[Phadreus]

Originally Posted by zfrilly2

The morals I live by are ones that are Christian but ones I have also learned the hard way myself.

For some interesting reading, look up the French's "Rights of man" sometime. I think it is pretty inclusive as to how we should treat one another. Enjoy!

[06CBR1KMFNRR]

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that all of the morals met both qualifications.

[06CBR1KMFNRR]

What kind of oil should I use?

[Phadreus]

Some might suggest that we beings have a certain "innate" knowledge of things that we haven't experienced. For example, zfrilly2; you mentioned that you "have learned" not to kill anyone. How does one learn such a thing? I propose that you didn't learn it, you realized it as knowledge that was inherent to you. Maybe it seems like a subtle play on words, but it's actually a very important distinction.

[soupnazi]

Originally Posted by analogbear

refined the big bang theory

The Big Bang theory is as holy as the pope's arsehole. Since the theory was dreamed up scientific progress has consistantly found said holes and debunked them, whereby the theory has been changed and adapted to compensate for scientific observation.

Darkmatter is now a scientific term for an unobservable, purely theoretical substance that is part of the backbone of Big Bang theory. The progress of Big Bang theory is putting ficticious man-made concepts into our understanding of the universe rather like a religion's explanation that God made man in his image when in actual fact man made God in his image.

The concept that everything must have a beginning and an end, that there are limits is completely self imposed by our romantic brains. The same struggle for scientific understanding has been happening for thousands of years with philosphers battling an overruling religious class who did not want to lose power to independant thinkers.

Religious confuses it's believers into classifying science as some sort of quasi-science that works alongside the spiritual. We're just animals that have self awareness and an exaggerated sense of self importance.

If a puddle of water in some dirt gained self awareness it would think to itself 'gosh, I'm sitting in this little dent in the ground that accommodates me. I fit in here perfectly, it must have been created just for me with me in mind..'

Plasma theory on the other hand is based only on what has been observed. Tangible (or as close to it as we can get) assessment of the universe and it's behaviour. There is no time, there is no beginning, there are no limits. Rather than red and blue shifts describing the universe expanding from a central point, it implies that the universe is constantly moving and writhing, expanding and contracting, hence an uneven clumped distribution of galaxies.

The shape of spiral galaxies is not explained by gravity, but by electromagnetic forces. Said forces are distributed via collossal 'tentacles' that reach throughout the universe like threads.

Your brain might have trouble contemplating such a place because it is not able to cope without boundaries of some shape or form... Probably what everyone would experience if they were subject to the Total Perspective Vortex (everyone except Zaphod Beeblebrox).

[Phadreus]

When speaking to "kill", the context was specific to other human beings I believe. Do any of REALLY spend any time in our lives "learning" to discern between animals and humans, which to kill, which not to kill? Hmm...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by zfrilly2

Not asking you to make a decision, just a question Christianity can not answer either. No where in the Bible, that I know, does teh Christian prefer a certain form of government.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." A tacit approval of both taxes, and a Republican or Parliamentary-Imperial government...

Originally Posted by zfrilly2

The morals I live by are ones that are Christian but ones I have also learned the hard way myself.

Don't kill people
Don't steal
Treat other people the way you want to be
Don't lie
Always have fun
Regret nothing

I suspect you break at least 5 of them every week...

Originally Posted by bryan4980

1-What evidence is there of reincarnation? 2-Where did the matter that created everything come from to create the big bang?

1-There are some studies that have suggested a release of energy at the point of certain deaths; and, there are lots of folks who "claim" to "remember" things about the past so esoteric in nature that they really might not have been able to "learn" it in the modern incarnation; and, nearly every religion on the planet has some variety of "life after death," with even the christian resurrection being interpreted in some circles as an object lesson that we will all live again. That being said, I didn't say anything was CONCLUSIVE about the issue, just that there was "some" evidence.

Originally Posted by Phadreus

For some interesting reading, look up the French's "Rights of man" sometime. I think it is pretty inclusive as to how we should treat one another. Enjoy!

I think Declarations on the Rights of Man is the fuller title...

Originally Posted by Phadreus

Some might suggest that we beings have a certain "innate" knowledge of things that we haven't experienced. For example, zfrilly2; you mentioned that you "have learned" not to kill anyone. How does one learn such a thing? I propose that you didn't learn it, you realized it as knowledge that was inherent to you. Maybe it seems like a subtle play on words, but it's actually a very important distinction.

It is both an important, and subtle, distinction, but applicable only if you are speaking metaphysically. You are really talking about the source of particular knowledge. Pragmatically speaking, does it really matter where the moral compass gets its inspiration, as long as it is oriented the right (no pun intended) way?

Originally Posted by soupnazi

The Big Bang theory is as holy as the pope's arsehole. Since the theory was dreamed up scientific progress has consistantly found said holes and debunked them, whereby the theory has been changed and adapted to compensate for scientific observation.

. The same struggle for scientific understanding has been happening for thousands of years with philosphers battling an overruling religious class who did not want to lose power to independant thinkers.

We're just animals that have self awareness and an exaggerated sense of self importance.

If a puddle of water in some dirt gained self awareness it would think to itself 'gosh, I'm sitting in this little dent in the ground that accommodates me. I fit in here perfectly, it must have been created just for me with me in mind..'

Plasma theory on the other hand is based only on what has been observed. Tangible (or as close to it as we can get) assessment of the universe and it's behaviour. There is no time, there is no beginning, there are no limits. Rather than red and blue shifts describing the universe expanding from a central point, it implies that the universe is constantly moving and writhing, expanding and contracting, hence an uneven clumped distribution of galaxies.



Your brain might have trouble contemplating such a place because it is not able to cope without boundaries of some shape or form... Probably what everyone would experience if they were subject to the Total Perspective Vortex (everyone except Zaphod Beeblebrox).

By definition, as it is a scientific theory, the big ban thing can't be "holy" so what is your point? I was trying not to confuse the issue with lots of specific terms of art or evolutions of the initial big bang theory...Of course, the idea for the Plasma Theory is itself merely an extension, and thereby an evolution/refinement of, the big bang theory...

Sure there has been a battle, but not really for thousands of years between the parties you mention. There were no intellectuals who were not part of the spiritual class in most of history. From the tribal shaman to Gregor Mendel, with the Ancient Greeks as an exception, but read Socrates' Apology...He indicates his piety and his identity as an instrument of his god...It wasn't until after the Renaissance that the philosophical ideas concealed for hundreds and hundreds of years were brought back, but even most of those folks with access were clergymen, so it was still the same group with the intellectual monopoly...It wasn't really until later, with an increase in secular education and commercialism of the academy, that the intellectual world became accessable to "people" who might then become secular philosophers.

Sure, we are animals, and some of us do have that exaggerated sense of self-importance...How else do we invent an anthropomorphic god/gods, and continue to argue about the nature of the universe as if we were the only important things in it?

Even your simplified snapshot of PT indicates an inability to actually observe and interract in an tangible sense with ALL parts of the universe...Whether the dark-matter issues are tendril or well-like, doesn't really matter when the purpose of the meta-concept (attempting to reason-through the PHYSICAL nature of the universe...Answering the HOW only, because the WHY is way too squirrely) is to debunk the idea of an anthro-centric spontaneously-created universe without any changing forces, as seems indicated by the common interpretations of the Hindu, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic creation perspectives...

Zaphod couldn't, though Trillian might...I have no romantic need to have things contained within parameters as simple-minded as those with a beginning and/or an end; but, I think some variey of "cyclic" universal existence seems plausable, given all the cyclic life, weather, emotional-perspectives, physical forces, etc. that are mirrored in nature here, and appear through our various sensors and teloscopic-observations of the universe.

Originally Posted by chuck_0069

I would disagree. You learn that it is ok to kill animals to eat. You are basically taught what to kill and eat and what not to wheather there is a class on it or not.

Well, what about vegetarians? Vegans? Lacto-ovo vegetarians?

Look, the whole thing is, SOMETHING has to die, be it a plant, animal, or human, for us to live. Period.
Society, morality, ethical guidelines, for some-religion, our individual prefrences, etc. all tell us where that line should be, but nobody lives without something alive dying...Even those folks kept alive on machines and tubes often get glucose derived from fructose in their IV's, because to chemically engineer C6H12O6 from raw chemicals is too costly, and frankly, those Carbon molecules often come from "fossil-product" which means dead, formerly-living stuff...

Originally Posted by Phadreus

When speaking to "kill", the context was specific to other human beings I believe. Do any of REALLY spend any time in our lives "learning" to discern between animals and humans, which to kill, which not to kill? Hmm...

We sure do! The 2 shipwrecked men, with their dog...OK, the dog dies first...Maybe. But only one guy is getting off that island if rescue takes long enough, especially if one guy is injured.

To look at this from a deontological perspective, are there any circumstances when killing a person would be the right thing to do?

The bad man is attacking you...You can either kill or be killed...

[leelover]

I am glad to see you have a healer on board.

What is the cure for cancer?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Pragmatically speaking, does it really matter where the moral compass gets its inspiration, as long as it is oriented the right (no pun intended) way?

How do you know what is "right", and why?

[sinfuldragon]

There isn't one. Why can't we just kill people that piss us off and then go on with our day. Take it back to the primal era where you could just do whatever the fuk you wanted... that would rule

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

I am glad to see you have a healer on board.

What is the cure for cancer?

DEATH!

[sinfuldragon]

simple enough answer

[analogbear]

[quote=leelover;609423][quote=analogbear;609408] Pragmatically speaking, does it really matter where the moral compass gets its inspiration, as long as it is oriented the right (no pun intended) way?

How do you know what is "right", and why?

That wasn't really his question, but I suppose I can deal with yours too...

See, your question is really 2, and depends whether you are talking about deontological right or consequentialist right. To give the whole lesson would take three pages worth in one really long post, so please, for everybody's sake, focus the question in this fashion (going in whatever direction you want, of course):

IF right is a question of results of action rather than its motivation;
AND IF right is something pertaining to the individual acting rather than societal drive;
ANF IF right is something subjective to the individual beliefs of a person rather than a reflection of cultural mores:
THEN, what is right?

And I will answer.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

There isn't one. Why can't we just kill people that piss us off and then go on with our day. Take it back to the primal era where you could just do whatever the fuk you wanted... that would rule

Nah, because then might would make right, and that is a shiity moral code, bro.

[sinfuldragon]

moral code is nothing more than people who died long ago deciding what they thought we as a general public should and should not be allowed to do (all while indulging in these "immoral" actions behind the curtains).
Moral Code to me is just as meaningless and pointless as the bible or ten commandments.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

moral code is nothing more than people who died long ago deciding what they thought we as a general public should and should not be allowed to do (all while indulging in these "immoral" actions behind the curtains).
Moral Code to me is just as meaningless and pointless as the bible or ten commandments.

That you find a moral code meaningless means you are granting it some formality. I am not, it is just a phrase to describe what a given person thinks is right or wrong. I assume you don't rape babies, but do occaisionally enjoy a nice motorcycle ride...That expression of either "bad" rape or "good" bike ride, might be a tangible set of examples of the right and wrong of your personal moral code. I didn't capitalize it for a reason, as we all have one (except the true sociopath), but the two interesting aspects of a moral code are what we individually consider right and wrong, and where we OUGHT TO GET the code, not necessarily where we do get the code. It is not formal at all unless you subscribe completely to some religious group, but even within those there is too much variation...), nor do any two people have anything similar for a code, but unless you are that above-mentioned sociopath, you have one, whatever semantic language you wish to use to describe it...Like the "D"emocracy "d"emocracy issue...I am talking about small "m c" moral code...

[sinfuldragon]

Ah, I see. Okay I'm with ya then.

Now, how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

Ah, I see. Okay I'm with ya then.

Now, how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

Well it depends on 4 variable things:

Temp of the pop;
Salivary level of the licker;
Square-inches of tongue-space;
Frequency of licking.

[SamoanzRR]

What happens when a unstoppable force meets with an imovable object??

[analogbear]

PAIN!

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by chuck_0069

How about, How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

I think christianity has that one covered, as JC was a carpenter...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

There isn't one. Why can't we just kill people that piss us off and then go on with our day. Take it back to the primal era where you could just do whatever the fuk you wanted... that would rule

Really

What if what someone else wanted to do was kill you and then go on with their day? That would probably ruin yours.

[sinfuldragon]

you are right it would, but it would be survival of the fittest