the *** sex & religion thread (country, cover, quote, Inci)

[cardboard adolescent]

fuck the principle of non-agression. I want you to hit me as hard as you can. Violence is inherent in life.

Logic does not give you an objective look at the universe. Logic can't support itself, and isnt supported by observation. Quantum Mechanics tears up even the principle of contradiction. According to logic, the spin of an electron should be either up or down. For it to be both is a logical impossibility. And yet, when we aren't measuring it, it has a spin up and down. It is in multiple places at once. According to logic, two events are either simultaneous or they aren't. And yet, we find that simultaneity is also contingent on the observer. So even logic is just a relative construct based on large-scale observations.

[anticipation]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

fuck the principle of non-agression. I want you to hit me as hard as you can. Violence is inherent in life.

yeah, and people get mad at me for believing this.

[cardboard adolescent]

just proof that its true

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

You mention logic fallacies and pull out this bull****. Seriously, how is the logic wrong? If one follows a morality because a god tells him to, and the god is disproven, then whole reason for the morality is rendered void making the morality irrational.

Lol...suggesting you might want to consider taking the opinions of smarter and more well-studied people isn't an example of logical fallacy.

[Inuzuka Skysword]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

You need to answer a few questions because I can't trust the dictionary with you since you're convinced Karl Marx and Jesus have corrupted it.

Define objective morality
Define rationality.
Define right.
Define wrong.

The bold I fixed. The idea of an objective morality is the morality that is true and right. Just as we use logic and rationality to find what is true and reality in the universe, we use it to find the "objective morality". The reason rationality and logic can be used in reality is because morality is just as much a part of reality as anything else. The "objective morality" is the morality FOR THIS REALITY. If you want to abide by your own subjective morals, which you get from your own subjective universe then feel free to go on your feelings. However, there is no reason as to why these subjective feelings should be applied in this reality because they are not found in this reality. They are found in your distorted, subjective reality. As has been shown by Aristotle, logic is the reliable way to observe this reality. So that is how we find the objective morality. Here is Ayn Rand's best article to describe it: The Ayn Rand Institute: The Objectivist Ethics, by Ayn Rand It is from her book The Virtue of Selfishness.

Rationality is reason.
Right is what follows the moral code.
Wrong is what doesn't follow the moral code.

Then when you're done doing that please explain who the moral arbitrator would be and if there isn't one then please explain what are the "Objective Morals" that are unquestionably, rationally and logically moral. Also please use the scientific method in explaining the rationality of these objective beliefs.
Thanks.

Logic and reason are the moral arbitrators. The article linked above will give you some of the main ethics.

Also a few other things, can you explain to me how when I explain why I'm against organized religion it's logical for you to start talking about Jesus and not the church and then tell me why you demand rationality of everyone else but not of yourself. Could you also provide historical evidence that Jesus actually existed?
Once again, thanks.

I only demand rationality of those who want it. Of course you want it because you use rationality to disprove God and all sorts of stuff. CA is just different. The world would be a better place if everyone was rational though. The reason I am not rational, well there isn't one. I am in a lot of cultural mesh with the Christian religion since have been brought up that way. 2-3 years ago I started looking a Christianity more to find out that it wasn't what it seemed. Now I am in between atheism and agnostic theism (Christianity). My main problem with following Christianity is the fact that what I think is right, isn't right. The world that Jesus and God want to create is not the world I want to create. They want to create a world where everyone is a bunch of socialists and love unselfishly. I want to help towards creating a rational world where people are responsible for themselves and what they do. I want to do what I want to do is the bottom line. Also, I have lived selflessly and I mean very selflessly. It's like eating food without taste buds. It is the worst feeling in my life. Selfishness and individualism are what make my life happy. So technically I don't logically agree with God, and neither do my feelings. However, I still do contribute to his kingdom for some odd reason. I still tutor after school at my own loss for some odd reason. I still give money away for some odd reason. I don't really have a steady world view right now. Believe me, it is not a good position to be in.

Historical evidence of Jesus can be found in writings by the Jewish historian named Josephus. A couple roman governors wrote letters back to each other concerning a "Christus" concerning an uprising in Jerusalem. One also mentioned this "Christus" when he talked about all the martyrs. The evidence of Jesus being a real person still does not contribute to the fact that there is a god though.

**** the principle of non-agression. I want you to hit me as hard as you can. Violence is inherent in life.

If you want me to hit you then I am not violating the principle.

Logic does not give you an objective look at the universe. Logic can't support itself, and isnt supported by observation. Quantum Mechanics tears up even the principle of contradiction. According to logic, the spin of an electron should be either up or down. For it to be both is a logical impossibility. And yet, when we aren't measuring it, it has a spin up and down. It is in multiple places at once. According to logic, two events are either simultaneous or they aren't. And yet, we find that simultaneity is also contingent on the observer. So even logic is just a relative construct based on large-scale observations.

There is no reason to believe this. Life is meaningless when you believe that there is no right way to view the universe.

Lol...suggesting you might want to consider taking the opinions of smarter and more well-studied people isn't an example of logical fallacy.

It is called an argument from authority when you try to argue that something is right because smarter people believe it.

[cardboard adolescent]

life is meaningless

or, if you want a slightly less biased approach, meaning is constructed. sometimes rather shabbily, as with ayn rand, who bases it around the need to survival. everyone wants to survive but that doesn't mean that survival is somehow meaningful in itself, it has to be given meaning by the human subject. if you're not relying on the bible to hand down meaning then all you have to rely on are the words of other people, ie humanity ie yourself. which is the same thing as saying that meaning is constructed which is the same thing as saying that in itself life is meaningless. might i suggest reading myth of sisyphus?

[sleepy jack]

I'm going to systematically destroy Rand's stupid argument and that whole article. I'll respond in a few days because I'm not going to dedicate a huge chunk of time towards it.

[Inuzuka Skysword]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

life is meaningless

or, if you want a slightly less biased approach, meaning is constructed. sometimes rather shabbily, as with ayn rand, who bases it around the need to survival. everyone wants to survive but that doesn't mean that survival is somehow meaningful in itself, it has to be given meaning by the human subject. if you're not relying on the bible to hand down meaning then all you have to rely on are the words of other people, ie humanity ie yourself. which is the same thing as saying that meaning is constructed which is the same thing as saying that in itself life is meaningless. might i suggest reading myth of sisyphus?

Yeah, but if you give it meaning then life isn't meaningless anymore. Basically, I want to know exactly why you choose to exist anymore. If you don't live for yourself then there is no reason for your existence unless you want to be a slave.

I'm going to systematically destroy Rand's stupid argument and that whole article. I'll respond in a few days because I'm not going to dedicate a huge chunk of time towards it.

That's fine. I back out of debates all the time due to school. I am surprised I am staying in this one with midterm projects/tests coming up.

[sleepy jack]

Looking at the length this might take me longer than a few days ;_;. So when you see a two page post by me you'll know it's done.

[cardboard adolescent]

To be or not to be, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to — 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life,
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.