| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Comments:
<]Newt[> Lacna: you watch too much Lost! ;)
<^-o-^> I mean what does religion generally teach, love your fellow man, don't murder, don't steal, do things right
<]Newt[> morality
<]Newt[> I know.
<]Newt[> which is WAY positive
<^-o-^> its just the question of what is right which is answered
<^-o-^> I disagree
<]Newt[> but I am not religious, and my morals are very high.
<^-o-^> but thats another argument
<LacnaCoil> or are I and everyone else and everything a figment of someone elses imagionation...
<|neldo|> religion is important to those who only have that hope, that god will see them through, and that everything will work out
<LacnaCoil> lol
<^-o-^> your morals are yours Newt there's no such thing as high or low morals
<|neldo|> other thn that its a bit retarded
<]Newt[> well I know
<^-o-^> no
<]Newt[> they are all subjective
<LacnaCoil> I thougth of that a couple of years ago
<]Newt[> but I meant mine are probably somewhere around the devout christian level
<^-o-^> religion is the basis for our basic economy, our laws, and the basic functionalities of society
<]Newt[> i dont engage in frivolous intercourse, no drugs, etc.
<^-o-^> there are no levels newt
<]Newt[> there are in terms of religion.
<LacnaCoil> but the thought came back when i saw las night lost
<]Newt[> you cant be a christian and murder
<]Newt[> well you can.
<^-o-^> morality is a personal decision often influenced by religious institutions, parents, and other authority figures
<|neldo|> tell that to george bush
<]Newt[> but you have to beg for forgiveness
<|neldo|> tell that to george bush
<|neldo|> and tony bliar
<^-o-^> murder is not necesarrily immoral
<^-o-^> it is to some people perhaps
<]Newt[> yes, but all I'm saying is religions have a set of morals they expect their followers to live by
<^-o-^> but to others its a way of life
<]Newt[> Christians shouldn't
<^-o-^> and isn't immoral
<]Newt[> Muslims can in the name of Jihad.
<]Newt[> i know
<^-o-^> no everyone should have morals
<|neldo|> atheists have a set of morals, called decency
<^-o-^> better example
<]Newt[> well your morals may be a lack of morals to me
<]Newt[> by my "standard"
<]Newt[> scuse
<|neldo|> you're excused
<]Newt[> woo
<|neldo|> well actually, maybe say a couple of hail marys first
<]Newt[> haha
<^-o-^> for example in the 19th century it was common for men in their late twenty's to early fifties to marry teenage girls. Sometimes younger then teenage but commonly 12-17
<^-o-^> it was morally acceptable
<^-o-^> and was the way things were
<]Newt[> yeah, morals evolve just like religion evolves.
<|neldo|> romeo and juliet, she wiz only 14
<^-o-^> now if a man older then 18 even looks at a teenager their seen as a pedophile
<^-o-^> I wouldn't say its evolving
<^-o-^> changing sure
<]Newt[> sure it is
<^-o-^> not evolving
<]Newt[> evolution - gradual development
<^-o-^> ***uming that morals are getting better which is ***uming there's such a thing as better and worse morals
<]Newt[> sure there are
<^-o-^> I believe that there are no better or worse morals
<^-o-^> there are just morals
<]Newt[> you can have better and worse, its the fine details where the hangups occur
<^-o-^> some which are more socially acceptable by pop culture
<]Newt[> no matter where you are from or what you believe, murder is immoral
<^-o-^> and therefore 'better' however they're merely different
<]Newt[> taking the life of another person, is unacceptable in any culture, and should be for any reason
<]Newt[> calling it jihad should not make it morally acceptable.
<^-o-^> that is soooo not true Newt
<]Newt[> notice i say SHOULD not
<^-o-^> because what Murder means is different to pretty much every religion
<]Newt[> ok, give me ONE example when murder is justifiable.
<|neldo|> different societies have different morals. for example, some tribes in africa will take dead bodies out and leave them for the hyenas to eat. we see it as wrong, they see it as deeply respectful. theyre not right, we're not right, its just different viewpoints from a diiferent culture
<]Newt[> in any religion or culture.
<^-o-^> sure
<|neldo|> self defence
<^-o-^> though shalt not suffer a witch to live
<]Newt[> unacceptable.
<^-o-^> to your morals
<|neldo|> self defence is unacceptable?
<^-o-^> eye for an eye
<]Newt[> and i understand it was common practice in the 1600s, but you and i can both agree this was a stupid reason to condem someone to death
<Sueann19> hello king_arth! please dont /msg people you dont know. We prefer to talk here in the channel.
<^-o-^> eye for an eye then
<]Newt[> condemn*
<]Newt[> still unnacceptable
<^-o-^> he killed my child I kill his
<|neldo|> what about murder for self defence?
<]Newt[> how is that morally acceptable?
<^-o-^> why its fair
<^-o-^> its fair
<]Newt[> go read some Kant, or John Stuart MIll.
<]Newt[> Mill*
<|neldo|> eye for an eye is stupid and worng
<]Newt[> utilitarianism is bunk
<^-o-^> stealing isn't necisarrily immoral
<]Newt[> agreed.
<^-o-^> I mean if I can take and hold it and they can't why should they have it?
<^-o-^> survival of the fittest
<^-o-^> darwinism
<]Newt[> well, darwinism was used to express natural evolution.
<]Newt[> not things like a business model
<]Newt[> which may be infered from your statement
<^-o-^> not a buisness model
<^-o-^> a moral model
<]Newt[> still doesnt hold water there.
<CF_INF> Hey everyone i know
<^-o-^> if its good for nature why not for us?
<]Newt[> you cant compare apples and oranges thats why.
<^-o-^> sure you can
<^-o-^> they're both fruit
<]Newt[> not at all
<^-o-^> I like one and not the other
<]Newt[> right, and nature, and the fact that were biological beings is about all we have in common
<^-o-^> that's two comparisons between apples and oranges
<]Newt[> darwinism works at very low level natural sets.
<]Newt[> that was the point of evolution of species
<^-o-^> but if then you get into the question of what is free thinking or for that matter free will
<]Newt[> which by the way left in a whole clause about god being able to exist in this set as well
<^-o-^> thats soooo sooo not true
<]Newt[> but people seem to skip that too
<CF_INF> you guys are getting WAY to technical
<]Newt[> dude, go READ evolution of species.
<]Newt[> then talk to me about its finer points.
<^-o-^> darwinism in its purist form which is more akin to John Nash's mathmatical formula for governing dynamics
<^-o-^> If everyone works together and for themselves the group benefits best
<]Newt[> thats very Kantian.
<]Newt[> but hardly darwinism
<^-o-^> your taking me far to literally
<^-o-^> survival of the fittest and governing dynamics have great similarities
<]Newt[> as far as special survival
<]Newt[> I follow you.
<]Newt[> but i dont think Darwin would agree.
<]Newt[> because there are too many variables involved in special survival above group effort.
<^-o-^> and my point is that religion, morals, and the like are more often then not reactions to natural needs and natural responses to stimuli
<^-o-^> and I'm not concerned with them
<^-o-^> because the topic isn't special survival
<^-o-^> the topic is morals
<]Newt[> and it is my ***ertion that science will always be able to prove whatever it is that religion is hanging on to incorrect, and religion will be forced to take one more step back in time.
<^-o-^> no
<^-o-^> religion
<]Newt[> yes, thats how its been working for millenium
<^-o-^> religion will always be able to explain more then science until we've literally explored the whole universe and know everything
<]Newt[> from capernicus to galileo to hawking
<]Newt[> explain is the absolute incorrect word
<]Newt[> it cant explain, it can HYPOTHESIZE
<^-o-^> it explains
<]Newt[> hypotesise*
Return to
#beginner
or
Go to some related
logs:
#computers
#firebird
#microsoft
GAPJ.PK
#computers
#visualbasic
#firebird
#politics
#windowsxp
tom dempsy
|
|
