»Ducky Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 Ducky, I didn't attack anyone under false !@#$%^&*umption, I attacked under full observation - indulgence sometimes leads to consequences, and Satanism is about self-indulgence at virtually every opportunity...its a valid point. One note on Christianity that you seem to be approaching: There is no commandment that says "Though shalt not kill"...that is slightly mistranslated. A more accurate translation is "Though shalt not murder". Self defense and executions are allowedNo, it's not about self indulgance at every oppurtunity. That's a spinned fact so you are able to feel more comfortable with yourself.It's indulgance, whenever you want, with anything you want. That doesn't equate to everything.A woman who enjoys casual sex doesn't have to be a glutton. I never touched your commandment. I simply stated to those who believe killing is wrong. I made certain to avoid the commandment in all actuality so that my point was valid. About the man in the cage SeVeR, you proved my point...I was observing that the Satanist opinion is to leave him in the box. Since that is indeed your opinion, my statement was correct, and you really shouldn't be arguing over it, because you agree with me on this point.Your broad classification and !@#$%^&*umption on what a satanist would do ends with one or two people?Black people eat watermelon and chicken everyday? 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.I can't speak for Sever, but I can for myself.I don't make wrong decisions. Ever. It simply isn't an option available.People choose right and wrong for themselves, true.Basically at this point, I am defined into a group, hooray. 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.So, you are 'right' in the discussion, but you can't tell us why; other than examples of scientific data that socially can't be disproven given the average intellect of a person and changing what was truly meant by what everyone has previously said. I take into consideration your 3 catagories save the last one. To believe the last one, you must first believe that morality (In this sense; right/wrong) is real.It isn't a matter of what is right for me may be wrong for you. It's a matter of what is right for me may be wrong for you only because I am never wrong.Given example numbers., I know there are 100% right decisions. You acknowledge 75% right decisions and 25% wrong ones. So despite what anyone says and who they are, they are automatically at the same percentile as you.For what reason? Universal right and wrong that you can't define.You didn't even list evidence that there is right and wrong based on decision. You only cited right and wrong based on factual evidence. (Something we have never argue'd on here.) If 100 people die, then 100 people died. There's no debate.If 2+2=4, then it is. There isn't a decision involved.Abortion, gay marriage, war, religion and any other contraversal issues are based on decision. Right and Wrong have many descriptions, and the only way you are solidifying thier existance are in ways we aren't even talking about in context. A man has locked himself in a cage and is starving to death. The man is known to have killed 17,000 people in a bombing on a phsycological whim. What do you do.If you leave the man there, you are being vengeful.If you let the man go, you will most likely be destroyed in whatever fashion, a;png with the chance other people will lose thier lives.In both scenerio's, you are happy with the decision you have made for whatever reason. That is indulgence.You my friend, are a satanist.
»nintendo64 Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 !@#$%^&*o... , The result doesn't suprise me at all. Even thought i was born in a Christian family, i am not a devout and i believe more in human's nature to do good. You scored as Buddhism. Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Buddhism. Do more research on Buddhism and possibly consider becoming Buddhist, if you are not already. In Buddhism, there are Four Noble Truths: (1) Life is suffering. (2) All suffering is caused by ignorance of the nature of reality and the craving, attachment, and grasping that result from such ignorance. (3) Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment. (4) The path to the suppression of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and right contemplation. These eight are usually divided into three categories that base the Buddhist faith: morality, wisdom, and samadhi, or concentration. In Buddhism, there is no hierarchy, nor caste system; the Buddha taught that one's spiritual worth is not based on birth. Buddhism 96% Christianity 83% agnosticism 71% Paganism 67% atheism 58% Satanism 58% Judaism 50% Hinduism 46% Islam 46%
MonteZuma Posted October 11, 2005 Author Report Posted October 11, 2005 Buddhism is the coolest religion.
SeVeR Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 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.You have missed my point altogether. Let me set you straight on this: There is a truth in all situations, we just won't ever know with certainty what it is. I'm not saying there is no truth and i find your tone and incorrect !@#$%^&*umptions quite insulting when you haven't even read what i've said. I could quote myself from a previous post in this very topic if you really want me to show you. There is no way in which you can presume you are absolutely right. I'll admit that it's a nice illusion to think you are right. Uncertainty as a truth is a contradiction but uncertainty as uncertain is not. Therefore we must say that everything is uncertain including the truth about uncertainty 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. Tell me where i am wrong here, if you can. 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. Can you read this back to yourself because it sounds really stupid to me. We do use our intellect to survive, but you seem to think instinct is thoughtless and impulsive. To survive against your lion i would have to act quickly rather than sit around drawing up force and momentum vectors that calculate how much damage the lion could do to me before i can reach safety. I would use my acquired intellect to find the nearest building or climb a tree if there were no buildings about but i would do this instinctually, to survive. If you don't like the word instinct just think of it as survival. Survival is our underlying need above all others and every so-called moral can be derived from 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 missNot really, when you've acquired the proper knowledge your instinct becomes to conserve and time your attacks to perfection. The reason you learn what you do is to survive better. Once again you seem to view instinct as thoughtless impulse. Here's an example for you: There is a major natural disaster, everyone around me is dead. I need to survive so i look for food and water, but where? Maybe there are some deserted shops or restaurants, i'll go look. This is neither impulsive or thoughtless but its my survival instinct. Another example: I find another person in this disaster stricken city and rather than choosing to kill them, risking my own life, i believe in safety in numbers and befriend them. This is my survival instinct, its neither thoughtless or impulsive. Instincts often are impulsive if the situation requires it but instincts are very rarely thoughtless. 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. What the !@#$%^&*? I'm arguing that it's right to leave him in the cage and you're arguing that it's wrong, that's the argument here.... 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. So tell me why criminals are punished Aileron.
»i88gerbils Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 It seems Aileron is trying to be objective, but in reality he is masking a subjective opinion. That is all.
AstroProdigy Posted October 11, 2005 Report Posted October 11, 2005 I already told you what the universal right and wrong is. It is do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Of course, people have different opinions of this, but if you take the basic concepts that most people agree on, sane people, then you get a moral code right there. Now get back on topic here. This is a religious test not a !@#$%^&* argument.
»Ducky Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 I already told you what the universal right and wrong is. It is do onto others as you would have them do onto you.That doesn't explain right and wrong.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 You scored as Christianity. Your views are most similar to those of Christianity. Do more research on Christianity and possibly consider being baptized and accepting Jesus, if you aren't already Christian. Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam. It differs in its belief of Jesus, as not a prophet nor historical figure, but as God in human form. The Holy Trinity is the concept that God takes three forms: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (sometimes called Holy Spirit). Jesus taught the idea of instead of seeking revenge, one should love his or her neighbors and enemies. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humankind and forgive people's sins. Christianity 75% agnosticism 75% Islam 54% Hinduism 50% Buddhism 46% Paganism 46% Satanism 42% Judaism 42% atheism 42% A tie between Christianity and Agnostic... actually pretty !@#$%^&* close to how I feel at the current stage in my life. I'm fairly confident that a god does exist, i'm just not exactly sure that he exists and operates the way that Christianity teaches.
SeVeR Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 I already told you what the universal right and wrong is. It is do onto others as you would have them do onto you.That is not certain to be right or wrong because i disagree with you. As do many others. If the majority of people on Earth agreed with me then there'd be people saying what i say is the moral absolute. You are only in the majority or at least what you believe to be the majority. Most people only agree with you on this because they like to ally themselves with something that makes them feel good and meaningful when in fact they'll never follow your so-called moral absolute. Would you want someone to help you if you were starving in the street? I guess you would, maybe you even give money to charities that help people in this situation. Now put yourself in a poor place in Africa and see whether you feel like giving to the poor. Primarily you would fight to survive because this is the underlying need. If a situation arises where doing unto others threatens your survival you would not take that risk, therefore it is not a moral absolute because it's based on your situation and how easy it is for you to.... SURVIVE! Now get back on topic here. This is a religious test not a !@#$%^&* argument. Aileron started a debate and it turned into an argument because he began insulting people. Maybe he should follow some of the rules he chooses to enforce here.
AstroProdigy Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 No one said it had to be the real "right and wrong". There is no right and wrong described by some physical force. That is a human concept and this is how we operate.
Aileron Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 Astro...I'll quote Aileron's First Law of Online Communication: Any discussion of politics or religion will ALWAYS evolve into an arguement. Religion is a VERY sensative topic. I swear its sometimes easier to piss somebody off by talking about religion than it is to piss somebody off by punching him in the face. Those of you who thought my previous comments were pompous and judgemental are wrong. I've made a few mistakes because I've been under stress lately (midterms), but generally I'm just arguing as hard as I always do. The problem is that because religion is such a sensative topic, a person's core beliefs are involved, so it hurts a lot more on the defensive end. This makes it seem like somebody is slamming down on you. i88gerbils...I am pushing an opinion with logical support...the same as I do in secular arguements about Iraq. I'm not trying to be objective, I'm trying to push my viewpoint. SeVeR, there IS a way people can determine what is universally right. Philosophy. Granted, the field is mostly wannabe-scientists who are high on themselves, but philosophers do come up with long logical arguements based on observations from real life. Your cases of "instict" were actually logic, albeit some were subconcious logic. Instinct is by definition something you are born with. You run up a tree or to a building because you know such places are shelters. You acquired that knowledge by running subconcious simulations of the situation. Your Subspace "instict" is infact subconcious logic because it takes training before you can accomplish that...noobs who enter subspace for the first time don't come with a built-in knowledge of fire conservation. People aren't born with the knowledge that food and water are in stores. Safety in numbers is an instinct, I'll give you that... The only discrepency between the two of us is the definition of the word "instict"...I guess we should stop both arguing over semantics. I guess though maybe I shouldn't have considered you to be the same as Ducky. While you did make subjectivist statements, you also half-believe in the Survivalist Moral Theory...in which whatever causes the maximum amount of survival is right. The only flaw in this theory comes in the form of a joke: A passenger airplane was flying over the Atlantic in a storm, when a mechanical problem caused a fuel leak. He did some calculations, and found that they needed to jettison some weight if they wanted to reach a place they could land. All on board scrambled and jettisoned everything they could. However, the pilot found that there was still two much weight, and three people had to jump off to certain death. There was about a minute of silence. Then, a Frenchman stood up and walked towards the door. "Vive la France" he said, and jumped out of the plane. A short while later, an Englishman stood up, and walked towards the door. "Long live the Queen!" he said, and jumped out of the plane too. A short while after that, a Texan stood up and walked towards the door. "Remember the Alamo!" he yelled, and grabbed a Mexican an threw him out of the plane. Under survivalist morality, the Texan is as right as the Englishman and the Frenchman. Morality isn't determined by voting. It isn't vetoed because you disagree. There is a universal truth out there. If Astro happened to hit it, he's right no matter how many people disagree with him. If you disagree with him, you have to prove that its not the universal truth. You have to take a situation that is clearly wrong, but the theory claims is right. For example, the flaw here is that if you suppose there is a masochist who likes to be stabbed. Astro's theory then says that he should run around town and stab everyone he sees. Actually SeVeR, poor people are charitable too...Nigeria offerred an aide package to the US for hurricane Katrina. Your point still stands though...poorer people don't give to charity as much. That is because the concept of giving to charity doesn't apply to everybody...it only applies to those who have something to give, otherwise it really wouldn't make any sense. You are misenterpreting our perceptions of right and wrong slightly. The code of not killing does not include self-defense or the execution of dangerous criminals, and thus doesn't interfere with survival. The idea of giving to the poor only applies to those who have excess to give. The man in the cage is slightly more complicated...some actions are in between wrong and right. Letting the man out of the cage is right, but admittingly dangerous. Leaving him in the cage if taking him out is reasonably dangerous is nuetral. Wrong would be not doing ANYTHING. If there was some bread on a table accrossed from the man, it would not be dangerous to toss the man the bread and walk away. If you walked out of the room, and there was a group of professionals looking for a man trapped in a cage, it wouldn't be dangerous for you to tell them where he is. Only if you didn't help the man in these cases would it be wrong. Analogies are usually simplified...I should have explicitly stated that letting the man out of the cage would not be dangerous. There is a part of the universal truth you correctly identified: it is almost never wrong to ensure your own survival...sometimes it may be righteous to sacrifice yourself for some higher cause...but just trying to live is usually acceptible. BTW, what rules am I violating? I only proposed that there be no discussion of religion. First off, that was only a proposal. Secondly, that proposal was defeated. Third, even if it was a rule, Astro would be the violator. Fourth, Ducky started the arguement. (Unless you have no sense of humor and consider that "!@#$%^&* in a handbasket" joke an insult...in which case I apologize.) If you think I'm being disrespectfull, I'm not. If I didn't know better, I would think that you are being disrespectfull to me. After all, you made a lot of false statements about my beliefs too. However, in actuality neither of us is. What's going on though is that we are talking about our core beliefs, and a lot of emotion is involved. I hate religious discussions.
»Ducky Posted October 12, 2005 Report Posted October 12, 2005 Do unto others is flawed in a similar way that some religion in general is.You simply can't prove or disprove a universal right and wrong. Let's take a debate in another thread for example.Homosexual marriage. Do unto others infers that Homosexual marriage is moral.It's not uncommon for a minority without right to a specific thing to want equal oppurtunity. However, there is no universal right or wrong to it because the majority of us can't simply become homosexual overnight and put ourselves into the perspective.That's simple reality. Using Aileron as an example-- (No other opposer comes to mind)Would he want marriage 'rights' if he were homosexual. In short, it's almost safe to assume that he would say no (The arguement doesn't matter); but there is no definate way that he could ever know the true answer. Universal implies that it is present in every situation; which it isn't. That's my only current 'beef'. 12 hour workdays of late are making me too tired.
MonteZuma Posted October 13, 2005 Author Report Posted October 13, 2005 SeVeR, there IS a way people can determine what is universally right. Philosophy. Granted, the field is mostly wannabe-scientists who are high on themselves, but philosophers do come up with long logical arguements based on observations from real life.If there was a universally accepted philosophical viewpoint, then I'd agree with you. But there isn't. In nature there is no right or wrong. Right and wrong are products of the human mind. If you subscribe to certain religions, then you might believe that right and wrong are determined by God or some other supernatural source. Your cases of "instict" were actually logic, albeit some were subconcious logic....Safety in numbers is an instinct, I'll give you that...The only discrepency between the two of us is the definition of the word "instict"...I guess we should stop both arguing over semantics.People have a very strong survival instinct. I've seen experiments where babies were placed on elevated gl!@#$%^&* sheets...They freaked out. A fear of heights is a natural instinct. The fight or flight response is a natural instinct.. But I think you are right. It is semantics. I guess though maybe I shouldn't have considered you to be the same as Ducky. While you did make subjectivist statements, you also half-believe in the Survivalist Moral Theory...in which whatever causes the maximum amount of survival is right. The only flaw in this theory comes in the form of a joke: A passenger airplane was flying over the Atlantic in a storm, when a mechanical problem caused a fuel leak. He did some calculations, and found that they needed to jettison some weight if they wanted to reach a place they could land. All on board scrambled and jettisoned everything they could. However, the pilot found that there was still two much weight, and three people had to jump off to certain death. There was about a minute of silence. Then, a Frenchman stood up and walked towards the door. "Vive la France" he said, and jumped out of the plane. A short while later, an Englishman stood up, and walked towards the door. "Long live the Queen!" he said, and jumped out of the plane too. A short while after that, a Texan stood up and walked towards the door. "Remember the Alamo!" he yelled, and grabbed a Mexican an threw him out of the plane. Under survivalist morality, the Texan is as right as the Englishman and the Frenchman.Based on some of the comments you have made about deaths in Iraq, I'd say that you often subscribe to this theory as well. I don't. A conundrum that I have read goes like this: A train with 100 passengers is on a collision course with another train, also carrying 100 passengers, that is moving in the opposite direction. Both trains are traveling at top speed. If you do nothing, 200 people will be killed. You have another option though. If you switch the tracks, you can divert the runaway train into a siding where there are 20 track workers maintaining the line. If you divert the train, 120 people will die, including the track workers, but the 100 passengers on the other train will survive. In mathematical terms you will save lives. If you do divert the train, are you a murderer, because you caused the death of 20 track workers who would otherwise be alive, or are you a hero because you saved 100 train passengers? Based on your definition (maximum survival) I guess survivalist morality would tell you that the right thing to do is divert the train. I tend to disagree. I think that there is no universally right or wrong decision here. I don't think that I would divert the train. Imo, that does not make me immoral. There is a universal truth out there. If Astro happened to hit it, he's right no matter how many people disagree with him. If you disagree with him, you have to prove that its not the universal truth. You have to take a situation that is clearly wrong, but the theory claims is right.Given that nature has no right or wrong, there can be no absolute truth when it comes to morality. There can only be opinion - IMO ( ). Religion adds a new dimension to this though. There is a part of the universal truth you correctly identified: it is almost never wrong to ensure your own survival...sometimes it may be righteous to sacrifice yourself for some higher cause...but just trying to live is usually acceptible.Some people believe that it is ALWAYS acceptable to ensure your own survival, no matter what the cost to others. I hate religious discussions.Strangely enoughj, I like them. Up to a point. Fwiw, I don't think this discussion has gotten out of hand.
»Ducky Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 Fwiw? You cool internet slang user you.
MonteZuma Posted October 13, 2005 Author Report Posted October 13, 2005 Heh. Usenet taught me bad habits. Fwiw, btw, afaik and imho for example.
AstroProdigy Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 "For example, the flaw here is that if you suppose there is a masochist who likes to be stabbed. Astro's theory then says that he should run around town and stab everyone he sees." How does my theory say that?Ducky, you try to disprove my theory, yet you use a fairly abstract issue to do so. Let's look at basic morality. Would you like others to kill you? Would you like others to steal from you? Would you like others to cut off your leg? Would you like others to take your loved one away from you? Most people would say no, excluding the insane. Therefore, this is what it proves.
SeVeR Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 Any discussion of politics or religion will ALWAYS evolve into an arguement.Oh please, get of your high horse for just a second. It turned into an argument because you made hostile demeaning !@#$%^&*umptions about my personal life, that enough for you? I can see why your experience of internet discussions always ends in argument if you insult everyone you disagree with. How about i assume that you're a bible bashing southern inbred re!@#$%^&*, would you like it? I don't think so because its presumptious and it's nasty; it's also probably wrong. I'll get onto the rest of your post later. Those of you who thought my previous comments were pompous and judgemental are wrong.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). How about i didn't take the test a gajillion times and i'm not covered in piercings? You're right about one thing, i'm not a Satanist, i agree with their ideals and philosophies but not the magical/mystical part of it, you see i've actually read the Satanic Bible and know what i'm talking about.
»Ducky Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 How does my theory say that?Ducky, you try to disprove my theory, yet you use a fairly abstract issue to do so. Let's look at basic morality. Would you like others to kill you? Would you like others to steal from you? Would you like others to cut off your leg? Would you like others to take your loved one away from you? Most people would say no, excluding the insane. Therefore, this is what it proves. 1. I didn't even make that statement. Way to attack me turbo. My way of disproving you is more sound.2. A few major things here and there doesn't equal Universal.3. It has yet to prove anything except for yourself.
SeVeR Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 Under survivalist morality, the Texan is as right as the Englishman and the Frenchman.I wouldn't call jumping out of a plane the survivalist morality. The survivalist morality is waiting for some morally-mindscrewed believer to sacrifice himself for the good of the rest of the people. The Texan has it but the Texan has now taken on the implications of killing someone causing other people to fear his threat to their own survival: This could potentially result in the Texan being locked up or executed for his "crimes". So you're right it's a tricky situation but the whole idea of survival is you don't kill yourself until you are killed, nobodies life matters more than your own. There is a universal truth out there. If Astro happened to hit it, he's right no matter how many people disagree with him. If you disagree with him, you have to prove that its not the universal truth. You have to take a situation that is clearly wrong, but the theory claims is right. Exactly! So you do understand. There is a universal truth and any one of us may believe in it. However there is no way to tell what it is! What it "probably" is may be the majority opinion but it possibly isn't. Their is no clearly wrong situation, only your opinion of wrong. I don't have to prove he hasn't found the universal truth because i could put forward an equally opposite possible truth and claim that to be the universal truth. The truth cannot be both and so we are left in uncertainty. So just to be clear: There is a truth, there must be a truth, but we will never ever know what it is. That is because the concept of giving to charity doesn't apply to everybody...it only applies to those who have something to give, otherwise it really wouldn't make any sense.Giving to charity makes the giver and the receiver happy. The receiver is more likely to help the giver in return when he can or if the giver is anonymous to the receiver he is busy earning browny points with whatever higher power he believes in. People also just want to feel good about themselves, they want to believe they are perfect in their morals and perfect in themselves. Survival depends on happiness and happiness partly depends on achievements that are small steps in our quest for perfection, whatever we believe that to be. I could now talk about the psychological benefits for believers in Jesus being a man-god but that'd be deviating too much from the discussion. The code of not killing does not include self-defense or the execution of dangerous criminals, and thus doesn't interfere with survival. Now you're getting somewhere, don't you see, killing is not a universal wrong and is not a universal moral. The only reason we lock up people who kill is because they threaten our survival. -EDIT- In fact self-defense is the perfect example because it is the act of killing someone to protect your survival. This is where survival outweighs the moral saying it's wrong to murder someone. Wrong would be not doing ANYTHING. If there was some bread on a table accrossed from the man, it would not be dangerous to toss the man the bread and walk away. If you walked out of the room, and there was a group of professionals looking for a man trapped in a cage, it wouldn't be dangerous for you to tell them where he is. Only if you didn't help the man in these cases would it be wrong. Analogies are usually simplified...I should have explicitly stated that letting the man out of the cage would not be dangerous.There is no wrong in this situation but now you've stated he is not dangerous it means you could benefit from releasing him. This could aid your survival because you've made a new friend and even you agree about safety in numbers. He would owe you his life, thats a positive in my opinion. You have to weigh this up about how sure you are of his sanity because you couldn't be completely sure even with a psychiatrists analysis. There is no wrong in not letting him out, his situation has not changed, neither has yours. (Unless you have no sense of humor and consider that "!@#$%^&* in a handbasket" joke an insult...in which case I apologize.) It wasn't that, i have people telling me i'm going to !@#$%^&* all the time and it doesn't bother me. I think my last post should outline it.
Bajan Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 You scored as agnosticism. You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe. agnosticism 75% Islam 63% Satanism 63% atheism 50% Paganism 50% Judaism 50% Buddhism 42% Hinduism 29% Christianity 25%
AstroProdigy Posted October 13, 2005 Report Posted October 13, 2005 You're like me, Bajan . By the way, is that a pic of you?
MonteZuma Posted October 13, 2005 Author Report Posted October 13, 2005 Astro is making a move on Bajan. If that was a pic of Bajan, then I think it would be important for me to stress that Bajan's scores are more like mine than Astro's. I think Bajan and I could be soul mates. Also, I am more sexay than Astro. ;p If that is not a pic of Bajan, then.....Meh.
AstroProdigy Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 No! My second biggest one is Islam like hers. Yours isn't! Besides, you look like a 40 year old man that goes from white to black to white again .
Dr.Worthless Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 The Universal Truth can be found in my pants, thats all you need to know. Lets start a new !@#$%^&*ing thread so I can get angry and logically smack people around again. The last major thread turned into "OMG WORTHLESS IS SO MEAN BOOOHOOO he cussed me but I can call people Hitler and Fascist without any proof boooohoooo (goes back to making factless acusations)"
SeVeR Posted October 14, 2005 Report Posted October 14, 2005 Ahah! but... how big are your pants and how small is the truth?
Recommended Posts