Which religion

[MonteZuma]

yeah....This is religious.....but it will be interesting to see how others score....

 

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907

 

You scored as agnosticism.

 

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

 

Islam 67%

 

agnosticism 67%

 

atheism 63%

 

Buddhism 46%

 

Paganism 46%

 

Satanism 42%

 

Judaism 29%

 

Hinduism 29%

 

Christianity 25%

[SeVeR]

You scored as Satanism.

 

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

 

Satanism 100%

 

Agnosticism 96%

 

Paganism 83%

 

Atheism 75%

 

Buddhism 63%

 

Islam 29%

 

Judaism 25%

 

Christianity 4%

 

Hinduism 4%

 

 

It's exactly as i expected in pretty much this exact order from top to bottom. An accurate quiz indeed.

[LearJett+]

You scored as Christianity.

 

 

 

Your views are most similar to those of Christianity. Do more research on Christianity and possibly consider being baptized and accepting Jesus, if you aren't already Christian. Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam. It differs in its belief of Jesus, as not a prophet nor historical figure, but as God in human form. The Holy Trinity is the concept that God takes three forms: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (sometimes called Holy Spirit). Jesus taught the idea of instead of seeking revenge, one should love his or her neighbors and enemies. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humankind and forgive people's sins.

 

Christianity83%

 

Paganism42%

 

Judaism33%

 

Buddhism33%

 

Islam29%

 

Hinduism29%

 

Satanism29%

 

agnosticism13%

 

atheism 4%

 

 

Weird, goes from Christianity straight to Paganism.

[»i88gerbils]

Apparently the site thinks I'm a Satanic Buddhist.

[AstroProdigy]

You scored as agnosticism.

 

 

 

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

 

agnosticism 100%

 

Islam 67%

 

Judaism 63%

 

atheism 54%

 

Christianity 54%

 

Paganism 50%

 

Satanism 46%

 

Hinduism 38%

 

Buddhism 38%

 

I didn't know I was so Islamic.

[Hackysack]

You scored as atheism.

 

 

 

You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

 

atheism

 

100%

 

Satanism

 

79%

 

agnosticism

 

75%

 

Buddhism

 

50%

 

Islam

 

33%

 

Judaism

 

29%

 

Paganism

 

29%

 

Christianity

 

8%

 

Hinduism

 

0%

[Aileron]

Christianity - 83%

Buddhism - 63%

Paganism - 50%

Satanism - 50%

Judaism - 46%

agnosticism - 42%

Islam - 38%

Hinduism - 33%

atheism - 13%

 

 

I'm sort of suprised...I thought I had more respect of Judaism than that. I'm also suprised that atheism scored that high...I'm more of a 2% in that catagory.

 

I didn't think I'd be that much of a Buddhist...then again its not a technical religion and it does have some correct beliefs, so I guess the problem was my image of myself rather than the test.

 

Paganism doesn't come to too much of a suprise, because a lot of Christian traditions comes from Paganist religions to facilitate in conversions. A simple example of this would be St. Patrick's use of a Shamrock to convert the Irish. (Thus you shouldn't really be suprised LerrJett+) Besides that, there's a connection...God created all of nature, thus you can find God's presence in natural phenomenon.

 

Satanism isn't that much of a suprise for me either...I know I have a dark side.

 

 

 

 

Monte...I didn't know you were muslim. (The computer mislabeled you...there's a tie there, and your agnostic nature probably only results from not being officially part of the muslim church) Just remember that if someone asks you to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up some civilians, just say no.

 

 

Sever, you are going to !@#$%^&* in a handbasket

I'd pray for you, but it seems like a lost cause. God doesn't interfere with free will and you seem to be enjoying your path to eternal !@#$%^&*ation.

[»1587200]

Christianity 96%

Islam 63%

Judaism 58%

Buddhism 25%

Hinduism 13%

Paganism 13%

atheism 8%

agnosticism 0%

Satanism 0%

[»Purge]

You scored as Satanism.

 

 

 

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

 

Satanism

 

79%

 

agnosticism

 

79%

 

Christianity

 

63%

 

Buddhism

 

54%

 

Hinduism

 

42%

 

Paganism

 

33%

 

Judaism

 

29%

 

Islam

 

29%

 

atheism

 

29%

 

...Considering I help out my Church community alot...

[MonteZuma]

Monte...I didn't know you were muslim. (The computer mislabeled you...there's a tie there, and your agnostic nature probably only results from not being officially part of the muslim church) Just remember that if someone asks you to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up some civilians, just say no.

Based on the scores, I tied, but the quiz successfully identified that I am agnostic, so I guess it worked.

 

Why did I score highly with Islam? Not sure. Probably because I do not believe that God is a Trinity, that Jesus is God, or that Salvation is through the death of Jesus. Obviously this is also why I scored so low with Christianity. I believe that if there is a God, good works will bring salvation, not worship. But that is at odds with Islamic principles (eg the five pillars of Islam).

 

Another set of questions that probably gave me a higher score with Islam is that I believe that people are inherently good, rather than inherently sinful. According to one website: "Christianity says that man is born in sin, while according to Islam he is sinless at his birth."

 

Terrorism is a corruption of Islam, not true Islam, so I wouldn't worry about the bomb thing. I'd begin a talk about the IRA and catholics here if I didn't think your comments were tongue in cheek.

 

Sever, you are going to !@#$%^&* in a handbasket

According to the text, the quiz author defines satanism as something that isn't inherently evil. Wikipedia explains it very well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

[»Ducky]

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

 

Satanism 96%

 

Paganism 92%

 

agnosticism 83%

 

Buddhism 79%

 

atheism 75%

 

Islam 67%

 

Hinduism 33%

 

Judaism 17%

 

Christianity 13%

 

 

Sounds about right, although I had hoped Buddhism would be slightly higher, although I do ingest numerous substances and take on acts of indulgance.

 

 

 

I went to wiki and read up some, and despite thinking 'pre-click' that I wouldn't agree with some aspects, it seems I agree with most if not all of the things listed.

The following caught my eye in particular.

 

LaVey's "9 Satanic Statements", a sort of philosophical outline to defining Satanism, were as follows:

 

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years.

[Aileron]

You know, at first glance I can see why someone might want to be a Satanist instead of a Christian. Satan tells you that you can do whatever you want, but Christ tells you that you have to conduct yourselves in a certain fashion, and provided codes and doctrines and tells you that you must follow them. It seems that the former wishes to give you freedom and the latter slavery.

 

I ask you this: Suppose a man wishes to chain his hands and feet, lock himself in a cage, throw away the key, and not provide food or drink for himself, how do you protect his freedom?

 

Satan says that it is his wish to enter the cage, and you should not interfere with it. Christ says that you should smash the gate, break his chains, give him food and water, and see to it that the man recieves psychiatric help.

 

If you look at the results, if you follow Satan the man is trapped in the cage for the rest of his life, and will be a starved corpse in a few weeks. If you follow Christ, the man is denied one decision, but is given instead a lifetime of other decisions to make. It is clear that the majority of the man's freedoms were protected by the decision to break the cage. The case of letting him stay in it may have protected his one bad decision, but it destroyed a lifetime of good decisions he would have been able to make for himself.

 

If you are still skeptical, suppose another man knocked somebody unconcious and was locking that person in a cage. This is clearly wrong by anyone's point of view except Satan's...Satan thinks its the man's freedom even to lock somebody else in a cage. Clearly, one should free the one trapped in the cage.

 

Now, lets compaire the person in the second example to the one who locked himself in in the first. If either of them now wish to travel to Paris, can they? If either of them wishes to drink a gallon of water to quench their thirst, are they able to do so? No, they are trapped in a cage without water. If you compaire the present and future conditions of both people, their fates are identical. The second should clearly be freed...should the first be forced to die of thirst for one bad decision he made in the past, or would it be better to forgive that decision, break his bonds, and give him a gallon of water on the flight to Paris?

 

 

Hence where Church doctrine comes from. You are free to do whatever you like as long as it doesn't lead to your own slavery. We think its better to tell people they can't be gluttons rather than watch as they trap themselves in a vicious cycle of gluttony, growing fatter, and despair. We think its better to tell people to be abstinant rather than watch them suffer from STDs and watch their children suffer growing up in unformed homes. We think its better to tell somebody not to be greedy rather than watch their material wealth destroy their wellbeing. We think its better to tell people not to be pridefull rather than watch their arrogance destroy them. We think its better to tell people not to envy than watch them suffer longing for something that they cannot have. We tell people not to be lazy rather than watch them come to regret not having accomplished something with their lives. We tell people not to give in to their anger rather than watch as that person's anger controlls them and denys them the things that will make them happy.

 

Note that we don't punish people for violating these things. These aren't rules that have to be followed, these are warnings that should be heeded lest you punish yourself. Each of these things come with their own built-in real life consequences. Thus, we sometimes treat them as rules, because they function as such because you get punished if you break them. However, in technicality they are just warnings, because neither Christ nor the Church creates these consequences.

 

Satan wishes humanity destroyed, so he offers these things. He lies and tells you they are freedoms, knowing full well that they only lead to self slavery and destruction, and in a bold move even makes the claim that we decieve ourselves!! Is it self deciet that if you eat in moderation that you will be healthy? Is it self deceit that if you remain abstinant that you cannot get STDs and your children will grow up in a strong household? Is it self deceit that if you don't put value on material things, that you won't miss the things that matter? Is it self deceit that humility will lead to self improvement and then to success? Is it self deceit that if you don't envy you will be happy with what you have? Is it self deceit that if you are industrious you will look back on life with a feeling of accomplishment over the tall towers you have built? Is it self deceit that you will be happier if you control your anger rather than have it control you?

 

Thus, we end up with a conclusion so simple that it almost seems too easy to use as an arguement, though logically is completely sound. Satan lies, don't listen to him.

 

 

 

Monte...I was joking about SeVeR ...nobody gets a 100% without retrying the test about 5 times to engineer a result. SeVeR isn't really a Satanist, he's more like those people who get multiple piercings and dye their hair a strange color just for the shock value (heck, he probably IS one of those people). However, when he makes real life decisions, he probably does good things just like everybody else.

[»Ducky]

Considering I scored a 96%, I doubt it takes much effort at all to get the last 4% pending your perspective.

 

The caged analogies don't hold up though. They are based on what the religion would do itself. (And even that is flimsy considering one of the points listed includes helping the desearving. People, no matter their faith will do what they think is best for themselves.

You let him out of the cage so YOU feel good. Nothing more or less. Had you been apathetic, you wouldn't have even stopped.

 

Do people sacrifice themselves for others? Sure. You rarely hear about them though, they are either dead or socially invisible.

People who make true sacrifices usually don't end up on television, or in a newspaper. They are the ones letting strangers into their homes to stay, giving away the majority of their possessions to others and basically living an exclusive spiritual life.

 

I would let an innocent man starve if it was of his own will.

I would let a guilty man starve if it was imposed across him and I thought his crime was that much.

 

Going to !@#$%^&*? Probably. So long as I'm not bull!@#$%^&*ting myself and know who I am, who cares.

[Aileron]

I wasn't supposing over what different people would have done in the cage example, I was trying to point out what was the morally right decision.

 

 

The often used and predicatable response to this that you have half-used already is the belief that there is no moral right and wrong. That belief is proven wrong at the beginning of most basic philosophy textbooks. A crude and rudimentary argument (I know it has some flaws, but the complete one is long and boring) would be that anyone who thinks that Ghandi was a better man than Hitler believes in right and wrong. Both made radical changes to their respective countries. Both changed the world. True, one preached pacifism and the other extreme violence, but that is imposing a belief of right and wrong, now, isn't it?

 

 

I didn't say anything about sacrificing oneself for others, I only said you should sacrifice things for yourself, equivolent to saying you shouldn't eat a diet of all candy or your teeth will fall out.

 

I'm not bull!@#$%^&*ting myself, I'm stating reality. The desire of the moment might have long-term consequences, so such desires should be fought.

 

If said desire does have such a consequence, the Church merely tells people of the consequences of actions...the Catholic Church doesn't excommunicate fat people, but we do warn people that if you eat too much, you will get fat.

 

 

[sarcasm]Ofcourse this is all bull!@#$%^&* and self deceit...go ahead, eat as much as you like, you won't gain a pound.[/sarcasm]

[AstroProdigy]

No, but the Catholic Church shuns you for divorce. They don't point out the consequences to some forms of indulgence. They tell you to suffer your whole life and have no indulgence and send the money you save to them. How do they get you to do this? They say if you don't you go to !@#$%^&*. Don't forget the Catholic Church is not democratic and never has been. They support a brutal dictator who tortures his own people as long as they go to church every sunday over a democratic government where they get to think for themselves. I'm not anti religion. I am anti bull!@#$%^&* people who want to control you.

[Aileron]

Yes, we are anti-divorce. It creates pain and suffering, and we like to add a little pressure on couples to work things out. To help this every parish offers a marriage counselling service, and we do have options to divorce if it really can't work out.

 

You pay taxes...is government evil? To the point that we should drop all government and live in anarchy?

 

So what if the Church isn't democratic...it doesn't have to worry about changing, so it doesn't need a democracy.

 

Alright, what SHOULD the Church do about the dictators then? Our current method is to try to persuade them and use political power to change their ways. The only other options are to use military force on them, which people like you would criticise for being a crusade (and you would be right), or threaten them, which isn't going to work unless military force is an acceptible option.

 

Jeez, for an organization that stood against Operation Iraqi Freedom you seem to be going pretty hard on their international policy.

 

Its good to be anti-bull!@#$%^&*...I happen to be anti-bull!@#$%^&* myself...but you should atleast walk into a church and listen to a priest (not some idiot on a street corner) before you dismiss him as a bull!@#$%^&*er. Dismissal before listening is bigotry.

 

But you got it backwards, its really the Catholic Church's tactfullness that gets us in trouble. Whereas a politician usually shifts around and changes the subject, the Church gets in trouble by taking a stand, which some people may not like.

[»Ducky]

You were pointing out what the morally right decision was due to your faith, and misinterpretted that of another faith. An extremely common occurance when it comes to debating things with you.

Christianity, as you stated gives help for things people would not know/realize on their own.

Satanism expects you to know these things, and encourages indulgance based on your appropriate level of commitment and knowledge. No where does it state: "Be a glutton, everything will be fine."

 

Morality and whether right and wrong is present is a different topic. One in which you already know my answer. Morality, if you believe in its existance does not always go hand in hand with decision though.

A person may state it's wrong to kill people, but those who follow such a rule state self defense is something else entirely.

It's only moral until thier own well being is threatened or they feel the need to gain an edge.

 

One could assume ghandi was a greater man only out of preference.

A man could say pacifism is a better route than death in a certain scenerio, not because he believes killing is wrong, but because it's an easier feat to accomplish for himself., or he can gain more support that way.

I fully endorse the way Hitler went about things.

I fully endorse the way Bush executed what he did.

I don't endorse the reasons behind each of them though.

 

I never stated you are bull!@#$%^&*ting yourself.

Be happy and know you have a place in heaven. If you think it's true, it is.

You attacked a group of people on false !@#$%^&*umption, get over it.

 

 

In no way did I mean to imply Bush = Hitler. I used a modern controversial reference.

I put this in here because I know you will twist the topic into a discussion that it isn't.

[SeVeR]

If you look at the results, if you follow Satan the man is trapped in the cage for the rest of his life, and will be a starved corpse in a few weeks. If you follow Christ, the man is denied one decision, but is given instead a lifetime of other decisions to make. It is clear that the majority of the man's freedoms were protected by the decision to break the cage. The case of letting him stay in it may have protected his one bad decision, but it destroyed a lifetime of good decisions he would have been able to make for himself.

Now ask yourself: Is the world a better place with this person in it?

 

This person is clearly insane and unpredictable. This person could snap and kill you. When moral codes disregard survival you can only be looking to earn browny points with God.

 

If somebody wants to end their life then they have nothing worth adding to anyone elses.

 

I was joking about SeVeR ...nobody gets a 100% without retrying the test about 5 times to engineer a result. SeVeR isn't really a Satanist, he's more like those people who get multiple piercings and dye their hair a strange color just for the shock value (heck, he probably IS one of those people). However, when he makes real life decisions, he probably does good things just like everybody else.

Holy crap, i guess the true presumptious self made a resurfacing. I've done the quiz once before about 3 months ago and i couldn't remember the answers i gave then, all i remember is it was 96% satanist. This time i got 100%... so what... i guess i'm becoming more in-tune with what i am. "I'm not a Satanist?" Actually you're right i'm not, i share their beliefs but i would never group myself in with other people who call themselves Satanists. I've read the Satanic bible but i don't agree with all the magical bulls**t.

 

I've dyed my hair before yes, but what is wrong with that, i look quite normal now. I have light shortish brown hair, NO PIERCINGS (not ever), and i'm wearing a red t-shirt lol.. so thats hardly goth/satanist attire now is it?!?

 

I make decisions based on what is best for me, very often these are what Christians would call good decisions, sometimes they are not. The only major difference is my morals come from the basic survival instinct rather than some mystical image of perfection in the sky.

 

You may say: Do not kill because it's one of the ten commandments

I'll say: Do not kill because then people will want to kill you or lock you up to protect their own survival.

 

Some people are so deluded by their illusions of right and wrong. Why do you really think we lock up murderers? Really think about it.

[AstroProdigy]

Actually, there is a right and wrong. It's called do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

[SeVeR]

I disagree with your statement.

 

Am i right? Are you right? Who knows. So where is your absolute right and wrong?

 

One of us is right so their must be some sort of truth, it's just we will never know what it is. You can never presume you are absolutely right. We will forever be uncertain but to say that uncertainty is the truth is a contradiction. Therefore we must say that everything is uncertain including this statement and because the possibility of everything being uncertain is uncertain this statement that encomp!@#$%^&*es every possible known truth makes knowing truth impossible. We will forever be oblivious to truth and any absolutes of right and wrong

[MonteZuma]

If somebody wants to end their life then they have nothing worth adding to anyone elses.

Maybe. And maybe I've missed the point, but people can be suicidal for irrational reasons. Sometimes people just need a little help, and then they can contribute to society again. Come to think of it, I think some people become suicidal because they pay too much attention to other people's needs and not enough to their own.

[SeVeR]

Possibly in the future they could benefit your life because you saved them (if they're not too busy wallowing in self-despair) but at the moment you make that decision on whether or not to save them there can be no immediate positives, only a possibility that they're a madman who had locked himself up in a cage in the one shred of sanity he had left. If he's a madman then opening the cage would threaten your survival. If somebody wants to kill themselves then that is their choice, they feel its right to kill themselves and we'd be imposing our version of what is right onto them if we were to take action to save them. I wouldn't appreciate someone forcing me to believe in Christianity so i'm sure that someone who believes they are right to kill themselves wouldn't appreciate someone forcing them to live. I would by all means try and persuade them from safely outside the cage if i had nothing more entertaining to do.

[Aileron]

Oh, you two (Ducky and SeVeR) are subjectivists. That explains a lot, though I probably should have figured as such.

 

Ducky, I didn't attack anyone under false !@#$%^&*umption, I attacked under full observation - indulgence sometimes leads to consequences, and Satanism is about self-indulgence at virtually every opportunity...its a valid point.

 

One note on Christianity that you seem to be approaching: There is no commandment that says "Though shalt not kill"...that is slightly mistranslated. A more accurate translation is "Though shalt not murder". Self defense and executions are allowed.

 

SeVeR, you can't have a survival instinct because humans don't survive on instinct. We survive on intellect to survive and our instincts kill us. As an animal, the human body does not really compaire with other animals. Virtually all of them our size are stronger, faster, and have better senses. Supposing you ended up in a fight with a lion, which weight wise is a pretty fair fight. If you let your "survival instinct" take over, you would either fight, and lose because the lion is much stronger than you are, or flee, and have it quickly catch up to you because its top speed is twice yours. The only way you would survive is by observing your surroundings calmly and finding some sort of weapon you can use, or finding some cleaver cir!@#$%^&*stance to outsmart the lion. Instinct is a strange built in drug that gives the illusion of power, but really prevents you from focusing you energies effectively.

 

I've seen proof of this myself. When one is hunting and spots a deer, there is great instinct that swells up inside you. If you listen to the instinct and let it take over - your hands shake and you miss your shot. The only way to get the deer is to silence your instincts and let your higher self calmy squeeze the trigger. When fighting hand to hand with somebody, you get a great rush of instinct. If you listen to it, you will attack your opponant with a rush of powerfull blows, but he will probably just dodge them and take you down with one good smack because you let down your defenses. The only way to defeat the opponant is to let your higher self patiently look for an opening in his defense and exploit it. And everyone here knows the consequences of letting your instinct take over while playing Subspace...you deplete your energy meter into a volley of shots that miss, and your opponant takes you down with a few precision shots.

 

Instinct, maybe. Survival instict, no.

 

About the man in the cage SeVeR, you proved my point...I was observing that the Satanist opinion is to leave him in the box. Since that is indeed your opinion, my statement was correct, and you really shouldn't be arguing over it, because you agree with me on this point.

 

 

 

Alright, now on to the main event. Is there a such thing as right and wrong?

 

SeVeR your last post is a classical logical fallicy. First off I will define some terms:

 

Subjectivism - the moral belief that right and wrong is dependent upon the point of view of the person doing the action.

Observational Subjectivism - The fact that peoples' point of view of morality is dependent on their point of view.

Actual Subjectivism - Morality itself, not people's views of morality, is dependent on each person's point of view.

 

As I pointed out before, Ducky and SeVeR are subjectivists...they believe whether their decisions are right and wrong is dependent on their point of view, and whether or not other people's decisions are right and wrong is dependent on the other person's point of view. This isn't an insult or criticism in itself, just merely an observation. I can prove this by Ducky's opinion of Hitler and SeVeR's opinion of why criminals are punished. Both signature opinions of a subjectivist...it wouldn't be as such if they had any different opinion.

 

Your logical fallicy SeVeR was that you proved observational subjectivism (duh. the definition proves itself) and act like you proved actual subjectivism. They are two different things. The former proves itself, but means nothing. The latter would mean a lot, if it were possible to prove.

 

However, it can't be proven because its an incorrect theory. It just doesn't coincide with real systems. Suppose the two of us see an animal, a rodent with a bushy tail and is climbing a tree. I say it is a duck and you say that its a cow, but that doesn't imply that the animal is some sort of wierd crossbread. If I say that 2 + 2 = 39 and you say 2 + 2 = 57, that does not mean that 2 + 2 equals both 39 and 57. Actual subjectivism leads to laughably wrong conclusions when applied to reality, so if we want a moralistic theory applicable to the real world (not to mention correct), this can't be it.

 

It does have SOME validity in reality on really similar systems. If I said that a certain block was greenish blue in color and you said it was blueish green, we would indeed both be right and the color of the block would indeed be ambiguous. Thus, actual subjectivism could work provided its not its own independent theory. However, the fact that its not independent implies that there is another different theorey that is correct.

 

This gives the implication that there is indeed a universal constant of "right" and a universal constant of "wrong". However, I won't go on to make claims as to what universal right and wrong is at this point...I'll let the notion that subjectivism doesn't work settle in before I move any further.

[MonteZuma]

Possibly in the future they could benefit your life because you saved them (if they're not too busy wallowing in self-despair) but at the moment you make that decision on whether or not to save them there can be no immediate positives, only a possibility that they're a madman who had locked himself up in a cage in the one shred of sanity he had left.

The benefit that you can get by helping someone who is suicidal can be as basic as receiving satisfaction from knowing that you saved someone from death and helped move them towards a happy, healthy life again. You don't have to be religious to believe that helping other people without receiving any personal advantage can be emotionally rewarding. That reward may often be worth the risk !@#$%^&*ociated with getting involved.

[MonteZuma]

Oh, you two (Ducky and SeVeR) are subjectivists.

Interesting observation. I think I agree.

 

SeVeR, you can't have a survival instinct because humans don't survive on instinct.

I disagree. Humans have superior intellect, but our survival 'instinct' is just as strong as that of other animals.