Quake3World

this shit disgusts me. Land of the free my ass.

VoxProminence wrote:this shit disgusts me. Land of the free my ass.

the "land of the free?" whoever told you that is your enemy

R00k wrote: I think the way I would say it is that, it is never good to have faith in a certain belief system.

Nothing wrong with having a belief system, but to think it's infallible and superior to all others will never promote harmony in the human race. It's the antithesis to diversity.

So, then, once again, I will ask you, what makes one belief system, morality, whatever, better than another? For one to be superior to another, it must align more closely to a set of established criteria that represent the ideal 'infallible' belief system. Otherwise, there is no justification in saying that the Nazi morality was inherently bad. Inherently bad compared to what? The idea I am trying to get across is that there MUST be some 'moral law' that is, inherently, infallible....whether or not humans really have stumbled across that yet is up for debate. But I believe, firmly, that it does exist. And I would argue that, whether you are atheist or Muslim or Christian or Jew, the debate should not focus on whether or not there is a 'moral' or 'natural' law, but rather what the source of this law is....for example, someone might believe that what we perceive as the moral law (and what leads to moral behavior) is merely the manifestation of a property that emerges at the level of populations of organisms. A property that is the complex result of a multifactorial system including the 'desire' (not literal) of a number of genes to get themselves passed on to another generation. But does suggesting that the moral law is a genetic factor (albeit a complicated one) not strike a blow to the notion of free will?

So, to sum up, Rook - I don't want to come across as saying I KNOW what the best belief system is, or that I am 100% certain I know this 'moral law', but rather, that there must be some standard by which moralities are compared - and this standard should have some measure of infallibility to it (i.e. a definite answer on what is right and wrong - however inconvenient said answer might be in a given situation.) If no such thing exists, then we have no definitive standard for comparison of moralities, and thus no justification in saying one is superior to another.

I'm paraphrasing C.S. Lewis here, big time, btw.

rep wrote:

Duhard wrote:

Common misconception: God cannot hate.

Read the bible. God is documented as hating one thing or another a few times.

Reading the bible will show you that, if you believe any of it of course, God cannot hate people, but can hate sin (things). Of course, the OT depicts a very stern God.

So, these people standing here, acting as a voice for Christianity, are a classic example of the empty box making the most noise, and they really have no concept or clue about the "Christ" part of Christianity.

A good point tnf...one that is less a problem for religious folks than for secular humanists. The real trick, even if the 'objective-infallible morality thesis' is true, is that WE are fallible and thus are in constant danger of fucking things up while we are looking for and evaluating these standards (assuming we could recognize them in the first place).

But I believe the basic point you hint at is on the money: what are (or should be) our moral sources?

R00k wrote: I think the way I would say it is that, it is never good to have faith in a certain belief system.

Faith is never good? Careful now.

Nothing wrong with having a belief system, but to think it's infallible and superior to all others will never promote harmony in the human race. It's the antithesis to diversity.

Nope.

Hannibal wrote:A good point tnf...one that is less a problem for religious folks than for secular humanists. The real trick, even if the 'objective-infallible morality thesis' is true, is that WE are fallible and thus are in constant danger of fucking things up while we are looking for and evaluating these standards (assuming we could recognize them in the first place).

But I believe the basic point you hint at is on the money: what are (or should be) our moral sources?

Yes, that is the real trick, but the mere fact that we are looking for, and evaluating, standards implies that we are implying that the infallible morality does exist.

Hannibal, I'd be curious to hear your take on the idea of morality 'evolving' - as I mentioned - and the implications that this worldview would have on the notion of free will.

Also, keep in mind that I am merely a scientist. So forgive my philosphical insights if they seem rudimentary to those of you more versed in the subject. (I am listening to my CD's on the birth of western philosophy in the car right now...)

tnf wrote:
I'm paraphrasing C.S. Lewis here, big time, btw.

heh, I was just reading the man a couple of minutes ago. He has so many good nuggets of wisdom I was tempted to start a random C. S. Lewis quote sig.

tnf wrote:
Yes, that is the real trick, but the mere fact that we are looking for, and evaluating, standards implies that we are implying that the infallible morality does exist.

Well what our activities imply and what is actually the case may be very different.

tnf wrote: Hannibal, I'd be curious to hear your take on the idea of morality 'evolving' - as I mentioned - and the implications that this worldview would have on the notion of free will.

Interesting that you should ask this now. I've just started doing some reading on free-will/determinism...catching up on the literature so to speak (since it's not my primary area of interest)...I'd have a lot more to say if you're game in a few weeks.

Short, out of my ass reply: If by 'evolve' you mean change based on biological/evolutionary considerations...I'm skeptical that any deep or non-trivial insights about morality will be forthcoming on that front (unfortunately this won't stop evolutionary biologists from trying). Oh sure, we've learned interesting things about our capacities, even about some of our preferences, that undoubtedly have implications for our survival qua biological creatures...and by extension, this information could be conceptualized as a set of constraints on our moral theorizing. But none of this really tells us much about our deepest moral concerns (i.e., How should we be with each other? What kind of life is worth living?). This is one area where I think we (not you in particular) need to back off from our generalized obsession with natural science and realize that other concerns besides prediction and control might be more relevant (like 'meaning' for instance). As Charles Taylor put it "We are self-interpreting animals"....it would take a long while for me to go over Taylor's arguments here, but if you can pick up a copy of his "Human Agency and Language (1985)" from the local library, you can read "Self-Interpreting Animals" for yourself....consider it the philosophical equivalent of 'post-cum head'. It's that good.

What does 'post-cum head' mean? Google search turns up lots of porn links.

Think, with your dick in mind, for 10 seconds. You'll get it.

head that's so good that even after orgasm it gets you off. Also, depending on the nature of the orgasm, the post-cum head can have a nice deep tickle-like tingle to it.

Christ, and here I am thinking it's some esoteric latin phrase. Bluh me hard.

mjrpes wrote:Christ, and here I am thinking it's some esoteric latin phrase. Bluh me hard.

that's what I thought at first, but then I remembered who was posting, and I thought better.

I'd ergo hoc all your post hics anyday, dick.

btw tomorrow morning I get to lie in an MRI chamber for an hour or two and make responses to pictures of attractive women, and chinese characters. Get paid $50 too!

[xeno]Julios wrote:

mjrpes wrote:Christ, and here I am thinking it's some esoteric latin phrase. Bluh me hard.

that's what I thought at first, but then I remembered who was posting, and I thought better.

Yeah, that boy sure knows how to fit the words shit and fuck and 'blow me like a meta-Kant' into an otherwise dense paragraph of uber mind fuck prose.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

mjrpes wrote:Christ, and here I am thinking it's some esoteric latin phrase. Bluh me hard.

that's what I thought at first, but then I remembered who was posting, and I thought better.

Do I come off as obsessed with blowjobs Jules? Whatever do you mean?

[xeno]Julios wrote:btw tomorrow morning I get to lie in an MRI chamber for an hour or two and make responses to pictures of attractive women, and chinese characters. Get paid $50 too!

They better not show you pictures of shit-on-hands-dipped-in-water or nakked manatees... it could be too much brain activity for their MRI machine to process.

I just had the coolest idea for a scary movie...

READ THIS!!!

Totally nutty right wing biblenut who is straight wants to kill gays so he infects himself with HIV and whores himself all over the gayest parts of the country infecting millions while some detectives try to track him down.

Hannibal wrote:Do I come off as obsessed with blowjobs Jules? Whatever do you mean?

alls i'm sayin is that you're very, shall we say, lucid, when it comes to sexual conceptions.

mjrpes wrote:They better not show you pictures of shit-on-hands-dipped-in-water or nakked manatees... it could be too much brain activity for their MRI machine to process.

fuckin hell man - i read the first half of that post and now all the flies on my wall are pregnant.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Hannibal wrote:Do I come off as obsessed with blowjobs Jules? Whatever do you mean?

alls i'm sayin is that you're very, shall we say, lucid, when it comes to sexual conceptions.

Thanks. With that disposed of, I'm off to defeat the Klackons.

why is it that people get sued and become outcasts of society when they say something along the "homosexuality is a disease"-line, yet those religious folks get away with it, every single time

also, how come, when its about gays, its "religion", yet when the same thing is said about, lets say black people its a "cult"