Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Astantia

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
He seems funny.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Happens When You Die?
« on: May 22, 2007, 09:02:48 PM »
I don't think, what with my immense income and the advances of modern science, that it's not inconceivable for me to not die.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The inexorable proof of God:
« on: May 06, 2007, 09:29:17 AM »
Sprinkz, I don't think anybody here actually disagrees with your point of view.  Just the caustic and hate filled way in which you relate it. 

Stop it.  Nobody cares how much you hate theists.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Big Three
« on: April 30, 2007, 04:56:23 PM »

You need to read up on karma. That's pretty much exactly what you're talking about. It still has to do entirely with the "Golden Rule" of "Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" which is exactly what I'm talking about.


'Karma' still requires a supernatural agency.  I don't think that such a thing exists.  Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that you get what you serve.  You give someone garbage, you get garbage back.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Big Three
« on: April 30, 2007, 06:57:30 AM »
Then how do you explain self-interest in being moral if not karma?


Every action of mine creates a response.  Either in myself or in others.  This response is either beneficial to or detrimental to my life and my way of life.

In other words, my actions affect those around me, and cause them to react.  Those reactions will influence my life.  Being fallible, my perception of those consequences is limited, however, I attempt to minimise negative reactions and maximise positive reactions.

There is no supernatural being or force, just developed relationships with other people.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Big Three
« on: April 29, 2007, 10:41:25 PM »
How is Karma rational?  A belief that because I do certain things, a supernatural force will try to punish or reward me for it?  Where's the rational basis for that?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Big Three
« on: April 29, 2007, 04:31:39 PM »
There are other ways of incapacitating people other than killing them. You can argue a case for "necessary force," and if there was truly no other way, then it could be justified.

And so enlighten me, then. Where does your morality come from?

Agreed on incapacitation before killing, but I think on a different basis.

My morality comes from a rational self-interest.

Yet to proven?

It's the unconscious part of your brain that tells you not to kill another human. As a species, our sole purpose is actually to keep our species alive.

Also, to quote Dune if I could:

"You are Human not because of your genetic structure, but because of your dedication to the survival of the species. Any other animal trapped in a leg snare would chew it's leg off to get away. Humans wait to see who has trapped them and destroy them to stop the risk to the species."

Self-Defense is the only justifiable murder. Also, Handguns=dumb. Just a side point. Why sell handguns other than to kill another person, they aren't even good for hunting (unless its a squirral or something)?

Human beings do not have a purpose.  My goal is not the survival of this species, but my survival.  Being part of this species, my survival usually coincides with the survival of others.  The unconscious is not a source of morals either, if the Unconscious tells you to murder a human being, it is the true sign of a man to think things through first, and not to act just on what one feels.  Self-defense is not murder.  Handguns are perfect for incapacitating another human being, if the user is trained to do so.  If you ban handguns, then the only people who will have them are cops and criminals, and cops are not as reliable as we all wish they were.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Big Three
« on: April 26, 2007, 11:59:40 PM »

Still remains "don't kill people."

Do you distinguish between "don't kill people" and "don't murder people?"

If I kill someone else, I have murdered them. So, no. Military is slightly different in that it's usually not the soldiers' fault.

'From where do you derive your sense of righteousness?'

There's this thing that goes on...hmm...what is it again? Oh yeah, conscious thought and realizing that I exist as a human being.


You've got to be kidding me :o.  Does everyone capable of consious thought realize this? And do they all possess the same righteousness?   8) 

Everyone capable of moral conscious thought realizes that they are a human being and that other human beings are ALSO human beings. This is where morals come from. The realization that, "Hey, I think that it'd suck if some ass came and shot me. Maybe I shouldn't go shoot somebody, because it'd probably suck for them, too." Morals do not come from a book nor from spoken word, they come from obvious logical conclusions.


If they were going to kill you, does murder become justified?

My morality doesn't come from empathy.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Big Three
« on: April 25, 2007, 10:13:43 PM »
1.) Neither do I.  ;)
2.) What about self - defense?

You have yet to proven how conscious thought leads to 'Don't Kill another human.'

Second, that was not well said, it was sarcastic and unnecessarily caustic.  If you agree with something he says, instead of 'wasting' a post by simply agreeing, add something to the conversation.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion Gone To Far?
« on: April 25, 2007, 08:07:16 PM »
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?


Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Big Three
« on: April 25, 2007, 08:02:44 PM »
Is it right to kill a bunch of people in a civilized manner then?  What about a single person?  Can I kill them? 

Is that the only rule?  My question wasn't as to what unrighteous thing was in the Old Testament, I couldn't actually care less about it.  My question (restated) is:

'From where do you derive your sense of righteousness?'

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Big Three
« on: April 25, 2007, 05:06:50 PM »
I'd have to say all of them, though at different times. Christianity seems the most evident to us, but Islam dictates their own peoples' rules so harshly that it's hard to not include them, and Judaism has done its share of spreading about here and there, not to mention it's based off of the Old Testament which is probably the most violent and unrighteous crap you could possibly find.


Where do you get your sense of righteousness from, may I ask?

If those are the arguements, then neither of you are debating each other.

Would both of you agree that the 1st ammendment protects religion?
I would think so.

Would both of you agree that the child was trying to be humorous?
I should hope so.

The difference is in how you feel about the legitimacy of the Pastafarian 'Faith.'
Here's a point to be made:
The 'religion' is not a religion, but a pop - culture statement against faith.  It is not made with the intention of believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but to attempt to point out the flaws of religion in general.

Would both of you agree to this?

Yeah because they're more widespread, because they are accepted as religious headware by pretty much everyone. And because they're not a fucking joke.

You shouldn't argue just for the sake of arguing Edmunds. There comes a point when you have to realise you are making a pointless argument, perhaps you'll realise how to recognise that point when you're a little older.

::) This has nothing to do with age, and it's an important topic, because I'm not necessarily defending the student who got suspended. For all I know, he was an ass and was jumping around and acting like a monkey, too. I'm arguing against religious double-standards. I'll halt my argument wholly right now if you can tell me why some religions should be tolerated while others are not (it doesn't have to be pirate regalia, either--there are other examples of religious double-standards all over)?


That's where you are supposed to supply the example.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Islamic jokes
« on: April 21, 2007, 05:09:24 PM »
What's the difference between Islam and Christianity?
One wants you to kill others, one wants you to have fun.

The answer to your question then lies in the difference between 'reason' and 'purpose.'

Terrorists have purpose.

Cho had neither.

Is there a logical reason for muslims to kill everyone else?

That being said, I wouldn't give cho the dignity of being called a terrorist. He wasn't fighting for a purpose, he was just lashing out.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Islamic jokes
« on: April 21, 2007, 10:17:04 AM »

This guy needs some guidance.

He went from 'Devout' Christianity to 'Devout' Islam to 'Devout' Hinduism.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheist Club
« on: April 18, 2007, 11:00:09 PM »
Necesary for life?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheist Club
« on: April 17, 2007, 07:00:30 AM »
If any supernatural thing existed, any observeable measureable 'evidence' for it would instantaneously make it a natural part of our world.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheist Club
« on: April 16, 2007, 06:53:48 PM »
Here's a proof... but it's against only the traditional view of God.

God is all powerful.  He is also all knowing.  He also wants us to be happy.

Now, if a God like this exists, we would be happy.  And here's why:

He WANTS something.
He has the ability to do it.
He knows how to do it.

Now, if he has all these traits, there is no reason for us to be unhappy at anytime.  Don't give me that 'free will' stuff, because God (being all powerful) is capable of working around our will to make us happy.... and because he knows everything, he knows a way to do it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christianity + Sex = ?
« on: April 16, 2007, 06:27:30 PM »
I'm setting myself up as a pseudo intellectual.

This is fun.  ;)

But it is easy to say what would be good for a chair to posess.  We have an idealic 'chair' in our minds which embodies every element that we consider essential to being a chair.  This chair (likely) does not exist, but it is the abstract concept of 'chair' which we associate with.

But even you want an idealic state, don't you?  Don't you want the world to be conformed to your desire?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christianity + Sex = ?
« on: April 16, 2007, 12:19:42 PM »
I had a great post, but they deleted your thread before I got to it.

Something about how people weren't being forced to click on links that they didn't WANT to see.  or something... I forget the wording.  but it was good.

Also, let's go into the 'trees' topic and mention how they are being impure by looking at and appreciating phallic objects...

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christianity + Sex = ?
« on: April 16, 2007, 11:49:21 AM »
Joo got banned.

Harmony is usually related more to Aristotle, at least as far as I've seen.  As far as The Republic being racist and bigotty.  Yeah, pretty much.  BUT it seeks to make a perfect state, not advocating that he lives in one.  It's like idealised nationalism for a state that never existed.

I thought that you would like it SprinkZ.  (I don't mean that to be a slam, I just thought that his viws on philosopher kings would've been more appreciated by people like SprinkZ and Beast et al.)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christianity + Sex = ?
« on: April 16, 2007, 11:37:08 AM »
I'm in.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christianity + Sex = ?
« on: April 15, 2007, 09:33:45 PM »
Sounds like the perfect place for a porn-bot.

There are two forms of everything, the subject and the ideal.

If I say 'John is a man.'

I am using both.  You know the person who is John, that is the individual, and the ideal which is man.  You will never meet the ideal man.  It is like asking what a chair is.  There are an infinite different number of 'chairs' but in your mind, there is the notion of what a chair actually is.

I don't think Plato was advocating the belief of a world of perfect forms.

I haven't read too much of his, but 'The Republic' is presents one of my worst fears for government.  Then again, this thread is about something else.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18