Our obsession with KNOWLEDGE.

[narutoIZZAbest]

According to the Bible us humans are not supposed to be educated or knowing at all and even the most religious of people tend to now be highly academic. Even if you don't agree with the contraveries of the Bible look on the subject without too much personal matter.

[DonEmu]

true...but the harm has already been done, we have already eaten of the forbidden fruit, no going back now...

[Azure Wrath]

people thrive to break rules though, and knowledge is something that engrosses people. Like doneu has said, we have already endulged in knowledge, pandora's box has been opened...

[V.VELDANEN]

I'm not too much fan of the Holy Bible, and I don't really believe we should live our lives following what an outdated book said.

Human nature is every shifting like the sands, and the Holy Bible is overrated although throughout history, it has provided a sound base for morality and even more for dicrepancies, bias and discimination.

Who now, on earth, would want to fully conform to Christian Theologies?

[Named]

Awww, what fun is it fully conforming? It's so much easier to follow the rules one's personal moral values agree with, then condemn everyone else for not following suit =)

[AK47]

According to the Bible us humans are not supposed to be educated or knowing at all and even the most religious of people tend to now be highly academic. Even if you don't agree with the contraveries of the Bible look on the subject without too much personal matter.

i would like some proof on that please.

[DonEmu]

proof on what, that the bible doesnt want us to be educated or that most religious ppl are highly academic...cause if u want proof of the former read genesis

[Named]

Well, AK47, there isn't a passage to quote of "Thou shalt not read other books" (though many can be interpretted in just such a way)

The issue that is taken up of Christianity denouncing education is the worldview it encourages.
Every scientific theory is based on an initial assumption. This assumption is continually reviewed and built upon, with the introduction of new evidence, observations or alternate views. From mind to mind to mind, the reviewing and criticism of the assumption never ceases - maybe it's even totally debunked to be replaced by a re-evaluated, better informed assumption, from which AGAIN the cycle continues to refine it. Every step is one closer to what can justifiably be called 'Truth', without adamantly insisting Truth is ever attained along the way. It is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Christianity promotes an initial assumption while blatantly demanding that under no circumstances may this assumption EVER be undermined by further review or introduction of evidence. Thus, it promotes a profound ignorance - a process of non-thinking called faith - and ultimately belittles the elegance of our beautiful universe.

Christians will never know the validity of a claim to Truth as they are not allowed to question it under threat of damnation.
However it is twisted or whichever words are chosen to supplement what this process is called, it remains to be flatly and irrefutably an Ignorance of the highest proportions.

Your beliefs are your beliefs; so long as they are not used to violate freedoms, how could I ever have an objection to them?
What I object to, what free-thinkers and the intelligent world objects to, is the underlying WORLDVIEW governing this system of beliefs. A worldview so narrow it refuses to consider it may possibly be wrong, and will as such never truly know if its wrong or right. But that's ok - close your eyes and your mind - have faith.

[NMK]

I don't read the bible so I'll study as much I want, no but anyways just as DonEmu (I think it was he) said, "we have already eaten of the forbidden fruit, no turning back".

[Solace]

out of all of the possible topics, u choose this one elaine?? lol

Did you also know that your not allowed to get tatoos if your a christian, but i see people who claim they are get tatoos of the holy cross anyway?

dang i kill myself :D

[Named]

lol
Yes, Solace. You can choose almost any guideline in the Bible and find the purest of Christians do not follow it, or have written it off as "a lesser sin that we don't really need to worry about anymore. Hey, let's ridicule some more homosexuals! :o"

wow, that one got a bit carried away. Anyway.... Oh, right, I didn't have an original point to any of this.

[Chidongan]

religion is guidance, and guidance is for the weak.

to me religion is just another obstacle keeping me from trying to keep me from living the way i want.

i have never read the bible before, but if you lemme know what page/chapter and whatever it is, i might look into it.

just letting you know, i may not have read the bible, but i have read the quran (yes im muslim, and it sucks) only in arabic though, and i dont understand a word of it. im forced into this religion since birth and am expected to accept it. yes, i believe in god. but i will believe in him the way i want to, not the way someone else wants me too.

also religion is faith, faith is belief, and belief is ones opinion. why should we follow someone else's opinion on life? god gave us a will for a reason.


lol i know this should go in the 'religion redux thread' but im too lazy to look for it, i'll just copy and past it later.

[Anna Hatake]

looks like chidongan might know something after all

[Lost Prophet]

in my opinion, although Im a christian, the thought that the gain of knowledge and the development of humans is wrong, is not right in my opinion. without the knowledge we gained, we would have no clothes to keep us warm. We would not be able to lead ourselves through tough times, and we would never live proper lives.

primitive lives FTL.

[Anna Hatake]

hmmm....i think that god wanted us to have knoledge it just depens on the way we use it

[Bap]

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


Christians aknowledge that God = good
Knowledge of good and evil = sin
This Christian 'knowledge' = evil

I'm confused.

[Octo]

Christians aknowledge that God = good
Knowledge of good and evil = sin
This Christian 'knowledge' = evil

I'm confused.

Oh dear god the spins are back.

[KageNaruto]

since when the hell do i do what a book tells me!? there, theres the answer

[Fool Of Doom]

i pretty much have to be obsesed with knowlage, my brother wont stfu if im not, thats why i act stupid on here, i dont get to do it at home

[Named]

I don't think the Christian God knows what He wants.. Judging from his publications, He's a very confused celestial being. Divinely confused.

Not that I would assume any better of Middle-Eastern men before the Common Era. They didn't really think the character through.

Meh... It was half a century after Jesus' death that the New Testament was even written. HALF A CENTURY of word of mouth. Think what even a day of passing around a rumour does to any viable information in it.
50 years, people.

50 years of "You'll never guess what Jesus did"

50 years?

And people trust this source? A source that's only justification is ITSELF stating that it's the Word of a God.

Ignorance.

[V.VELDANEN]

This thread is turning into Christianity-bashing...anyway...

Christianity certainly has its way of putting people in shitty positions.

For instance,
"A person's sexual orientation is not a sin, but committing homosexuality is." says a Christian Theology Graduate, a chaplain in my University.

If God gave life to us, then homosexuals are of a miserable existence.

"Christians are not allowed to judge, for it is sin..."

Who then, have the right to judge homosexuality as sin? A pastor? A priest? The pope?

Meh.

[Named]

No, this is not 'Christianity bashing'. This is merely the protest of reasonable people in the presence of unjustified, dangerous beliefs.

I've noticed that one's activity need not even be by nature hostile to earn the description of 'Christianity bashing'. You can state a scientific theory, which contradicts one of the many absurd stories in the Bible, and you'll be consequently labelled 'hating on Christianity"
You can disagree with one of the countless espousals of ignorance and hatred Christian people make, and thus be labelled 'bashing on Christians'.

It's nonsense. Even being called an Atheist is nonsense. I reference you to something I share on my Myspace page;

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

Snap!

[Bap]

I never thought of atheism that way, but it does make sense.

[V.VELDANEN]

Excellent reasoning Named.

[Ponaris]

According to the Bible us humans are not supposed to be educated or knowing at all and even the most religious of people tend to now be highly academic. Even if you don't agree with the contraveries of the Bible look on the subject without too much personal matter.

This isn't true. I know many people who you wouldn't call 'educated' who arent religious. I still think that the most ardent religious supporters are in countries that arent industrialised.

The problem with the various forms of christianity is that they are based on books written two millenia ago, and indoctrinated by people who want power to themselves. Look at the current pope saying that islamists are the fault of the worlds problems, dispite what his church has done.

Now all it is some people with unrelenting and mostly outdated morals saying they know what is the best for humanity?

I disagree with named's quote though. A non-belief is still a believe, as you are choosing to not believe something that someone else is telling you. Knowledge is an informed belief. You can choose to disregard this by pretending it doesn't matter but denial of a belief is still a belief.

[V.VELDANEN]

I still think that the most ardent religious supporters are in countries that arent industrialised.

That's quite a sweeping statement as well as it is vague. What do you mean by industrialised? To what degree are they being religious?

I disagree with named's quote though. A non-belief is still a believe, as you are choosing to not believe something that someone else is telling you. Knowledge is an informed belief. You can choose to disregard this by pretending it doesn't matter but denial of a belief is still a belief.

Maybe you should read it closer...

[Ponaris]

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle.


I noticed that there are mystical or psudo-scientific terms in that. The term atheist arouse out of a need to classify people with a specific set of beliefs.

Obviously you dont call people "non-astrologers" but you don't call people "non-janitors". You call them by their profession. (I am assuming here that being an astrologer is a occupation :) ) Hence, the word for describing people who dont have a religion is atheist.

That comment is a non conformist way of ridiculing the term and people who use it to describe themselves. An atheist view of a Muslim? there should be no word such as Islamist, as there is no such thing as god. If there is a belief there should be a word for it ;)

As for my comment on the religious industrialists- that is a miscommunication. I mean I know people who are religious [people who go to temple every sunday and do recruiting quests, etc]

AND that more people who believe more strongly tend to live in less industrialized countries, for an example, Israel.

I'm not anti-religious by the way

[V.VELDANEN]

I noticed that there are mystical or psudo-scientific terms in that. The term atheist arouse out of a need to classify people with a specific set of beliefs.

Obviously you dont call people "non-astrologers" but you don't call people "non-janitors". You call them by their profession. (I am assuming here that being an astrologer is a occupation :) ) Hence, the word for describing people who dont have a religion is atheist.

That comment is a non conformist way of ridiculing the term and people who use it to describe themselves. An atheist view of a Muslim? there should be no word such as Islamist, as there is no such thing as god. If there is a belief there should be a word for it ;)

As for my comment on the religious industrialists- that is a miscommunication. I mean I know people who are religious [people who go to temple every sunday and do recruiting quests, etc]

AND that more people who believe more strongly tend to live in less industrialized countries, for an example, Israel.

I'm not anti-religious by the way

There is a difference between less-industrialized and less-developed countries.

Less industrialized = New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland. (Focuses on agricultural or commercial)
Less developed countries = Africa, South America, North Korea

I still don't see any correlation btw industrialization and religion.

And I would consider Isreal to be quite industrialized, their main economy growth lies in high tech research and exports in computers science, electronics, optics and engineering. It is refered to be the second silicon-valley of the world.

EDIT: When you say religious people tend to live in less-industrialized countries, do you actually mean religious people would be more likely to migrate to less-industrialized economies?

Info: 43% of Israelis consider themselves secular, that is roughly 3 million of the total 7 million people in Israel. Only 12% consider themselves as being ultra-orthodox religious. That's hardly a statistical shock ;)

[Named]

Listen, the emphasis of the philosophical notion is that an Atheist can be many, many things. In fact the category of people known as 'Atheist' are the most varied of any in the scale of 'religious categorisation', because we do not adhere to any specific code of moral values - we don't all read the same book or follow the same authorities - even in matters of the scientific we won't always agree. You can be an Atheist Buddhist. You can be an Atheist Taoist. Does it really make sense for there to be a name for NOT believing in a stupid thing, simply because this stupid thing has been around so long it's assumed to be true? (Superstition + ignorance x time = religion)

Atheism isn't a belief, if I were given the choice I would not identify myself as an Atheist; it opposes the very nature of being an Atheist. The name's very existence makes no sense.
If you walk into any strong 'Atheist' community, a collective of people united by the oppression they all experience from Christians (so mostly Americans), in this community if you were to identify yourself as an 'Agnostic', you're going to bear a little criticism. It's not respected.
Agnostics are Atheists, because Atheism is not - contrary to popular belief from the Religious - defined by a statement or belief of "I do not believe in any gods". The majority of Atheists are those who do not believe in anything without a REASON, therefore making 'Agnostic' a redundant title for those who fear being identified as an Atheist.

How many absurd superstitions do each of us not believe in? Even many religious exhibit 'symptoms' of 'Atheism' towards certain beliefs.

I understand your objection to my proposition, but it is the REASONING behind such an objection that the proposition attacks. To be identified by what you DON'T believe in is fucking lunacy and it's very insulting.

An Athiest is just an intelligent person, straight up. Intelligent people do not adhere to processes of non-thinking ie faith.

A bold statement, I know. I don't dance around these issues anymore =D

[Dorphuk]

I class my self as an atheist and have done for many years. I do not class people who believe in god/gods or faith as "non thinkers" as they have as much a right to their beliefs as I do, so who am i or you to say that they are wrong!

I can't believe that you can say that people who believe in faith/religion are non-thinkers!

Seriously man is that your honest opinion??

[Named]

Then I call you a pascifist. Did I ever say people of faith were wrong FOR their beliefs? They can believe in whatever they damn well please, so long as it doesn't harm me or people around them. (they can harm themselves all they like)
That doesn't mean I have to sit back and agree with the worldview they adhere to which belittles the elegance of the universe.

Faith is a process of non-thinking. It denies sequences of thoughts, instead asserting an assumption is irrefutably true despite what reality has to say.
That's their right, good on them.

I don't agree with it so I voiced that opinion.

A person's belief could be that I am going to Hell. Again, good on them, that's great. They can believe what they want and you defend that right. So do I.
Though why is it you won't allow me the same privilege? Only my condemnation is that their faith is a process of non-thinking, opposed to eternal misery in a pit of fire.
The double-standard is unacceptable. Do I need an imaginary friend beside me before I can disagree with a worldview?

Edit: By the way, I never said they were non-thinkers, I said they employ a process of non-thinking. That is what Faith is, from logical analysis. I'm sure they entertain many sound thoughts. When it comes to their view of the greater world, though, they don't.
Ease up.

[Dorphuk]

Hell i'm just trying to get you to ease up as well, stop trying to analyse things to the bare bones. Life is shit and we are all going to die. Enjoy life we can't change shit :D

[Named]

Ya, ya, but I don't enjoy the same things as you :P

I enjoy sitting here listening to Radiohead and provoking thought in my peers, I really do.

I used to be a pascifistic Atheist who sat back and shrugged at Christians imposing their faith on uneducated people who knew no better, particularly children. Then one day I decided I wasn't happy allowing them to spread ignorance like a plague.
Wherever they are, I will follow offering a CHOICE to their victims =D

People should always think. There should always be a reason why we do whatever it is we do.
You enjoy what you enjoy; thousands of people are denied that freedom by the oppression of Fundamental Religious Beliefs. So I fight for them.

Zealous Religion kills and destroys. I find its presence amongst my fellow humans insufferable.

Things change all the time, right? So obviously we can change shit, because people change shit all the time. All you need to do is try.

[Dorphuk]

Well as a Doctor, which I'm not, i prescribe that you smoke lots of weed and get laid :D

(Fuck daylight has appeared should maybe try and sleep)

[Named]

I don't smoke and casual sex ain't my thing =D

[Ponaris]

Can you imagine what would happen if some high profile atheist came out and said all religious people were idiots and they should accept that there is no god? There would be death threats from everywhere.
It is the lack of tolerance and perspective that is worst about hardcore religious people that annoys me the most. Some one should do it though. It could be interesting... :)

By the way veldanen good point ! i accede to you! :bow:
i guess that was a bad example...

I still say there is too many zealous religious people in the world.

[V.VELDANEN]

Ah....you'll never know what you'll learn in Chaos.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Can you imagine what would happen if some high profile atheist came out and said all religious people were idiots and they should accept that there is no god? There would be death threats from everywhere.
It is the lack of tolerance and perspective that is worst about hardcore religious people that annoys me the most. Some one should do it though. It could be interesting... :)

By the way veldanen good point ! i accede to you! :bow:
i guess that was a bad example...

I still say there is too many zealous religious people in the world.

Plenty of high profile atheist have been doing that for hundreds of years e.g. Nietszche, Sartre, Camus, Marx. (they're all phillosophers)
Curiously Nietszche believed that religion was the only thing keeping stupid people from destroying civilization, because they would be completely incapable of grasping morality without religion. So maybe Christianity has value there?

This is my favorite little poem about the death of God written by a homosexual who felt alienated from Christianity.

Funeral Blues

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He is Dead.
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever: I was wrong.

[Bap]

Hell i'm just trying to get you to ease up as well, stop trying to analyse things to the bare bones. Life is shit and we are all going to die. Enjoy life we can't change shit :D

How can you enjoy life if it is shit? Does that mean that some aspects are -not- shit?

[Ponaris]

True that those guys were outspoken atheists. I dont know a lot about Nietszche, Sartre, Camus, but Marx certainly and what I have read about the others show that they were theorists. They may have actively preached their thoughts but politically, nothing was done about it by these people.

What I am saying is that it would be interesing to see a strong atheist move to make a statement politically. For example, the strong beliefs are shown in people like Osama bin Laden calling down Jihad on people but you don't see a political figurehead come out and say there is no god; it would alienate them from a large supporter base without need.

I guess that the closest thing to that happening was Marx's work implemented into Russia by Lenin, but that was more of a political change than a religious one.

That poem is rather dark by the way :)

[V.VELDANEN]

All ideas, good or bad, originate from philosophers/thinkers. And with that thoughts/ideas/philishophies , the ideas travels through generations in ways people cannot see without proper research.

Do not merely claim these thoughts as just being 'outspoken.'

We are already experiencing a strong Atheist movement in the society, in fact, it started a long way back since the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, from philosophers like Voltaire, Thomas Paine etc...etc... Voltaire openly critised the church and christianity to the point that they do not exist, a mere fabrication of human's imagination and superstition. The bulk of ideas for reasoning, logic in the age of Enlightenment went hand-in-hand and influenced eras like the Industrial Revolution and the Modernist era.

I would say that the people who advocated logic in that era has very much influenced today's secular culture, education, law, science, etc..etc. Our society, beliefs, norms are in every way, big or small, embedded with Atheism.

And as Named's Atheist reasoning even make more sense to me now, its ridiculous to call ourselves atheist as that is who we are today...its sad that education don't put us into that perspective.

Ah Named, you're a genius...

[Named]

It takes a genius to appreciate a genius!

Let's pat each other on the back. lol

[Edward]

I have many questions, one of which is how many people here can fight professionally? Because I'd like to fight them. I love fighting, so anyone want to go just fly on over to Hawaii.

[Named]

lol... You've already posted in the Spam Zone so I won't bother linking it. That's where we post random things like requests to fight others =D

[Ponaris]

do you have some other gem of phillosphy to share named?

[Bap]

Do you guys think about what Named (or anyone) says before accepting it as your truth? Or are you just drawn by his magnificent use of words? Please, don't get me wrong -- Named -is- a genius, I believe, and his language skills are sexy :) But I think everyone should think on what he, or anyone for that matter, says. Think about it =P

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Ug I can't stand phillosophies based on living "logically" they are completely hedonistic. There is more to life than just acting in the way one should logically act. Dostoevsky wrote in Notes From the Underground that the value in humanity is our capacity to act illogically, otherwise how are we better than a computer.

Well for political influence in phillosophers.. hmm well Camus was involved in Algerian rebelions against the french government and Sartre was a very influential person in France after WWII. Nietzsche however wasn't much involved in politics, but he was outspoken against democracy and hated his native country of Germany, probably because Hegel (another phillosopher) was really popular in Germany. Moreover, when Wagner pissed him off Nietzsche wrote an entire book about why Wagner's music sucked.Plus most importantly Nietzsche basically created the anthem of atheist phillosophers for over a century "God is Dead". I know its big but I love this quote from Nietzsche's the Gay Science.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

[V.VELDANEN]

Ug I can't stand phillosophies based on living "logically" they are completely hedonistic. There is more to life than just acting in the way one should logically act.

True, but humans ultimately have the desire to be efficient in their work. And the application of logic have contributed much to the refinement of working processes, math, technology and science. Which in turn, has improved our lives like we are today.

But that's not we're talking about is it?

We should all refrain from talking in absolutes, as you've just suggested - humans are realistically, not capable to act that linear in behaviour to act 'completely logical' like computers, therefore, we can't act logical all the time but to me, logic is the epitome of human existence. And I can hardly relate logical to hedonistic, more to practical perhaps, not hedonistic.

Coming back to religion, when men are face with indoctrination of a certain teaching, thoughts or lifestyle, we'll be trapped with the ability to think freely, to improve on the 'normal' ways, and to look beyond the paradigms.

"Do we look to God to solve problems for us?"

As for your quote, how did we actually kill God if God is all? To me, its just a metaphor and reference for age-old morality and Christian culture.

It'll be indeed a sham if we can kill God.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

The quote is a metaphor for the loss of faith in religion. Nietzsche is saying that through our disbelief we destroyed Christian morality, and thus we have to "become gods" to make up for it because we need to replace our morality with a new one. In Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov the religious character Alyosha responds to his brother after talking about the possibility of the inexistence of God "then does this mean everything is permitted?" If classicaly the source of European morality is Christianity, without Christianity what happens to our definition of morality.

If there is no higher plan, no souls, and ultimately no intrinsic value in life why should we act morally if we are only highly evolved animals. Its important for people who decide they no longer believe in any religious doctrines to seriously consider what they consider to be morally good and bad.

Also, concerning the quote its important to grasp that Nietzsche doesn't in any way believe in God or any religion. He considered God just to be a phillosophical idea.

[V.VELDANEN]

Its a scary thought for most people who are resistant to change, but ultimately, its just another transition of a different age, from Animism to Paganism to Christianity to Atheism?? Chritianity has already influenced morality, its already hard-pressed into human existence and it will definately stay in history, even more in our actions as we become more and more learned.

Countless philoshophies, morality, thoughts have been spawned over milleniums, they didn't dissapear, they have merely just evolved into something higher and more advanced to the human existence. It has transformed into Law and Justice, Human compassion, Emphathy, Good and Evil, Guilt and Conscience.

We might soon not talk about God but its effects are still very real.

The only people who truly fear change are those who in are power over a belief.

[Bap]

Morals can be defined through logic -- Jesus said it: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them.” Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31.
People don't want others hurting them, so stick to yourself.

Also, computers do not think logically, in the sense humans do. Computers don't think. They function through numbers the way humans have programmed them. They only do what we want them to do, and they cannot reason.

Wagner is awesome, so Nietzsche loses points for that =)

[Named]

I'm not a fan of Nietzsche. His philosophy is more poetic than it is insightful.

Computers are a function of humanity - an extension of us - as our creations. We are able to function logically like computers, or how else would computers enable the same processes?

I also disagree with Nietzsche's stance that all morality is a cognition of intelligent human philosophy or religion.
Anthropological research has indicated and within a wide margin proven that morality is a biologically developed trait in humanity, and in fact many primeates. You can witness entire social structures in primeate communities wherein social work is REWARDED. They assist each because if they did not, they would not survive as a species lacking the same strength or speed or ability to fly such as others around them.

We are social creatures. As such it was absolutely essential we develop an inherent moral sense. Every single philosophy created in the mind and leaving the mouth of 'great men' is simpy a statement we already agree with -geneticallly-.

Christian morality only serves as an excuse to dismiss the moral responsibilty of us as humans. It's ALWAYS going to be someone else's fault. And if the moral choice - made by their book or their preacher - is ultimately seen as a huge error, whose fault will it be? They were only following direction.
It completely frees them of any moral responsibility.

When people tell me not to blame the religion, but blame the followers of religion, I tell them to shut up. My reason why is stated above. Religion unites and enables the wrong doing of man. Hell, it even justifies it for them once the deed is done.
Religion is at fault; the people will be stupid regardless of who or what they follow. If they had been directed somewhere else, maybe there wouldn't be so much BLOOD at our feet.

(Regarding the way people speak of me, thank you, Bap ;))

[Ponaris]

True, but humans ultimately have the desire to be efficient in their work. And the application of logic have contributed much to the refinement of working processes, math, technology and science. Which in turn, has improved our lives like we are today.

Logic can define morals, but the difference is people look upon logic differently. Look at the many different interpretations of the books in the bible.
The refinement that veldanen was talking about applies to this.

When it was decided that the world was round, not flat, that the apple falls to the ground/ground falls to the apple, people could not comprehend this, but it has been programed into most people that it is a valid concept.

The next logical step in refinement is a push towards atheism. Discarding the logic "because God made it be" and replacing it with "reason and a mathematical proof".

I believe the problem with religion that named stated is this: people have outdated lines in their code for beliefs, and the "refinement" has led it to a evolutionary dead end.

Religion is not needed for contentment, healthcare, learning, money for the poor. Other sources provide the same if not better services that religion provided.
Now many people have mentally evolved so that it is not necessary.
(It is really vague but I think that it basically states what has happened)
:)

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Morals can be defined through logic -- Jesus said it: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them.” Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31.
People don't want others hurting them, so stick to yourself.

This isn't morality, it doesn't explain why we don't steal if we will never get caught. Also, it doesn't explain why we can give moral consideration to things that can't effect us like the wellbeing of animals and ecosystems. There are some that say ecosystems only have value in that they help to maintain the earth and thus humans, however others say that plants as living things must be kept from being killed. Everyone here is a bunch of Kantian's you should all go out and read the Categorical Imperative you probably really agree with it.

Well to Named the theory that morals come out of evolution is becoming more accepted, but this theory brings out the great existentialist question of why it all matters. If our morals are the result of random mutation then they themselves are random and have no "true" meaning to them. Humanity's ability to reject our natural instincts and also to sometimes follow them and act illogically is what makes us the intersection between cold thinking machines and self-obsessed animals. If there is no God to decree what is good or evil, and if we are above what we've been imprinted with, then humanity must create its own idea of morality to function as a society and to a smaller extent each individual must create their own morals.

Also, it doesn't matter if we can be computers, we shouldn't act as computers because that would be giving up everything that makes us human, its illogical to kill oneself and most animals favor selfpreservation, but any human being could choose at any moment to kill themselves for some absurd reason, which is what sets us apart: our ability to do the illogical and the unnatural, our ability to revel in cruelty or pleasure, and our refusal to work as a whole towards the preservation of the human race.

I wish I could write better, but thats why I became a science major I guess.

[Bap]

Logic can define morals, but the difference is people look upon logic differently. Look at the many different interpretations of the books in the bible.

That is because there are many ways the can be interpreted, and some are illogical. One could see God as a real force, some may see him as a metaphor, and some can dismiss it as merely a book written by zealous religious followers and they are just absolutely insane.

This isn't morality, it doesn't explain why we don't steal if we will never get caught. Also, it doesn't explain why we can give moral consideration to things that can't effect us like the wellbeing of animals and ecosystems. There are some that say ecosystems only have value in that they help to maintain the earth and thus humans, however others say that plants as living things must be kept from being killed.

Stealing would negatively affect someone else: the owner of what you stole. He would lose money, and therefore suffer from it. Science has defined us as being a part of the world ecosystem. If we harm the part of the ecosystem, then logically, we are hurting ourselves.

Everyone here is a bunch of Kantian's you should all go out and read the Categorical Imperative you probably really agree with it.

Would you stop with all your philosopher crap? I am not a "Kantian," I didn't even know he was a philosopher before you mentioned him. I may agree with some of his beliefs, but that doesn't make me a "Kantian." I agree with some of what Jesus said, but that doesn't make me a Christian or "Jesusian." Do you do any of your own thinking before spewing out what these established philosophers think? I'm hoping you do analyse for yourself what they are saying.

[V.VELDANEN]

Would you stop with all your philosopher crap?

LFMAO~! Can't stop laughing from this one!

Indeed IFT, you speak too much in the past. We're all living in the post-modernist era, mind you.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Well obviously I do since I disagree with Kant's ideas don't I. Plus you act like being called a Kantian is an insult and I wasn't saying you were one seriously, just that Kant based absolutely every argument on what was logical. And I'm sorry it was the only adjective I could come up with that properly described the motif of the arguments.

And some people believe that a tree has worth just because its a tree not because it has a use. There are entire theories based on the worth of individual plants which have nothing to do with the worth of ecosystems, some people even believe we have a moral duty not to destroy "wildness". Logically humanity doesn't need wilderness or to preserve species that go extinct naturally, however lots of people believe that we have a moral duty to preserve species even if we have nothing to do with them dying out. Most of these nature phillosophers and the stuff about evolution are the papers being written now in universities so I'm not really going all that far into the past T_T. Finally, to the argument about stealing, if you could steal from someone and make a profit from it and reinvest better than the previous owner of what you stole and then benefit the world ecosystem through the detriment of a single individual is it still morally, logically right? (psst thats called Utilitarianism if you think it is right)

[V.VELDANEN]

I'm not sure which is worse -> stealing or trying to justify one.

I've long respected your knowledge and your philoshopical insights, but this one completely blew me away! Stealing is an economic activity that doesn't transact fair intrinsic value to the society, its demoralizing to those that actually work for it.

A society that condones stealing is one where moral decays...

If everyone could get away from stealing, everyone would rather sit around and wait for an opportunity to steal, rather than work when its efforts would eventually be gone to waste --> Game Theory...pfft, what a no brainer.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

I'm not sure which is worse -> stealing or trying to justify one.

I've long respected your knowledge and your philoshopical insights, but this one completely blew me away! Stealing is an economic activity that doesn't transact fair value to the society, its demoralizing to those that actually work for it.

A society that condones stealing is one where moral decays...

If everyone could get away from stealing, everyone would rather sit around and wait for an opportunity to steal, rather than work when its efforts would eventually be gone to waste --> Game Theory...pfft, what a no brainer.


That was my point that argument seems intuitively wrong (it just feels wrong), but logic would dictate that we can steal if in the end it does benefit society without harming yourself. Thats why I was saying that morals can't be equated to logical argument there has to be more to it.

[V.VELDANEN]

You're placing this logical argument too much in absolute terms. Re-read my previous post, Game theory is all about logic as well...

If a society condones stealing, and you know someone could steal your hard-earned money without any consequence. Would you be the worker or the stealer?

Obviously you would steal, because someone is always waiting to steal right? The final result is that everyone would eventually decide to steal.

Logical right?

But we all know its not that simple, any reasonable man knows that stealing is not efficient to the effect of intrinsic loss. Productivity will drop, the economy will suffer. The logical thing to do, is to declare stealing as a crime. To protect productivity and the society..

Apply logic to something beyond the box

EDIT: What I'm trying to say here is that logic is the basis of morality. There's more to it, such as culture, beliefs and what nots. But I believe that logic is the epitome of it all.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Ok fine ill give up on the stealing argument. Although, I was talking about small isolated cases in my thought experiment you would still be punished if you were caught the question is if it were impossible for you to get caught and you could use the money you make from stealing to better society would it still be considered wrong by logical terms. AND OMG I CAN"T BELIEVE IT YOU JUST USED KANT'S exact theory lol. Societies as an entity can't truly have morals either because they are just an entity made up of humans, only the morals of individuals matter. Logically one would make it illegal to steal because you would want to stop people from stealing from you, however it is still logical for you to steal if you won't get caught in this world because you will benefit and through your benefiting perhaps the society could.

Another argument, why is it illegal for people to bludgeon pigs to death with hammers instead of killing them "humanely" there is no logical reason to prevent cruelty to an animal in its last moments of life, however we still identify with their pain and choose to prevent it.

However, your right logic does play a part in morality, but it is not the epitome of morality. Emotion I believe is the source of morality, but our emotions come from evolutionary background, which brings us back to being meaningless animals that might as well forfeit our lives because its all pointless anyway. :(

[V.VELDANEN]

Easy :D, most people have emphathy towards other living things. And knowing all things are being killed humanely disrupts appetite and make them feel sick.

When sick, they're disgusted, when disgusted, they protest and lobby for the sanction of Animal rights.

Any politician would think its the most logical thing to do. The tradeoff between protests and seeing animals killed inhumanely is quite obvious, isn't it?

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

Lol ya but empathy towards animals at a point like that isn't very logical so logical decisions made from an illogical basis are in themselves illogical. i think...

[V.VELDANEN]

But I thought we were talking about illegality?

Anyway, morality does have other elements in place --> Irrefutable. Just want to get across that logic doesn't squander morality, its a rational thinking process to protect our biological and psychological likes and dislikes.

EDIT: And I think you're right to a certain extent, that most people aren't capable of being 100% logical. That is why morals exist to act as a social contract and heuristic to prevent people from doing un-utilitarian behaviours.

[Bap]

EDIT: And I think you're right to a certain extent, that most people aren't capable of being 100% logical. That is why morals exist to act as a social contract and heuristic to prevent people from doing un-utilitarian behaviours.

I believe that humans have the capability to reason, but not all know how to use it (for you sleepy, that would be Jonathon Swift's idea of "rationis capax" :) ).

[Purvis]

According to the Bible us humans are not supposed to be educated or knowing at all and even the most religious of people tend to now be highly academic. Even if you don't agree with the contraveries of the Bible look on the subject without too much personal matter.

I actually have no idea where it states this in the bible, I just know it's a common intepretation. But I've never read it myself in the bible.

However, I have read in the new testament, "Test all, hold on to what is good."

[Bap]

It merely refers to the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. God forbids Adam and Eve to eat from the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil (for it would give God's knowledge to humans), and from the Tree of Life. A snake (in christianity this represents Satan) tempts Eve to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and Eve accepts.

I don't really think it is against knowledge in general, just the knowledge of good and evil. I donno, I'll ask my mom -- she should know (she's a big christian)

[Named]

Well to Named the theory that morals come out of evolution is becoming more accepted, but this theory brings out the great existentialist question of why it all matters. If our morals are the result of random mutation then they themselves are random and have no "true" meaning to them. Humanity's ability to reject our natural instincts and also to sometimes follow them and act illogically is what makes us the intersection between cold thinking machines and self-obsessed animals. If there is no God to decree what is good or evil, and if we are above what we've been imprinted with, then humanity must create its own idea of morality to function as a society and to a smaller extent each individual must create their own morals.

There is nothing random about morals. It's the most basic and primitive sense a conscious being can have. Do you want your possessions stolen? Do you want to be assaulted or otherwise violated? Do you want you or your kin to be killed?
You do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself. It's not a complex thought, it's primitively understood by most ANIMALS.

Why, then, is the development and millenia of refinement of human morals that shocking within a theory of Evolution? This moral sense evolves as societies evolve. It's unacceptable to hit your children or -women- now. It's unacceptable to beat on homosexuals or deny particular ethnicities of equal opportunities in employment.
Fundamentally, the development of morals can be clearly defined in our evolution as a species. As I said, we're not all that physically spectacular. We are, however, very social creatures. Which communities do you suppose would last longer in harsh conditions? The ones wherein humans worked together and assisted each other, or those who violated each other's space, stole their food, raped their females or killed their children?

I'd hazard a guess and say the more 'moral' of primitive societies had an enormous advantage over the chaotic.

That is the sheer logic of morality. That is why genetics favours the social creatures whose communities adhere to moral values.

[Purvis]

It merely refers to the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. God forbids Adam and Eve to eat from the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil (for it would give God's knowledge to humans), and from the Tree of Life. A snake (in christianity this represents Satan) tempts Eve to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and Eve accepts.

I don't really think it is against knowledge in general, just the knowledge of good and evil. I donno, I'll ask my mom -- she should know (she's a big christian)

aye, but this parable was not about knowledge. It was about following God's command, and temptation.

Also, for us to make such an interpretation, remember that the hebrew word for "knowledge" may have a much more interesting definition, and not necessarily be "knowledge" exactly. Many words of hebrew and greek can be translated into 12 or so other English words. When intepreting the actual meaning behind the bible, this is a necessary element to consider, or you will be misled. However, whether this will actually prove relevant to this case, I don't know, but it does throughout the bible on a frequent basis.

Also, christians intepretations are each different. One preacher's intepretation can be completely different than another preacher's, one christian from another. So therefore, because one big christian says one thing, doesn't mean it's set in stone. It's about individual interpretation.

[Bap]

Yeah -- we weren't really discussing where it is in the bible, just more or less knowledge...and morality, religion, and an assortment of other things :)

[narutoIZZAbest]

omg.

and to think that i thought this thread would be completely ignored.

anyways, you guys are free to interpret it any way you want. i was actually pondering the fact of how someone so religious can go against their own belief. =/ and yea, i think its been stated before in a matter of other things.... such as tatoos etc.

[Ponaris]

Lol who passes up the opourtunity to say how we exist:)

There is nothing random about morals. It's the most basic and primitive sense a conscious being can have. Do you want your possessions stolen? Do you want to be assaulted or otherwise violated? Do you want you or your kin to be killed?
You do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself. It's not a complex thought, it's primitively understood by most ANIMALS.

A moral that is still common today- no sex before marriage.
This is against your logic. Do you want sex before marriage? Because others aren't I shouldn't? Even the ANIMALS don't have these morals. So why has society created a moral for something that isn't necessary?

[Named]

'No sex before marriage' is Christian law, not a moral value. Religious morals are very different to biological morals. This isn't even a value the majority of society adheres to, the reason you brought it up eludes me.
Society didn't create that moral. Some absurd men who decided to declare their imaginary friend as a God created it, sir.

Though I did also elaborate that morals have developed with the advancement of humanity. There still exist the fundamental biological morals between each and every one of us, regardless of whether or not we choose to allow them to govern or guide our behaviour.
This is a truth of psychology. Morals have evolved with us now as our societies grow more diverse in cultures and practices. Considerations need to be made in accordance with new values being introduced.
And yet with the exception of extreme fundamental religious laws, no single moral of secular society contradicts our most basic biological morals. The concrete of our growth as social creatures.

[Solace]

just a random thought.. have u guys watched all of Cowboy Bebop? Rememebr that one episode where Spike tried to find that created Man on the tv? that guy said that tv is the new religion, well i think he hit the spot to wut he says in that ep :D

[Ponaris]

I disagree. I find television to be completely unstimulating. Everything is done to death on television, there is not many things that break the barrier anymore, or even reinvent the material (with the exception of anime). Although people watch tv frequently, there isnt a particular ardour related to watching tv every minute of the day. As for the morals that it projects, it is simply a reflection of what we see in the world outside the box. Watching others is no subsitute for the gratification of experiencing life itself

[Solace]

I disagree. I find television to be completely unstimulating. Everything is done to death on television, there is not many things that break the barrier anymore, or even reinvent the material (with the exception of anime). Although people watch tv frequently, there isnt a particular ardour related to watching tv every minute of the day. As for the morals that it projects, it is simply a reflection of what we see in the world outside the box. Watching others is no subsitute for the gratification of experiencing life itself

you kidding me? do you know how much bull crap tv bombards people with? People these days will believe anything.

[Davis]

lol, evreything we do contradicts the bible.
And another thing,
(according to my christian school) only christians can get into hevan.
Wasnt jesus supposed to be Jewish?

Evreything the book says contradicts what christians belive, vise versa.
Its a web of trying to gain,then loosing rinse and repeat!

[Bap]

Jesus was Jewish, but not Judaic. Basically, he invented a religion -based- on Judaic principals, and he took it further to say that he will die so that all can get into heaven if they just acknowledge him as their Messiah. It's like how Mohammed built Islam off of Judaism/Christianity (as far as i know). I hate it when people disregard religion because of some stupid technicality. If you can only see that deep into a religion; if that's how limited your logic is, then you need to do some more thinking.

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

There is a lot of depth in Christianity, but there is a lot of bunk in the Bible as well.
To the concept of sex before marriage, you may concider it to be a religious consideration, but it can also be a personal moral consideration. I don't believe people shouldn't have sex before marriage, however I do believe that sex should involve a significant involvement between the partners, by which I mean that I don't believe casual sex is morally right. I stick to my view that most morals are personal though so its up to every individual and their partner how they feel about sex.

[Shino18]

out of all of the possible topics, u choose this one elaine?? lol

Did you also know that your not allowed to get tatoos if your a christian, but i see people who claim they are get tatoos of the holy cross anyway?

dang i kill myself :D

youre also not supposed to get ear rings but people get cross ear rings

[Davis]

I personally think that all religions are tha same religeon in a different view.
Well most of them.
In most religeons, there is a higher power, whom envokes moral desisions.

Though some are different.

[Bap]

by which I mean that I don't believe casual sex is morally right.

How is it wrong?

[V.VELDANEN]

Sex is a resposibility in today's society, I never thought that its to do with morality when its done privately, before or after marriage, casual or steady. If you both of the opposite sex desire pure physical pleasure.

It does become an issue when you start doing it infront of your bed-ridden grandfather, in a funeral or in a restaurant...

Kinky! :D

[narutoIZZAbest]

I don't believe it's right either way.(though if you have a different opinion, fine by me) Easy for you GUYS to say since you don't get pregnant. 0_0

whhhoooaa... off topic =P

[V.VELDANEN]

Maybe you're too young to understand sex...you'll find out when you feel HOT HOT HOT after a couple glasses of wine, infront of an indulgingly warm fireplace, with soft silky sheets sitting there waiting for you to ruffle on...

Its beautiful love...(...in the making!) :D

[KageNaruto]

I don't believe it's right either way.(though if you have a different opinion, fine by me) Easy for you GUYS to say since you don't get pregnant. 0_0

whhhoooaa... off topic =P

birth control pills/condom should make the chances of that extremely low

[Ponaris]

you kidding me? do you know how much bull crap tv bombards people with? People these days will believe anything.
I though I said that anyway. Why do you think I go on discussion forums? :)
I find television completley unstimulating
Obsession of Knowledge...gratification of sex... definetly the same thing

[Named]

I don't believe it's right either way.(though if you have a different opinion, fine by me) Easy for you GUYS to say since you don't get pregnant. 0_0

whhhoooaa... off topic =P

A more pressing issue than pregnancy is the transfer of STDs, which actually plagues men worse than women. Also, pregnancy isn't always exclusive to the woman. It can also be the man's burden. *shrug*
I'm just pointing out that directing fault to a gender is rather silly. It's an individual's choice, and if you followed the argument, one man was for sex while the other was against. So... Even in this small thread, we have men divided into opposing opinions regarding casual sex. For and Against.

[DesecratioN]

I don't believe it's right either way.(though if you have a different opinion, fine by me) Easy for you GUYS to say since you don't get pregnant. 0_0

whhhoooaa... off topic =P

that is your youth speaking.


I see nothing wrong with casual sex, as long as you take the proper precautions nothing negative shoudl come of it and I will tell you this a sexless adult is a very miserable one on the inside.

[shadowwolfx]

hhm.... i do remember the phrase "knowledge is power" but doesnt power most always lead to destruction? not to mention the fact that the "your to smart for your own good" phrase seems to come into effect aswell

[i_feel_tiredsleepy]

I have negative views on anything based purely on pleasure and neglects the intellectual implications. Moreover, psychologist have shown that for woman sex is a lot more influential on their psyche than for men. Sex is a lot more complicated than people give it credit for.
Although, I agree a sexless adult is a sad adult, but it has also been proven that an adult in a commited relationship is happier than an adult who spends all his time with prostitutes.
People should note I'm a very boring person because I chose not to drink, smoke, do drugs, or go out on a school night.

[Named]

hhm.... i do remember the phrase "knowledge is power" but doesnt power most always lead to destruction? not to mention the fact that the "your to smart for your own good" phrase seems to come into effect aswell

What people really mean when they say that is, "You're too smart for my good" lol
In other words, when in the presence of one who has both the capacity and the will to influence the world, the personality lacking these qualities can only utter a reverence rooted in envy.

[DesecratioN]

What people really mean when they say that is, "You're too smart for my good" lol
In other words, when in the presence of one who has both the capacity and the will to influence the world, the personality lacking these qualities can only utter a reverence rooted in envy.

aye, along with a sense of threat. The ones with poorer capacity feel inferior and for better words it will evantually lead to anger. The threat taht perhaps not everyone is equal and that there are superior and inferior beings(which I do whole heartedily believe there most definitley are)

as for the above statements, No I am not preaching promiscuity however not having a sex life at all is just as bad if not worse. To be honest I am not well read on the psyche behind the sexual act so I cannot comment on this I will however read further if I do see interest in the subject matter.

and I am quit ehte opposite, no I am not a drug addict nor binge on drinking however I am also not one to hold back, yes I do go out at nights, yes I do live a ngiht life with usually not seeing sleep if I do see it until the sun rise. I am not conservatabe in look or in any other fashion.

back to the knowledge subject however, There can be no threat in knowledgethere is no such thing as knowing too much. The issue is how open your mind's eye is and how accepting one can be. As long as one is willing to throw away all their beliefs at any given moment (which I am at any given time as I do nto hold may beliefs) then I see no issue

[Bap]

I have negative views on anything based purely on pleasure and neglects the intellectual implications. Moreover, psychologist have shown that for woman sex is a lot more influential on their psyche than for men. Sex is a lot more complicated than people give it credit for.
Although, I agree a sexless adult is a sad adult, but it has also been proven that an adult in a commited relationship is happier than an adult who spends all his time with prostitutes.
People should note I'm a very boring person because I chose not to drink, smoke, do drugs, or go out on a school night.


But that doesn't make it wrong, does it? I have negative views on a lot of things, but I don't consider them to be immoral, just against my own beliefs.

[narutoIZZAbest]

A more pressing issue than pregnancy is the transfer of STDs, which actually plagues men worse than women. Also, pregnancy isn't always exclusive to the woman. It can also be the man's burden. *shrug*
I'm just pointing out that directing fault to a gender is rather silly. It's an individual's choice, and if you followed the argument, one man was for sex while the other was against. So... Even in this small thread, we have men divided into opposing opinions regarding casual sex. For and Against.

yes, i can that was wrong of me to judge it that well.-- I have to admit that I am not well educated in that area.

@Des: yep. but i doubt i'd change my mind. I'm too careful. -_-;

[Ponaris]

But that doesn't make it wrong, does it? I have negative views on a lot of things, but I don't consider them to be immoral, just against my own beliefs.

Is this the lead up to a creation of a moral? A majority with the belief that something is wrong (or right), or can it just be a specific thing for a person?

[Bap]

Well, I guess people can hold their own morals, so I could see how casual sex could be immoral to some. It's not based on what the mass thinks, it's based on the individual. The most reasonable thing when considering something moral is to think if you would like it done to yourself. Murder would obviously be immoral. But casual sex? Some enjoy it, and it would be fine for them. Some are against it, so immoral for them. Even though casual sex would be negative to me, I don't htink it is -wrong- though. It is just preference for me.

Well I donno. Morals can be established through logic, and doesn't need religion to be set. It seems murder would be immoral, but do you think that there is someone out there who wouldn't mind being murdered?

What would be moral then? Just what the individual wants? You could say rational thought can establish morals, but what about irrational thought? We know not everyone thinks reasonably.

blah...just writing down my thoughts...sorry if it may be contradictory or confusing :P

[Ponaris]

irrational thought can be rational, if only in the thinkers mind
It seems murder would be immoral, but do you think that there is someone out there who wouldn't mind being murdered?
I got three types of people. Wannabe martyrs, depressives contemplating suicide, and euthanists. I just made that word up.

Take schizophrenics they see stuff that to them is rationale, its just noone else does therefore they are crazy