Jump to content

The Last Post Wins!!!!!


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Through The Living Glass said:

Heyyyy welcome back!

How was it?

A lot of fun! I had no service so I wasn't on here at all.. I made a candle out of pine sap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, strmblsd said:

A lot of fun! I had no service so I wasn't on here at all.. I made a candle out of pine sap

What! I didn't know sap was flammable. 

 

image.thumb.png.e4f8ac24f190576275ecb0bf41d3665f.png

So I guess resin is flammable? 

wait hold on, my rosin is flammable?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a heads up, I'm running on 2 hours of sleep so this might be incoherent. Or not.

9 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I would say that we think of them as wrong, not because of the pain that it causes others, but instead because our civilization's aforementioned roots in Judeo-Christian values influencing our beliefs in what is right and wrong. The reason society at large agrees about that has the same answer, in addition to the fact that when a society is built upon anarchy, or even just apathy for morality, that society will probably not survive. In addition to that, I think that humans are naturally bad, but that we do try to become more like God.

Interesting. I would say that humans are naturally neutral, they have the choice to be good or bad. 
 

9 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Earlier you stated, "I believe as society we set what what is moral and what isn't, not a higher power." So if I disagree with society, who is correct? Me or society? Which morality is correct? Further, on this point, you said, "I don't believe in objective morality." If objective morality does not exist, doesn't that mean that the Nazis and the Holocaust were not objectively bad?

I don't know if there can be a true correctness, probably both. Since humans are flawed in the first place. Is objective morality something everyone believes in or what is objectively right? Because Neo Nazis would gladly argue that the Holocaust and Nazis were good, obviously I don't agree, especially considering my connection with it. (No direct relatives that I know of, but if you think about the bottle neckage... you get the point).

I don't know if anything can be objectively true besides like math/science things that are factual. Though people can argue opinions as facts so I don't know. 

 

10 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Earlier you said you don't believe objective morality exists. To clarify, do you believe that objective morality exists? What changes? Well, there is no longer an objective morality. In addition to this, I believe that without a higher power, we would not exist, so the point about everyone holding the same religious beliefs is moot.

I think I confused myself, though I don't know what I was thinking there. Or using wrong terminology. 

10 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Then nobody would care. If they knew there was no God, lawlessness would become rampant. There is no point in trying, cause existence is just going to end in a couple years anyway. If everyone knew there was a God, then everyone would follow him, not by faith, but because he had proved he exists, rendering his plan to redeem us useless.

Depression wants me to not care, if I wasn't in a better place I wouldn't care. I don't think a lack of religion would make everyone the worst versions of themselves possible, see Jasnah. 

 

10 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

What about people who believe in polytheistic religions? They'd be wrong, plain and simple. If there are multiple higher powers than they'd be right and I'd be wrong (although technically I believe in multiple higher powers). I think there already is evidence of God, but many don't. I think society would change very much if we knew for a fact if there was or was not a God.

Once again, I find your thoughts interesting. Not good or bad, just interesting. 

10 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Yes. There are major themes across major religions. For example, murder and theft are sins in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, as well as being wrong in Buddhism. I expect they are wrong in Taoism, Daoism, Confucism and more too. No, it means there are multiple incorrect interpretations of God, and one correct one.

How do you know that your interpretation is correct? Out of genuine curiosity. 

 

10 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Holy cow, once school resumes finding time to type these is gonna get a lot harder

My school starts in two days, I moved in today, so yeah me too. Don't worry about it :)
 

5 hours ago, strmblsd said:

I just finished camping 

What was your favorite part?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, reisleK said:

I don't know if there can be a true correctness, probably both. Since humans are flawed in the first place. Is objective morality something everyone believes in or what is objectively right? Because Neo Nazis would gladly argue that the Holocaust and Nazis were good, obviously I don't agree, especially considering my connection with it. (No direct relatives that I know of, but if you think about the bottle neckage... you get the point).

Objective correctness is what is correct, regardless of what people believe. For example, I would say that the Holocaust was objectively bad. Not that I think it is bad, I believe that it is bad, whether or not people agree with that.

Quote

I don't know if anything can be objectively true besides like math/science things that are factual. Though people can argue opinions as facts so I don't know. 

things can be objectively true, like the existence (or, hypothetically, lack thereof) of God. Either it is true, or it is false. There is no in between

Quote

Depression wants me to not care, if I wasn't in a better place I wouldn't care. I don't think a lack of religion would make everyone the worst versions of themselves possible, see Jasnah. 

Jasnah lives in a society that already has the foundation of religion to fall back upon, and I would argue that she isn't the best example anyway.

Quote

How do you know that your interpretation is correct? Out of genuine curiosity. 

Long story short? Because of personal experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!! I kinda got attacked by like 40 boys during a chaotic capture the flag incident and am still dealing with that, so if this makes no sense I apologize

12 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Objective correctness is what is correct, regardless of what people believe. For example, I would say that the Holocaust was objectively bad. Not that I think it is bad, I believe that it is bad, whether or not people agree with that.

Good point, I agree with that. I think you're starting to turn me onto objective morality a little. 

12 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

things can be objectively true, like the existence (or, hypothetically, lack thereof) of God. Either it is true, or it is false. There is no in between

Also true

12 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Jasnah lives in a society that already has the foundation of religion to fall back upon, and I would argue that she isn't the best example anyway.

So do we, I think we'd need someone raised outside of society with zero religious exposure, and see how that goes. But that would be hard to do and would take generations to eliminate society's influence. If its even feasible in this day and age. Plus you'd need multiple families to mitigate inbreeding. 

12 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Long story short? Because of personal experiences.

Fair. 

I think you make a valid and decently sound argument, I still don't believe in a higher power and I kind of feel like objective morality is a thing, but seems like it shouldn't? Like I feel like objective morality that aligns with my beliefs is putting mine over others, though objective morality is putting, I don't want to say good, but that's the best word I can think of, beliefs over "bad" ones, in my opinion at least.

Let's hope I don't have a concussion!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, reisleK said:

So do we, I think we'd need someone raised outside of society with zero religious exposure, and see how that goes. But that would be hard to do and would take generations to eliminate society's influence. If its even feasible in this day and age. Plus you'd need multiple families to mitigate inbreeding. 

Yes, and if one day reliable evidence came out that there was no God? We would no longer live in such a society. We would have no incentive to remain good. Think of Soviet Russia for example. They had no reason to stay good, and they suffered due to secret police and corrupt government officials, things which people would be much more willing to do if they don't believe it will send them to hell for all time.

Quote

I think you make a valid and decently sound argument, I still don't believe in a higher power and I kind of feel like objective morality is a thing, but seems like it shouldn't? Like I feel like objective morality that aligns with my beliefs is putting mine over others, though objective morality is putting, I don't want to say good, but that's the best word I can think of, beliefs over "bad" ones, in my opinion at least.

Objective morality doesn't ever align with your beliefs. Your beliefs align with objective morality. And people whose beliefs don't align are wrong. It was objectively bad to gas millions of Jews. If you don't agree with that, you are wrong. If you do, congrats, your beliefs align with objective morality! That's how objective morality works. Of course, in many issues it's a little more complicated than that, but that's an easy example.

Quote

Let's hope I don't have a concussion!! 

yeah, they're not fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Yes, and if one day reliable evidence came out that there was no God? We would no longer live in such a society. We would have no incentive to remain good. Think of Soviet Russia for example. They had no reason to stay good, and they suffered due to secret police and corrupt government officials, things which people would be much more willing to do if they don't believe it will send them to hell for all time.

I believe that humans, at least some of them, have the capacity to be good without a higher power as motivation. I do think that we can benefit from religion as something to guide us, I personally don't need/want? that, I have natural repercussions, as do most I suppose. 

12 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

Objective morality doesn't ever align with your beliefs. Your beliefs align with objective morality. And people whose beliefs don't align are wrong. It was objectively bad to gas millions of Jews. If you don't agree with that, you are wrong. If you do, congrats, your beliefs align with objective morality! That's how objective morality works. Of course, in many issues it's a little more complicated than that, but that's an easy example.

 Yeah that makes a lot more sense than whatever I was thinking last night, I was still a little spooked from the whole thing but yeah. I think you're continuing to make me believe that objective morality might be a thing.

12 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

yeah, they're not fun.

I don't have a concussion (woo!)
Or at least I don't think I do, 24 hours later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, reisleK said:

I believe that humans, at least some of them, have the capacity to be good without a higher power as motivation. I do think that we can benefit from religion as something to guide us, I personally don't need/want? that, I have natural repercussions, as do most I suppose. 

We do have the capacity, but that doesn't mean we'll actually do it. There are definitely good people that don't believe in God. My brother doesn't, but he's still a good person. I just think that he would be better and happier had he stayed in the church. I think that everyone needs religion, but many don't want it. I don't think that you need it to be good, but I think that in the end, you will need it. Without the guidance of religion (and God), our laws and natural consequences would be very different. 

Quote

 Yeah that makes a lot more sense than whatever I was thinking last night

that's good, I like it when things make sense

Quote

I don't have a concussion (woo!)

that's good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, NerdyAarakocra said:

I just walked into this to get last post what is going on

Haha welcome to the chaos, I think we finished the debate but this was sparked by the ethicality of hemalurgy, then the ethicality of murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Through The Living Glass said:

...

  Reveal hidden contents

May we now discuss the ethical-ness of cannibalism...?

  Hide contents

That's a joke

  Hide contents

but like

  Hide contents

I'm curious what y'all think.

  Hide contents

mwehehe.

 

 

 

 

 

The only time I would do it is for a last resort, but I wouldn’t kill the people, I would wait for them to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vyzkel said:

The only time I would do it is for a last resort, but I wouldn’t kill the people, I would wait for them to die.

Ewww then your meat will be rotten and cold

Spoiler

THIS IS A JOKE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Through The Living Glass said:

...

  Reveal hidden contents

May we now discuss the ethical-ness of cannibalism...?

  Reveal hidden contents

That's a joke

  Reveal hidden contents

but like

  Reveal hidden contents

I'm curious what y'all think.

  Reveal hidden contents

mwehehe.

 

 

 

 

 

I would do it as a last resort but to get rid of the ethicalness of murdering people to eat them before you go on any trip that can resort in cannibalism/being stranded you agree on what the order is of being eaten so then its not a fight and your not guilty of murder. (im pretty sure that's what they use to do for crews on ships)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Vyzkel said:

Fun Fact: Cannibalism is actually legal in Idaho, but murder and grave robbing is not.

Fun Fact: it's actually the other way around, haha. Idaho is the only state in which cannibalism is illegal.

...

image.png.af3cd892ec30f809e615c0c0d4c6567f.png

Edited by Through The Living Glass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Through The Living Glass said:

Fun Fact: it's actually the other way around, haha. Idaho is the only state in which cannibalism is illegal.

...

image.png.af3cd892ec30f809e615c0c0d4c6567f.png

Dang it, I felt like something was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...