the *** sex & religion thread (Religious, effect, members, cover)

[cardboard adolescent]

I pray every day that someone will come along and violently sex me up. God's a bastard though, just the same old shit.

[Inuzuka Skysword]

Well part of the reason we got off track on morality is because we were more dealing with Objectivism and Inuzuka accused me of approaching morality different than I approach religion, which means I'm "turning off the logic-switch" and "irrational". Even though I've been trying to explain to him that I approach religion (and claim its false) based on science/historic knowledge and if you look at history than you'll see morals change from culture to culture and century to century...which doesn't lend any credibility to morality being "objective." Than when I went at it (barring the gene thing) from a scientific study angle he told me that was a bad way to go about it because humans aren't objective. Which struck me as odd since we were talking about the human idea of morality* and if humans aren't objective than how can their ideas on right and wrong be objective either? Basically in approaching morality the same way I approach religion I find that it isn't objective.

The reason I am saying it isn't objective is because you aren't even using the word Objective right. Just because a million people believe something doesn't make it right. In the same way, just because all people believe a morality is right doesn't mean it is actually right. A morality is right because it is rational. If every human in the world chooses their morals irrationally, but they get the same morality then they are all wrong. Humans can get morality right by taking a rational and logical approach to it.

Now I've said before (I believe when I went on that long rant in the Morality and the Bible thread) that I don't doubt that morality is a selected trait and that certain societies have had members who didn't act in the best interests of their group (and acted maybe in the best interests of themselves instead or were just lazy or something) and as a result their entire group failed to survive. I think, as you said, that true Altruism is impossible (though admittedly I did not approach that from a biological perspective more from my interaction with humans) but I think operating in absolutes and extremes when it comes to human ideals is just foolish because it's not realistic. You're never going to find someone who lets themselves be violently sexed up because their "selfless."

You either put yourself above people or you put people about yourself. If you put people above yourself then you are selfless, which in turn means you put everyone above yourself because using your brain above others would be selfish. Everyone acts to their own self interests. If you fall in love with a girl you don't fall in love because it is for her own good and you like nothing about her. To have any values you must be selfish. If you have certain values then you are bound to like some people and dislike others. This dislike of others and love of others is a sign of selfishness because you are using your own mind to judge things. An altruist must never trust his own mind because he is concerning himself when he does this.

You can't be in the middle of either. It is like a true or false situation. You either use your mind to get you through life or you don't. If you use it sometimes and forget about it others then you are an altruist sometimes and a selfish person at other times.

I did talk to great lengths about morality being adaptive (I believe in the morality and bible thread again.) As I said above (and you have too) ethical standards and moral norms change at different paces and in different places and in some cultures this is okay but in some cultures it's not. If you get very specific though you'll find within that culture that the general society of course isn't all going to agree what is moral and what isn't. To look at the farmer example, what if there's a farmer who is very loyal to the empire (and since in many cases marriage is just a property thing, something which nowadays we generally view as immoral) just views killing his wife as killing a cow and doesn't really care? That sounds cold but I think you get what I'm saying. The sense of right and wrong changes from person to person, there is no objective sense of it. I mean even now, there are plenty of people who are for the death penalty and consider it fair punishment but I find it horribly immoral and I am against it in all circumstances.

Again, just because people believe it doesn't make it objective. If everyone in one room has a drug trip, the trip isn't really reality. However there is a reality that they could all view if they used their reason and logic. Reason and logic are the only reliable ways of decoding reality.

One of the reasons I'm so passionate about Atheism is because I believe that morally religion is detrimental to society. As I've said before if you accept faith or Jesus as a moral arbitrator than logically you have to accept the Qu'ran as a moral arbitrator as well. Which means accepting the abuse of woman it also means accepting acts like 9/11 as strictly moral acts because they're only playing by your rules, as unreasonable in my mind as they are.**

My problem with the anti-religion view is that you are missing the root cause of why religion ruins society. It is irrational. Nonreligious people can go around murdering people just like a religious person. What is common in both? They are irrational. There is no conflict of interests among rational men. Also, believing Jesus as a moral person does not take any more faith than believing that Martin Luther King Jr. was a moral person (excluding the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. lived not long ago). We do have evidence of Jesus, however whether he is God or not there is no evidence. I would agree in that one who accepts the Bible must accept the Koran, but once I believe in a god I am already highly irrational and obviously don't care about my rationality. So for me to say the Koran is wrong would not be a huge step. Also, Jesus's message is much different than Islam's message. While you have heard that Jesus was just a get-out-of-jail free card, this is not the true message. His true message is to bring peace and love to the world and restore it to its original creation. There is no slave driver god telling people they must follow him. I have biblical evidence to support that there is no such thing as eternal damnation, Satan, etc.

I really just wish we could grow past this idea that morality is something concrete. I believe we need to see it as an ongoing human discussion with an unattainable but beautiful goal nonetheless (world peace and rainbows and all that.) As times change we need to adjust our ideas (and we do.) Even Christians just base the morality their morality off of what is secular and then just go back and use the bible to justify it. I've said before if you asked Jesus about cloning or any of our modern issues he'd have no idea if it was moral or not because he wouldn't even know what cloning was!

That really isn't argument against Christian morals. Christian morals are based off of loving your neighbor as yourself. If something isn't loving such as murder, then this is obviously against Jesus's morals. However, cloning can be used to save lives so why Jesus would be against it, I really don't know.

I do want to add I'm not just attacking Islam here I do believe religion as a whole teaches some very nasty things, particularly Christianity. Masturbation is not something that should make people feel ashamed and you shouldn't feel ashamed over natural impulses either. Lust is normal and I don't believe it is a sin. I also don't believe every situation can be judge strictly as "right" or "wrong" and I think teaching that kind of thing almost condemns independent thought. I also believe teaching children these things at a very impressionable age is immoral. No matter how much my rational mind tells me lust isn't shameful I still believe it is, though logically I know it isn't "sinful." That is psychological damage I don't think can be undone and it was done by a church. I also believe the externalization of blame to be a damaging thing, people need to accept their mistakes. I could go on and on but I'll stop now as this post is already very lengthy.

I would argue that altruists who force their children to give to others are a reason why society is getting worse. I would argue that handicaps are damaging to society because they suck up the welfare that could be used on gifted kids (though I am against welfare in general). I also believe that societies teaching of materialism is wrong. Etc, etc, etc. I obviously don't agree with all of this stuff. because the handicap thing was a bit cruel. If you have a problem, feel free to speak out about it. No one has a problem with that. All I have a problem with would be you forcing me how to parent using the law. That is all people use these days. They whine to their politician and decide how my child, which I brought into existence should believe. You would be restricting my free speech. I know you didn't mention using the law, but I am just saying.

[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.
Define rationality.
Define morality.
Define right.
Define wrong.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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