretical that trying to make it into something definitive and objective isn't really possible. Also, what is it that makes fulfilling desires, in particular, good? In other contexts it may be considered to be the ultimate demonstration of good to transcend any kind of desire--but that's deprivation of a moral desire. That, in your map, would be wrong. But if they consider it to be right...where do you go with that?



Big Richard	Aug 13 2011, 11:39 PM Post #74
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	that was a wall of text painful to read, do you really believe all that or are you just playing devil's advocate?



Vondongo	Aug 14 2011, 12:03 AM Post #75
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	Big Richard Aug 13 2011, 11:39 PM that was a wall of text painful to read, do you really believe all that or are you just playing devil's advocate? Why not? I'm a human being; I don't know why God does anything that He does and I can't define Him in any way that does His existence justice. No one does and no one can. It says in Genesis that we were created in His image, but that's just aesthetic. For all we know, we're comparitively little more than empty husks with self-consciousness and a whole lot of arrogance. The "how" and "why" of what God does are irrelevant to us as a result. According to the Bible, God has done certain things and said certain things and said that people should abide by those things and will suffer via other things. I have no way to qualify anything that He is credited with ordering, but then, does it matter? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, do any of my worthless hypotheses and assumptions compare in any way to what He is capable of? How can I possibly know anything about Him for sure other than what He explicitly says? If He sets what is objectively good and what is objectively bad, I accept on good faith what is and isn't right and act on it as I can. That's part of the very nature of my faith.



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 12:58 AM Post #76
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 07:43 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:27 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 07:08 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:00 PM 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. Couldn't you be believe in the objective morality that society maintains, or that which is ineffaceably forged into the human countenance? Societal morality changes all the time. It's not objective. And religious or spiritual morality does not? Religions and, more importantly, perspectives amongst the practitioners of a religion perpetually change. New testaments are written. Archaic superstitions are abandoned. Different communions within the same religious identity are formed; a number of faiths have been fiercely subdivided throughout the ages. If an objective morality must be indefinite, then how can any religion, which has undergone a vast of evolution, ever venture to establish one? That's a problem with specific religions, not religion itself.



gs	Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM Post #77
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	Redemption Aug 13 2011, 06:53 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? 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. underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ...



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 01:00 AM Post #78
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Aug 13 2011, 09:28 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 07:26 PM Hyperactive Jam Aug 13 2011, 07:02 PM DragonLegend Aug 13 2011, 05:45 PM Spirituality is what gives life meaning, or purpose. Everything physical (including intelligence) is empty, temporary, and ultimately meaningless. So you aren't talking about the supernatural then. Spirituality may or may not be exclusively supernatural. I'll have to chew on that some more. Btw, without our intelligence we wouldn't be able to comprehend what is right and wrong, we wouldn't be able to appreciate art and literature so it's silly to say that intelligence is meaningless and doesn't set us a apart from other animals. As I said, I was talking about inherent spiritual differences.



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 01:02 AM Post #79
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Dragon what religion are you? I don't think I even know anymore. It's complicated.



Vondongo	Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM Post #80
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	gs Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM Redemption Aug 13 2011, 06:53 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? 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. underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ... If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave? No, the only thing that is even remotely possible of making a truly objective moral principle exists on a plane of consciousness and thought that we are incapable of understanding. This is the higher power.



gs	Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM Post #81
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	Redemption Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM gs Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM Redemption Aug 13 2011, 06:53 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? 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. underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ... If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave? because people think they're objective and treat them that way. and i don't think they bind us at all because you don't have to follow them if you don't want to...



Vondongo	Aug 14 2011, 01:42 AM Post #82
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	gs Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM Redemption Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM gs Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM Redemption Aug 13 2011, 06:53 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? 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. underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ... If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave? because people think they're objective and treat them that way. and i don't think they bind us at all because you don't have to follow them if you don't want to... Laws are most certainly binding. If you don't follow them you can be punished in a variety of ways. You don't physically have to follow the laws, but negative consequences are yielded from breaking them. If people are subjectively defining what is objective, then it's not objective at all. It's just subjective. And if it's subjective, then what qualifies it as a way to govern others? Because some people decided it was right? I don't want to get into one of those "Hitler sez" situations but do you see where I'm getting at here? If anything that is moral is subjective, what makes murder any better or worse than pickpocketing? Because of the severity? What defines the severity? What makes a human life lost worse than a transfer of money to another person against the victim's will? Again, that's just people picking and choosing at will, and that's arbitrary and baseless.



Big Richard	Aug 14 2011, 03:48 AM Post #83
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	Redemption Aug 14 2011, 12:03 AM Big Richard Aug 13 2011, 11:39 PM that was a wall of text painful to read, do you really believe all that or are you just playing devil's advocate? How can I possibly know anything about Him for sure other than what He explicitly says? well then how are you so sure God is a "he". Why do you even consider if what "He" says or doesn't say is true without even first really considering if he actually exists or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo



Big Richard	Aug 14 2011, 03:54 AM Post #84
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	Redemption Aug 14 2011, 01:42 AM gs Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM Redemption Aug 14 2011, 01:06 AM gs Aug 14 2011, 12:59 AM Redemption Aug 13 2011, 06:53 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? 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. underlying moral principles? every moral principle is made up by man. that doesn't make them invalid, but to call them objective ... If they're not objective, then why should they bind us as individuals and govern how we behave? because people think they're objective and treat them that way. and i don't think they bind us at all because you don't have to follow them if you don't want to... Because some people decided it was right? Thats what I feel when I question your obedience to your "God" which I'm sure was just a story made up by other people. Also if you were to try and consider something like Sam Harris' science of morality, murdering someone is worse than pickpocketing because it is more damaging to the flourishing of all living things. As in something is based moral or immoral based on a continuum formed when you take to consider how damaging or beneficial it is to the flourishing of all living things. Idk look it up lol its hard to explain.



Atilia/Tyranitar	Aug 14 2011, 04:20 AM Post #85
Major Posts: 1,201 Group: A414A Member Member #15 Joined: December 17, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 01:02 AM Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Dragon what religion are you? I don't think I even know anymore. It's complicated. What were you? I'm assuming some kind of Christian, which makes me ask, how much of the dogma you believe? You seem to think that atheist/agnostics are generally nihilists or should be nihilists because they don't perceive god as a reason to act moral. An interesting way to settle this debate I think would be to check the crime rates of atheists vs nonatheists. If atheists do commit more crimes, then perhaps they are more likely to fall into nihilism. If not, then perhaps a social and law-based sense of morality is enough for one to determine their morals and not cause trouble. Maybe someone already has the numbers on this, but I haven't seen any. http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-121066.0.html This article found that predominantly atheist countries have lower crime rates. I don't think it's full-proof though. One obvious flaw is the atheist countries are mainly richer, first world nations, and a higher standard of living=less crime. Edit: This is just Yahoo Answers but its interesting. Idk if the sources are legit the majority probably are. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100410115522AAZH6v8 Edited by Atilia/Tyranitar, Aug 14 2011, 04:44 AM.
	Jack the IV How the fuck is she gonna find out? I post pictures of my dog on here, it's the same thing, both are bitches. Jack the IV Cause arm-penises are way cooler. B)


Vondongo	Aug 14 2011, 04:22 AM Post #86
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	Big Richard Aug 14 2011, 03:48 AM Redemption Aug 14 2011, 12:03 AM Big Richard Aug 13 2011, 11:39 PM that was a wall of text painful to read, do you really believe all that or are you just playing devil's advocate? How can I possibly know anything about Him for sure other than what He explicitly says? well then how are you so sure God is a "he". Why do you even consider if what "He" says or doesn't say is true without even first really considering if he actually exists or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo Merely a matter of course. The "word" is that God is masculine, but there reeeeally isn't a lot to it either way. Or do you mean no gender whatsoever? Because I don't want to speak too much about what God is so much as what God does. I'm pretty sure I've explained about my faith a couple of times. It's not really a question for me anymore. There is no controversy, there is no big debate. I'm too philosophical to buy into a world governed by scientific principles that humans can explain everything with. We're barely smarter than most animals, honestly. We sit on a higher plane of intellect (sapience) but what's to say there isn't a plane of intellect above that? We have no way of knowing for sure, but we know that lower animals have no way of even comprehending the existence of sapience. And if we don't have the highest plane of knowledge, we can't explain everything, even just in the realm of the physical. No human can definitively prove God (or any deity for that matter) exists without some kind of divine intervention. Scientifically, it's not really possible to disprove the existence of a deity, either. Totally a matter of personal choice, and I picked the former. Anyway, can we steer this back to the regular topic? I like what we're talking about, but this is going to turn into just another debate thread if it goes into "Does or doesn't a higher power exist 101".



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 04:28 AM Post #87
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 14 2011, 04:20 AM DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 01:02 AM Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Dragon what religion are you? I don't think I even know anymore. It's complicated. What were you? I'm assuming some kind of Christian, which makes me ask, how much of the dogma you believe? My views on spirituality and religion have always been the same, now that I think of it, but there was a brief period in my childhood when I was a nihilist atheist. Quote: You seem to think that atheist/agnostics are generally nihilists or should be nihilists because they don't perceive god as a reason to act moral. An interesting way to settle this debate I think would be to check the crime rates of atheists vs nonatheists. If atheists do commit more crimes, then perhaps they are more likely to fall into nihilism. If not, then perhaps a social and law-based sense of morality is enough for one to determine their morals. Maybe someone already has the numbers on this, but it would be interesting to see. That won't work. Atheists in the West are obviously influenced by Western culture, which is based on Judeo-Christianity. Plus, just because someone doesn't do something (for fear of the law or societal backlash), that doesn't mean they don't think it's acceptable and/or want to do it. Edited by DragonLegend, Aug 14 2011, 04:33 AM.



Atilia/Tyranitar	Aug 14 2011, 04:45 AM Post #88
Major Posts: 1,201 Group: A414A Member Member #15 Joined: December 17, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 04:28 AM Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 14 2011, 04:20 AM DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 01:02 AM Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Dragon what religion are you? I don't think I even know anymore. It's complicated. What were you? I'm assuming some kind of Christian, which makes me ask, how much of the dogma you believe? My views on spirituality and religion have always been the same, now that I think of it, but there was a brief period in my childhood when I was a nihilist atheist. Quote: You seem to think that atheist/agnostics are generally nihilists or should be nihilists because they don't perceive god as a reason to act moral. An interesting way to settle this debate I think would be to check the crime rates of atheists vs nonatheists. If atheists do commit more crimes, then perhaps they are more likely to fall into nihilism. If not, then perhaps a social and law-based sense of morality is enough for one to determine their morals. Maybe someone already has the numbers on this, but it would be interesting to see. That won't work. Atheists in the West are obviously influenced by Western culture, which is based on Judeo-Christianity. Plus, just because someone doesn't do something (for fear of the law or societal backlash), that doesn't mean they don't think it's acceptable and/or want to do it. So do you consider yourself a member of a mainstream religion or do you just believe your own shit?
	Jack the IV How the fuck is she gonna find out? I post pictures of my dog on here, it's the same thing, both are bitches. Jack the IV Cause arm-penises are way cooler. B)


Big Richard	Aug 14 2011, 04:46 AM Post #89
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 14 2011, 04:20 AM DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 01:02 AM Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Dragon what religion are you? I don't think I even know anymore. It's complicated. What were you? I'm assuming some kind of Christian, which makes me ask, how much of the dogma you believe? You seem to think that atheist/agnostics are generally nihilists or should be nihilists because they don't perceive god as a reason to act moral. An interesting way to settle this debate I think would be to check the crime rates of atheists vs nonatheists. If atheists do commit more crimes, then perhaps they are more likely to fall into nihilism. If not, then perhaps a social and law-based sense of morality is enough for one to determine their morals and not cause trouble. Maybe someone already has the numbers on this, but I haven't seen any. http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-121066.0.html This article found that predominantly atheist countries have lower crime rates. I don't think it's full-proof though. One obvious flaw is the atheist countries are mainly richer, first world nations, and a higher standard of living=less crime. Edit: This is just Yahoo Answers but its interesting. Idk if the sources are legit the majority probably are. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100410115522AAZH6v8 this video has the info you're talking about http://vimeo.com/15773748



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 04:52 AM Post #90
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 14 2011, 04:45 AM DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 04:28 AM Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 14 2011, 04:20 AM DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 01:02 AM Atilia/Tyranitar Aug 13 2011, 10:07 PM Dragon what religion are you? I don't think I even know anymore. It's complicated. What were you? I'm assuming some kind of Christian, which makes me ask, how much of the dogma you believe? My views on spirituality and religion have always been the same, now that I think of it, but there was a brief period in my childhood when I was a nihilist atheist. Quote: You seem to think that atheist/agnostics are generally nihilists or should be nihilists because they don't perceive god as a reason to act moral. An interesting way to settle this debate I think would be to check the crime rates of atheists vs nonatheists. If atheists do commit more crimes, then perhaps they are more likely to fall into nihilism. If not, then perhaps a social and law-based sense of morality is enough for one to determine their morals. Maybe someone already has the numbers on this, but it would be interesting to see. That won't work. Atheists in the West are obviously influenced by Western culture, which is based on Judeo-Christianity. Plus, just because someone doesn't do something (for fear of the law or societal backlash), that doesn't mean they don't think it's acceptable and/or want to do it. So do you consider yourself a member of a mainstream religion or do you just believe your own shit? Pretty much the latter. I don't discuss my personal beliefs, so don't ask me to elaborate. And I responded to the crime bit in my post above.



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

Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
8