the *** sex & religion thread (single, American, African, shows)

[Inuzuka Skysword]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

because logic is not able to rid itself of contradictions, it cannot achieve a unity and a totality. that is basically what all major developments of the 20th century philosophy, science and mathematics teach us, see godel's proof see quantum mechanics see post-modernism in general.

I said what I didn't want to say so completely disregard the first sentence of my last post. My point is that logic is the best we have. Though it may not achieve unity and totality, it still achieves more than anything else we have. My problem with post-modernism is that it says logic is not reliable, but what does it offer you in return? It offers nothing in return. Instead, post-modernists would rather float through existence using their even more unreliable feelings. Post-modernism is not an intellectual movement. Post-modernism is a stupid teenage rebellion.

[cardboard adolescent]

post-modernism shows that all we do is float through existence using our unreliable feelings, and that logic is just one form of this.

the question, if i have to remind you, was not one of whether or not to use logic, but whether or not to view logic as an absolute. i also find it very funny that most people who respond to irrationalism or nihilism or relativism cannot help but do so with insults and violence, because those are really the only ways to support any standpoint.

[Inuzuka Skysword]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

post-modernism shows that all we do is float through existence using our unreliable feelings, and that logic is just one form of this.

Logic is much more reliable though. Why would you just throw away something more-useful?

the question, if i have to remind you, was not one of whether or not to use logic, but whether or not to view logic as an absolute. i also find it very funny that most people who respond to irrationalism or nihilism or relativism cannot help but do so with insults and violence, because those are really the only ways to support any standpoint.

You view logic as an absolute because it is the best we have. Reason and logic should be ranked as the best way to look at the universe so therefore they really becomes our absolute. Of course I say "they should be ranked as an absolute" because they intertwine.

The reason I hurl insults sometimes is because one cannot reason with irrational people. The definition of reason contradicts that possibility. So instead of backing out of the debate saying "There is no reason to debate this because you aren't using reason" I will sometime insult and try to make your position look horrible, which in this case it really is. It is really the only way one can try to get their point across to someone who is illogical without using brute force.

[cardboard adolescent]

you're really missing the point. the point is that logic, although it might be 'reliable' and 'useful' cannot be taken to be an absolute because it relies on supra-rational feelings... how do you choose one set of mathematical axioms over another? how do you decide what is meaningful and what is not? the system relies on what lies outside the system; rationality relies on irrationality... its the dialectic, man. when you say reason is the best you are already speaking in the language of reason to justify itself; you are completely entrenched. but just the fact that there is something opposed to reason that it bases itself against means that it has to be relative and not absolute. the best way to look at the universe and see it for what it really is is to stop trying to force it into a conceptual grid and realize concepts are concepts, life is life. that's enlightenment, man.

[Inuzuka Skysword]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

you're really missing the point. the point is that logic, although it might be 'reliable' and 'useful' cannot be taken to be an absolute because it relies on supra-rational feelings... how do you choose one set of mathematical axioms over another? how do you decide what is meaningful and what is not? the system relies on what lies outside the system; rationality relies on irrationality... its the dialectic, man. when you say reason is the best you are already speaking in the language of reason to justify itself; you are completely entrenched. but just the fact that there is something opposed to reason that it bases itself against means that it has to be relative and not absolute. the best way to look at the universe and see it for what it really is is to stop trying to force it into a conceptual grid and realize concepts are concepts, life is life. that's enlightenment, man.

I am going to have to think about this for a bit. I am doing a bit of homework and I don't want to post another stupid response. Give me a day or two to repost.

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

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.

Morality and theology have nothing to do with each other. Like...at all. You can't approach something abstract (morality) scientifically because science deals with concrete observations and facts.

P.S. I gave up writing a response to that, I'm far too busy with schoolwork to write a who knows how many pages argument in response to a twenty page article.

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

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

Why don't you give me them instead? Because if what is "moral" comes down to being "selfish" which is basically reproduce, eat, and don't kill people than Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't so much philosophy as pointing out the obvious.

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.

See but here's the problem I have with creating a rational world. I don't believe humans are rational beings. Our genes maybe but our conscious and thinking minds? Not in the slightest in fact your argument above shows you yourself are irrational and Ayn Rand was irrational. I don't think a single rational person has ever existed. So why strive for the impossible? The world isn't black or white, nor is it completely selfish or completely selfless. You can't operate in extremes and absolutes nor can you judge every single thing as either right or wrong. Life just isn't that simple (please note: I'm referring strictly to abstract things, not concrete. I'd consider gravity an objective truth because it's completely provable and testable.)

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.

I'm very skeptical about Jesus' existence. I don't know if you know who Jim Walker is but he makes a very good argument against the "evidence" here:

Originally Posted by Jim Walker

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

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

Erm, pardon me but what? That doesn't make any sense.

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

You're placing too much stock in what I said. I merely suggested (not said this is right) you might want to look at things like Objects to Objectivism or any other criticisms of Ayn Rand. She had a disdain for academic philosophy (fact) and because of this alot of her answers to philosophical questions either don't answer the question or show a fundamental misunderstanding or outright ignorance of the question.

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Why don't you give me them instead? Because if what is "moral" comes down to being "selfish" which is basically reproduce, eat, and don't kill people than Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't so much philosophy as pointing out the obvious.

Personally I believe the answer to that question is obvious and people/religions have just made more and more of a gray area. Being moral is the simple act of respecting others in each and every way possible. Weather it be when an old woman needs help carrying her groceries or throwing that plastic cup out the window. Doing one thing wrong does not make you immoral, it is the entirety of everything you do your entire life. Think of it as starting at 0 and either adding or subtracting from that number depending on the severity of the good/bad act you did.

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Why don't you give me them instead? Because if what is "moral" comes down to being "selfish" which is basically reproduce, eat, and don't kill people than Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't so much philosophy as pointing out the obvious.

Personally I believe the answer to that question is obvious and people/religions have just made more and more of a gray area. Being moral is the simple act of respecting others in each and every way possible. Weather it be when an old woman needs help carrying her groceries or throwing that plastic cup out the window. Doing one thing wrong does not make you immoral, it is the entirety of everything you do your entire life. Think of it as starting at 0 and either adding or subtracting from that number depending on the severity of the good/bad act you did.

Damn, I hope that made some sense.

[sleepy jack]

Ayn Rand doesn't believe that though; she believes being moral means respecting ones self and doing what is best in your own interests. I phrased that kind of oddly though (the bit you quoted) and it runs kind of contradictory towards what I say later.

Anyway to Inuzuka (to correct what I said above.) I believe morality is personal. To you and I killing is immoral. But to someone else it isn't. Reproducing, I don't know if that's a moral thing or not. It's logical sure for most of your species to procreate but I don't think it's immoral if you don't (especially given the world's current population.) I don't know I'm tired so I'm not being very clear. I believe morality is conditional and not something that can be established with the same rules as a concrete science and I also believe it's something that evolves.

I think there's a difference between what is logical for survival and moral though. I mean to put it an extreme situation, if there are three people let on earth. You, at a very very very old age (too old to have sex), a little girl and a little boy and there was only enough food for two people what do you do? Rand teaches it would be moral for you to look out for yourself yes? Well if it was and you fed yourself (which would be moral because its selfish right?) then your species would die out (which would be immoral.) What's the right thing to do in that situation? Do you see what I'm saying about setting up rules for something abstract being difficult? There are certain situations where things just aren't very clear.

[Dr_Rez]

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

Ayn Rand doesn't believe that though; she believes being moral means respecting ones self and doing what is best in your own interests. I phrased that kind of oddly though (the bit you quoted) and it runs kind of contradictory towards what I say later.

I was just saying what I believe haha. Ayn Rand probably would agree with me on much. If anything at all.