morosophos

On account of the great controversy surrounding all issues pertaining to religion, on account of vast digression of subject, on account of the same explanations (repeated many times over) not satiating the demand of the original question, and on account of the designated Christian fanatic having spoken, there must be a different approach to the issue. Religion and science are fundementally disparate. Not in the sense that religious doctrine and scientific law cannot be compatible (for they can be, if you let them), but in the realm of subject. The two disciplines have differing opinions on what is true. As for science, empirical data and proven rational fact are true. Religion pursues an ethereal truth; what can feasibly explain the purpose and meaning of the universe is true. Science is an explicit discipline, its nature is very evidential. That is to say, science justifies its truth with evidence, and that evidence is easily seen and understood by the senses. By compiling vast catalogues of evidence, science begins to construct theories on the relation between all the evidence, which then becomes theory, and theory into law. At that time, theories and models can explain what is true, giving birth to even more theories and laws. Science, at its heart, expands upon what is perceived directly by the senses. Therefore, science cannot ever deny nor confirm the existence of God, unless there is perceiveable evidence. Any proof for or against God is not scientific, but philosophical. By contrast, religion is philosophy?or more specifically?metaphysics. Philosophy does not gather empirical evidence to be strung together into models, theories, and laws. Philosophy rather constructs worldviews, whose origins are not evidential nor even need to be perceiveable. These worldviews are the foundations for other things that one often finds in religion as well: morality, a liturgy, and a sense of purpose. No one sees science giving moral instruction, for that is not the place of science, just as no one sees the Dalai Lama processing proudly from his hut with the AIDS vaccine. Theology and metaphysics govern the highly-flexible laws of religion, which seeks unpretentiously to discover the meaning of life. If one were to suppose completely hypothetically (as one must, since there is at least one here who would disagree that there ever was in fact such a time) that there was a time that the universe existed with life therein yet without human presence, then there would still be perceivable evidence that science would have otherwise used in its workings. Tangible objects exist with or without someone there to see it. However, this is not the case with theology and metaphysics. Because philosophy is not tangible, but the brainchild of humanity, philosophy exists only insofar as there are people. But if there is no person alive to contemplate theology and metaphysics, then there exists neither theology nor metaphysics. God for monotheists is the summation of theology; He is the metaphysics. Conceptually then, God appears at the beginning of human contemplation, and likewise He will perish upon the boundary of human perception. To be fair, if one is going to theologize, one must theologize within the same theology. In the case of determining God's source, one must work within the rules and limits of monotheism. Monotheism holds that God is the culmination of metaphysics, that spirituality is necessarily relationality with God. God Himself then effectively becomes metaphysics in its essence. Recall that metaphysics is only the object of contemplation, and the problem is uncovered: how can one contemplate that which is, by the postulates of monotheism, outside cogitation? At that point one begins to look for the origin of not only his own, but all humanity's psyche. This of course cannot be found, since one can only think what there is available to be thought upon, that whose existence coincides with that of the tool (the psyche) that comes to analyze it, and no more. If anyone denies the origin of God altogether, then that one is not working within the monotheistic boundaries, which prohibit a definite answer, though the very purpose of monotheism is to affirmatively propose a single deity. Denying God is accepting another philosophy, such as mine, which holds the universe itself as infinite rather than a deity. Concrete responses to the question of God's origin can only be reached through extra-monotheistic philosophies.

The origins of God are a curious concern. If one concludes that God has no beginning nor end and at the same time that God still exists, there is an easy method to show that God would be superfluous in the creation of the world. God has no progenitor; God has existed through all time, principally because God transcends time. The question of God's birth is irrelevant, then, since God was "begotten" rather than "born." There is no reason to believe that the universe could not have been "begotten" from itself without God. Francis S. Collins brings up in his book, The Language of God (overall a very silly book for its intention, but there is some rationality to some of its points yet), the insult to reason that is stuffing every gap in modern knowledge with divine intervention. Dr. Collins calls this perspective on God as one who conveniently fills-in all the unknowns in science a "God of the gaps" perspective. Gaps include "missing links" in evolution (a major topic in his book), which he maintains is a very feasible, factual method of explaining the change of species over time. A God of the gaps perspective would apply God to anything that could not be explained rationally at that time. For another example, if one were confounded as to the migratory patterns of birds in trying to explain how the flocks reliably fly to the same places each year, that one may explain it with divine intervention: "God whispers the directions in the ears of the birds." Creation is itself a "God of the gaps" situation. Anyone who believes in some degree of science perceives that at one time, all the universe may have existed in a tight ball of matter and energy. For the scientific believers, they may at this point posit that God created this volatile ball just so, so that a young cosmos might result a billion years later. The creation of the mass prior to "the Big Bang" is to-date unexplained by modern science, and perhaps its source may never be discovered. However, putting God at the foot of creation is still "God of the gaps." This could be another case where "I don't know" turns into "act of God." After all, is it more reasonable to believe that human ignorance keeps the origins of the universe off-limits, or that an invisible, transcendent, and supernatural being magically created everything from nothing? Occam's razor has faith-shattering implications.

The Functions of Suicide If suicide possessed a 100% success rate with the full intention of ending the self, it would be a far simpler issue. However, there are many other factors that contribute to suicidal thoughts: suicide is a more sophisticated issue than just killing oneself. Although it is easy to imagine that the suicidal mind is far from reasonable, such a mind is many long strides from deciding that its own destruction for destruction's sake is favorable. Very few people commit suicide in order to experience death (with exceptions permitted for radical cults), but rather death is a medium to end the suffering in life. The situation is such that life in unbearable, not such that death is favorable. Suicide is not so much destructive as fugitive. When life seems to be unsustainable, death becomes a viable alternative to the endurer. Suicide has even uses outside of ending suffering. Many who attempt suicide observe that others who had the same endeavor received attention, having been grieved over by their families and having received elaborate burials. Such ceremonies contort suicide into an honorable exit, making suicide attempt appear even more appealing. Some people enter into suicide attempts not to kill themselves, but to feign the will to end themselves; they are not mentally ill so much as desparate for attention. Legal Implications The nature of law and punishment is corrective; the judicial system strives to mould the perpetrator into a just creature who abides by the law. Although arguably many sentences feed the purpose of revenge (such as in murder cases, or any other situation where there is a severe offence), rulings by a court are ideally related to the motive of the perpetrator. Having analyzed the motives, one can see that there is not any one punishment justifiable in all suicide cases. Obviously if the offender completed the suicide, there is not much punishment he can sustain. If the offender attempts suicide because life is unbearable, this is mental illness. Not often does it occur that affairs are truly so grim that death is a better alternative to life, yet one suffering through those things may think otherwise. As far as the sufferer is concerned, he or she is making the logical choice and probably one that is beneficial to the most people (If I were not born, the world would be a better place, etc.). As other mentally ill persons, he or she should see psychiatric specialists and counseling?not be met with prison, fines, or deprivation of privileges on account of the law. If the offender attempts suicide for the sake of getting attention, the offender is not mentally ill, only desparate. Desparate people who end their lives because they are unbearable are not the same kind of desparate: they possess mental complexes that inhibit them from seeing the good in their lives; the source of the problem is from within the mind. Contrarily, those who attempt suicide have reasoned that the attempt will gain attention, and they never complete suicide, nor attempt it in private. Because there is no mental illness, their crimes (crimes that are the only real crimes in suicide) must be differently handled.

The word illogical lends itself to mean "contradicted by logic," even though the contruction of the word itself simply implies "not logical." Obviously you take the latter meaning of the world to mean the same thing as my exo-logical, meaning "outside logic," or dealing with justification through means irrelevant to logic. I only avoid illogical so as not to miscontrue my meaning as the former definition. Such confusion is only a matter of semantics. As for a static logical "true/false" state, this can be easily broken. Even if a statement cannot be evaluated as either true or false, there does not need to be a special system of "quasi-logic" to understand it, since logic can also be "fuzzy logic," having many different values between true and false. Fuzzy logic differentiates between different levels of truthfulness, rather than simply having to deal in absolutes. For instance, if one had to make a decision as to if a bacterium or a ball-bearing bullet were "large," it would be truer to describe the bullet as large, although neither one would normally be considered large by themselves. This is because size is relative, and logic adapts itself for the purpose. Fuzzy logic is important to comprehend, because it allows for very refined handling of justification. One statement can be truer than the other, although neither of them are the truth. However, fuzzy logic is superfluous to the search for alternate justification, an exo-logical (or for you, illogical) source.

This is an oversimplification of the issue at hand, for two reasons: (1) not only does altruism not exist in its own right, but also wickedness is not part of reality; and (2) morality is not so much a "way" or tool so much as it is a complex. That humanity is neither good nor evil by nature does not state implicitly or explicitly that humanity does not benefit itself by being generous. Altruism, although impossible to attain in purest form, is still not the most ignoble amongst impossible goals. Even pseudo-charity works for the advantage of everyone; feeding starving children in Africa preserves the human species; the processors, marketers, farmers, harvesters, machiney used thereby, and all other parties who had a hand in the product of that food benefit; the giver obviously satiates some psychological want. To say that morality "is a way by which our ... selfish natures are disguised" means that morality has the purpose of obfuscating the human motive. If morality evolved for any reason in particular, it is that morality encourages humans to act in a more philanthropic self-interest than they would without morality. Moral human beings have distinct advantages over the immoral. For instance, if there were a secluded group of early h o m o sapiens that lived in a harsh environment, with sharp blustery winters and frequented by violent hail storms, its foremost need would be shelter. They may live in a wooded area, but the trees that grow are very firm, to such an extent that it takes several strong men to pull one down, and even more to split it into the planks to build proper shelter between the intermittent summer storms or the hasty arrival of winter. If the members within the group have a helpful instinct, then shelter they will have, else out of their own self-righteousness they will perish, not living to bear children to carry on their genes. In this way, humanity's deep capacity (though not deep possession of, since this has many other variables) for morality is possibly genetic.

You have mechanical sensory perception confused with artificial intelligence. A camera, microphone, and an i-pod bound together haphazardly with duct-tape do not qualify as a machine that can see, hear, and feel with an understanding of meaning.AI far more sophisticated than many perceive. Although in recent years video games have exhibited limited forms of artificial intelligence, where the computer has been given the role as antagonist, making its own decisions based on limited data and stimuli from the human player, the multidimensional cognitive awareness that looms threatening over human existence is currently looming somewhere far remote. "Smart bots" do not exist, and they may not exist for another couple decades, if not much, much longer.

A contrario, it is perfectly acceptable to qualify one statement with one system of logic that eludes another system. The entire purpose of a system of justification is, after all, to point to a truth that should be reachable by either means. Clearly one cannot justify logic with logical arguments; such is like justifying the Bible by giving quotes from scripture. The argument is circular and the philosopher accomplishes nothing with his arguments, since nothing significant can amount from the proofs. The way to justify logic, then, would be to approach it by another exo-logical system, though not necessarily an illogical system. All methods of reasoning, logical or otherwise, have a foundation to which the thinker applies his observations, which are kneaded and reshaped by the tenets of the method, until at the other end are reassembled the results. For logic, this foundation is postulates and dogmatic rules. For emotional appeal, it is emotional response. In order to justify logic, there can be no solid rules for thought, since this resembles too closely to logic anyhow. Rather, there must be an alternative course onto the truth of the matter. When I speak of "justifying justification," I surely mean justifying the propositions that logic itself would posit. My previous example merely serves to exemplify the problem of a logical analysis of logic. If logic cannot justify itself, then what excuse is there for logic to have a place on the human cerebral shelf? Moreover such an excuse cannot have the sound guidelines that logical system had assured reason previously, for these do not lay an exo-logical basis for reason. Thinking outside logic requires one to abscond from the realms of nearly three thousand years' western philosophy.

The problem with justifying logic itself is that logic is a system of justification, thus one would be justifying justification. If justification must me justified, then there must be (1)no evident contradictions to a justification and (2)supporting evidence for justification. The latter continues indefinitely: logic is validated by one statement, which in turn must be proven valid by another, that statement by another, and so on. Therefore, there must be an infinite number of justifications in order to justify reason. However, one can argue that there is a limit to which something can be justified, that there is a point where evidence is so implicit that there is no need for justification. Take, for instance, oneself. The idea of self is implicit enough that it hardly needs justification, no matter how many meditations on however many philosophies DeCartes thinks is necessary. If I do not exist, then there is no point in my pondering it, much less anything else. Therefore, something as basic as self does not need didactic justification. [more later]

What separates humanity from other animals on the planet is the ability to think. Thinking itself has many uses, including persuasion, problem-solving, and the satisfaction of curiosity. Thought expands heady subjects and concerns grave objects, and so thought is itself of great significance, and so thought cannot be treated lightly. It is implicit that thought needs guildlines in order to be productive, or else cognition would be chaos with no end; thought needs a basis of some sort: it needs justification. Even before the days of Plato, western civilization has placed great weight upon logic. Logic became a tool by which to evaluate the truth, and truth in turn became the adornment of what should be followed and believed. Illogical statements cannot be believed because they are not validated by rational means, and therefore they are not perceived to hold truth. What if, however, I were to contest that one should follow not what is logical, but what appeals the most emotionally? Even emotions need not usurp the place of logic, but instead you may as the reader insert anything into the place of emotion: whim, hallucinations, anything illogical. After all, Plato gave three tools to persuasion: logos (logic), pathos (emotional appeal), and ethos (validity of rhetoric). The reason the west is preoccupied with logic is because of the powerful impact of Aristotle, who is the namesake of Aritotelian logic. Even while Aristotle was inculcating logic in the mind of the western world, many of his contemporaries were vehemently rebuking the system of thought, writing paradox after paradox to elucidate the faults inherent in Aristotle's system. Some of the more famous ones are Zeno's paradox of the arrow (in which Zeno seems to prove that motion is impossible) and the infamous liar paradox (modified version of Epimenides's original paradox: THIS SENTENCE IS FALSE.) Therefore, on what basis, if not logic, may thought be justified?

As far as I know, the so-called Christmas tree originated from the barbarians who lived in what is now Germany. The barbarians, as they were colonized by the Romans, were exposed to the mainstream culture, and more importantly vice versa. The tree itself may have come from the closeness to nature of that area's religion, or perhaps it was a phallic symbol. Either way, the Romans adopted it into the custom of Saturnalia, along with holly and garlands.Christianity, as it was rising out of obscurity with approval of Constantine, sought a way to gain the favor of an entire empire. Taking away all the merry "pagan" customs of the people while establishing institutions that, as far as the people were concerned, were the products of a religious cult would have been quite unpopular. Therefore, Christianity superimposed its own customs on top of the pre-existing pagan ones, so the festivities already set in motion might continue without conflict. Such is the case of Christmas. The birth of Christ is estimated to be in the spring, yet the date of Jesus's birth is placed on December 25 because of the uncanny proximity to Saturnalia, the feast honoring Saturn.Being that Christmas was dropped on top of Saturnalia, the customs of Saturnalia even continued through Christmas. Holly, Christmas trees, merrymaking, and even naked caroling in England until Oliver Cromwell, were part of Christmas festivities.

The beginnings of truth start in curiosity. Curiosity is the driving force by which humanity explores the nature of the world, looking for answers regardless of foundation. For instance, religion has no logical basis, yet it still lives on in the world, whereas gravity has logical basis in Newtonian physics. Despite their differences in basis, they are both the children of curiosity, and they are both accepted widely by their audiences. When mass propaganda (e.g. "The sun orbits the earth") is pervasive, it is also widely accepted as the truth. Perception is in all cases the standard of evaluation; philosophers scritinize superstition and scientific fact alike based wholly on human experience. From human perspective, therefore, there can only necessarily be the truth that is perception.If one steps outside the human psyche, however, there seem to be two distinct truths. There is the truth that everyone widely and readily (common truth), and there is the objective truth that never ceases to be true, whether it is discovered or undone by fallacious beliefs of humans. The latter, however, is irrelevant because truth as understood by man can never extend beyond his observation, and even if he should claim to unite his own observation and what he supposes is objective truth by proofs, he must assume that his proofs have objectively true premises, and the premises have true postulates in turn. The only truth than can possibly concern anyone is the truth related to perception.One might also consider that there are two kinds of conceptual truth. What if, for instance, there is a widespread intentional lie that pervades a community? One truth is held by those who spread the lie, and those at the butt of the lie percieve a different reality. Truth is true, as is obvious, but it is also necessarily the highest grade of truthfulness possible. Because it is at the same time possible for humanity to grasp a higher kind of truth than that of the lie, the truth covered by the pretense is reality, while the lie itself is a lie. However, those who take in the lie will still believe it to be the truth. The truth is then subjective to the unfortunate receivers; Vladimir Lenin stated once: "A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth." However, reality always remains that which is hidden by the lie. Ironically, the perjurers may not possess the objective truth, being ultimately false themselves.

Pardon me while I fail to understand how the capitalist wealth gap justifies war. Your argument that "war makes sense" is founded on the idea that war generates economic flow from the taxpayer to the arms dealer, which is a wonderful deal if one is an arms dealer. However, census reveals that very few members of our population are actually arms dealers, even taking into account however many of them deal under-the-table, concealing their true occupations from the eyes of Uncle Sam. Unless one sells weapons, war as an economic catalyst is a bad thing. Some would argue, however, that war generates revenue on other levels of society than just the weapon-producing sector. This takes into account not only the industries of weapons themselves, but also the materials from which the bombs and missiles were crafted, the work required to generate enough power to maintain the facilities, even the increased needs for items like produce to satiate the appetites of ardent workers. There is a trail to the frenzy, a money trail, by tracing which reveals the nature of this economic spike. First there are the weapons: bombs, missiles, ships, planes, etc., all of which are costly and labor-intensive in their assembly. As you have stated, the state foots the bill, throwing vast amounts of money into warfare (according to ?Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007,? the United States government plots to spend $439.9 billion on the military budget, though the United States has recently been separating its budget into a defense budget and a military at-large budget, in order to appeal for even more funding). The money the government spends comes from its citizens, who support the system with their taxes. Therefore, any spike in the economy occuring after the first point in the trail is at the cost of the citizen. The materials and energy required for making the armaments is payed ultimately by the citizen; the fuel necessary to run the machines rapes the wallets of the masses; the housekeepers to watch the homestead while the tenants fight the war suck their salaries from the people. And though meanwhile the nation seems to fund itself, with each citizen participating in the economy: contributing to the war (loss), balanced with salary and benefits (gain), the cash-flow is effectively from one another's pockets. This is especially detrimental when?as you mentioned?the worth of a bomb cannot be recycled when they explode. The government tries to mask loss with loans, which are repayed at great expense for years and years post bellum. Hence, there is a net economic loss to war. Even if there were an economic gain to war, this does not justify brutal slaughter, since one must consider the price of life v. the dollar: I hear the exchange rate is not favorable yet. Most people are part of the middle-class, which pays dearly for everything the government claims to do on its behalf, and countless books and documentaries have been published regarding the state's abuse of the poor in wartime. Most people agree that justice is the greatest good for the greatest number, in which case war, which benefits a very small number of people, is not just.

In order for true service to have a vital impact upon the world, it has to be continual and selfless. Continuity is essential because benefaction is a process rather than one solitary deed; social justice, for instance, while possibly including the drop of change into a panhandler's mug, is not limited to it. The person who drives the service must therefore be committed to what is to be done, or else there is no cause preventing him from dropping service. This also suggests that selflessness is necessary for service. Service can include either direct labor or management, but both require work, usually without return. That is, service is often a job without payment, other than any ethereal or spiritual growth that may naturally come with such service. It would be foolish for a person to commit to community service expecting yield for himself; after all, community service concerns aiding the community, rather than oneself, at least directly. In order for there to be either of the two requirements to have real service (continuity and selflessness), there must be a compelling force exhorting the performer of service. A sole driving force originating from the world outside is the influence for service; the force may take any form: emotional, mental, or societal. For instance, compassion (an emotional force and response to suffering) is often an excuse for service. People are moved by the pathos of poverty, or else some other injustice. Perhaps someone like Mother Theresa may be classified in this way, who cared for the impoverished in India without regard for herself. Contrarily, we may also take as an example school service. Schools that put service requirements are imposing societal forces upon the students so that they may do service. The students are obligated to the service hours in order to graduate or win scholarships. Already, the school is dangling a carrot before the students, a reward for service, or if not a reward, a threat lest they neglect their service. Rewards soil the concept of service, and by doing such the school does not require their students to do service at all. What the school is demanding of the students is slave labor, since the majority of the students are not going to be doing it on account of kindness. The implications of this is that the students' service is neither continual nor selfless. As soon as their service projects end, many of them will quit their service locations and cease the activities having been required. The student has gotten hold of the carrot (the scholarship or diploma) and no longer has a reason to continue running. Teasing students into service with graduation and scholarships in no way encourages selflessness in service; the students have a goal other than service itself. Reflections will not solve this problem, either. I know of one school in particular that requires service and reflections afterward. Most of the students have gained nothing from their "service," and hastily fill out the forms with exactly what the teachers want to hear. Reflection essays are effectively another obstacle in the way of a diploma or scholarship: nothing more. There is nothing that can be done after the service project to make these students comprehend not only that service is needed, but that they are directly responsible throughout their lives for meeting service. Selflessness and continuity are usually instilled from early childhood by the parents, and their growth is also greatly hindered or augmented by the children's living situations. If parents who are apathetic to service have children and do not expose them to the idea, then it is unlikely that service will come naturally to the children. Likewise, if the children are born into a poor family, service is also unlikely, since their background is filled with feelings of hopelessness, or perhaps they think that poverty is the social norm, or that their emotions are tied with contempt for the more affluent. Therefore, the most effective way to inculcate the need for service in a child is in early age, combatting the negative forces or supplementing the positive. The knowledge they must gain is the reason for service and their connection to it. If one does not understand the nature of service, how can one put it to action? And if one does not feel the need for service, what reason does one have to do it?

I am flattered that you have taken the time to attempt an analysis of my argument; however, you have distorted with semantics my premises, hence there is an apparent error in logic. Most of this comes from your idea that I have said "Since humans possess the ability to do wrong, therefore to say that they are good is incorrect." Instead, I look at the ideology "Sin is the human tendency to do wrong; humans have such a tendency," where humans cannot be essentially good since this premise clearly states that makind is wont to do evil. I myself am not of this opinion, since makind is inclined to neither good nor evil in themselves. In your logical statements relating to x, a, and b, a and b are not adequate terms to describe x. If we were to assign a to a static positive number, representing absolute good, and b to a static negative number, representing absolute evil (they can be assigned to constants since both good and evil in my statements are absolutes), what happens when x is equal to a number between them? Then neither of the terms can describe x; we can only say that one term is "closer" to x than the other. This situation of "closeness" is relatable to motive, where intrinsically an act can be described as either good or evil but the intentions may be the opposite. Therefore, to get the most accurate evaluation of a deed, the intentions have to be considered. Humans are animals, beasts, parts of nature; from a struggling chaos where only the strong survive has mankind arisen---if such a word must be used. For mankind's own benefit, it has been equipped with survival instinct which is inherent and inseperable from human psyche, whereas the survival instinct is concerned with survival of the self. Bringing back the idea that acts must be judged upon intention, we see that all acts are essentially the same in that respect, since all deeds are performed ultimately for oneself. You ask on what basis goodness is evaluated, but you must see that goodness can be evaluated no more than a child's belief in the boogeyman. The best one can do is evaluate deeds based on effect and implications. For example, burglary is inconvenient, because the resources of the victim have been taken away, and the victim is at a loss. The deed has been judged according to the plight of the victim. In an attempt to evaluate it according to the burglar, all we can say is "He plundered the house for his own benefit," which is really no different than saying "I donated money to UNICEF, releiving my guilt of personal global responsibility for my own benefit." The only difference between these two events is that the former is inconvenient, but the latter is philanthropic; neither are good or evil.

The fact that selfishness pervades the subconscious makes it inseparable from behavior; in order to control behavior, one has to make conscious effort for change, and obviously no one can affect their unconscious selves consciously. Selfishness is an integral part of human nature and cannot be removed thence, since it is instinct. When selfishness as you say, affects other people in a negative way, self-interest has become unbridled from the depths of the mind and runs rampant in the conscious decision-making processes. However, society implants systems of mediation into the mind, e.g. morals, in such a way that complete egoism is rarely seen on the outside. In addition, egoism simply pertains to self-satisfaction, which is exclusively betterment of the self rather than the maltreatment of everyone else. When self-interest intersects with common good, then everyone benefits, so selfishness can affect others both positively and negatively, according to whatever consequences result from the mind's choosing for its own advantage.

I interpret alexvii's question as whether what brings pleasure is necessarily connected with good, as perhaps is generally perceived by common ethics. The answer to this is obviously no, since in any large group of people there is inevitably one person who gets pleasure from something not good. Rape is an example, where one person feels pleasure at another person's expense; furthermore, this act is unethical. I do not mean to connect ethical decision making with religion (I am an atheist), but I do mean to connect responsibility with ethics. For a theologian to teach that rape is a bad thing is superfluous, since it is evident from the beginning that it is an unethical and antisocial deed. When an action brings pleasure, it can bring a sense of well-being to a single person. However, the ideal goal of humanity is pleasure throughout the world, not just one individual. In order to satiate this gigantic need, each person has to be responsible in making decisions, so that the decision may bring about the common good. After all, the meaning of life is happiness and fulfillment, and the greatest manifestation of this is globally; therefore the care of every person is directly related with our natural existence. The groundwork of any religion to be taken seriously is founded in the general idea that happiness is good, but good only insofar that the common good is achieved. The variations among the religions is attributed to their different views on exactly what constitutes good and happiness. The things you mention, alexvii,---premarital sex, maturbation, judging others, perfidy---are what is called antisocial behaviours. The term itself does not classify these acts as either good or evil, only that they are contrary to the accepted social norms of the present society. If we examine the same acts under a different culture, we can see them quite differently. From an Ancient Greek perspective, where marriage meant very little in respect to sexual loyalty, premarital sex is not antisocial at all. If the fact that gender meant nothing to the Greeks when determining sexual partners (who may be someone entirely different then their spouse) does not illustrate this, then certainly orgies do. There is also no Greek law concerning or writings condemning masturbation (that I am aware of). Judging others was common practise in any ancient society; social classes were maintained in this way. The gods punished with poverty those who were evil, and the gods rewarded those who were righteous with power and wealth. What brings pleasure is not necessarily good, especially considering that good is a function of society and is hardly ever static. Nevertheless, the common good should always be taken into account even in every day life, regardless of moral views.

Happiness, from a physiological perspective, is really but a few neurotransmitters crossing a synaptic cleft. If we say that true happiness is a never-ending, ultimate sense of euphoria, then it would seem that true happiness is very unlikely to come to any one of us. After all, hardships are inevitable. No matter how thick one's optimism may be, these unfortunate events are going to have a saddening effect on morale. Theoretically, the best one could do would be to view unfortunate circumstances neutrally and enjoy good times. Another thing to consider, however, is that if happiness were never-ending, then there would never be opportunity to enjoy happiness. That is to say, happiness is relative only to more unfortunate circumstances, without which there really cannot be happiness. The human psyche evaluates "good" and "bad" based on a learned norm, and if a person were in constant euphoria, euphoria becomes the norm against which events are evaluated. Therefore, since nothing can surpass his sense of ultimate happiness, he has no happiness whatsoever. In fact, if something truly bad were to happen to such a person, or even something not enrapturing, he would feel the effects infinitely times more. The ultimate happiness is the ultimate gloominess.

Morality is a superficial device uesd in attempts to regulate the actions of subscribers. Humanity is essentially selfish from the moment of conception, which percludes the notions of good and evil as absolutes. Good and evil are terms trying to describe the outcomes of human action, which is essentially neither good nor evil. It is the assumption of many that humans are not born essentially good, as the many brands of religion would have one believe. Some ideologies propose the idea of a human tendency to "sin," which is the unfortunate and unnatural result of an event exclusive of humanity as it is supposed to be. Original sin in many kinds of Christianity proposes such. Isn?t that idea paradoxical, that mankind is good yet possesses the tendency to do evil? The solution to this dilemma lies within good and evil themselves: good and evil do not exist, at least not in the forms by which they infest even modern thinking. Humans are inherently selfish, which can be seen readily in infancy. Toddlers and little children grab at things out of curiosity, learning about the world in general and their own responses to the world. As a child finally recognises its own existence, it can begin to associate various attributes to itself, namely dominion. The children get extremely territorial, but parents don?t worry about their children because they know they?ll grow out of it.?Wrong. People don?t grow out of, they grow on top of. Selfishness gets masked and obscured by other things such as superficial morals, which nine times out of ten a given person may follow, but at other times, the basic instinct for self-service takes over, creating ?sin.? The hidden selfishness is like the trunk of a tree. When the tree just sprouts, you can see the stem very easily because there?s nothing blocking your view. Allowing thirty or so years to elapse, the tree has fully grown and has shot-off branches and leaves, perhaps so many that the trunk is completely covered from sight by the leaves. Just because one can?t see the trunk any longer doesn?t mean the trunk is gone, that would be silly. The trunk is still there, just obscured, like the human selfishness.Humans being self-serving, however, does not exclude the possibility of cooperation among themselves. This sort of cooperation is percieved as charity, which pertains to goodwill for another. Goodwill, however, is not able to stand on its own, since the human psyche never fully wills good insofar as it never fully wills evil. Rather, charity is the result of outside circumstances, the numbers of which are multitudinous. The most common form of charity is, in fact, enlightened self-interest, which is the realisation that by giving assistance to others, the one benefits oneself. This realisation does not even need to be conscious; it occupies mostly the subconscious. Enlightened self-interest in turn can be divided into many different reasons and causes. For example, the concern of self-image can be of great importance when making a decision: by making the so-called correct choice, society takes a more positive view of the individual, bolstering the self-image and thereby chances of being treated to one's greater convenience and whim. Conformity to society is often overlooked as a form of self-interest; cooperation benefits the masses, including the self. The laws set forth in many states are set so that order can be kept and the people ruled can enjoy a better quality of life. If the people were to impose regular infractions on the rules, order would be lost and the quality of life would plummet. In this case, the choice for the common good is also the selfish choice.

Atheism is not a religion in the strict sense, but it is a system of beliefs just as much as monotheism, polytheism, and deism are systems of belief. Each of these systems does not lay down strict religious doctrine or dogma, but they do create a basis of belief. For instance, monotheism---as the word would suggest---means "one god." This word by itself does not carry any specific implications with it, outside of the existence of only one god. However, the effects of the notion of monotheism can be seen in the derived religions themselves like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism: the first Commandment demands no idolatry and the worship of one god ("God"). Therefore, it can be seen that some specific characteristics of a given religion can be traced from its base ideology. In some cases, the broader ideology has a graver effect on beliefs itself. A good example of this is pantheism on Hinduism. The idea of Brahman as the ultimate immanent, transcendent, obiquitous entity literally makes Brahman the "all god," the pan-theos. Atheism follows similarly, whereas atheism means "no god." Atheism is the affirmative belief that the situation is such whereas not any god exists, not to be confused with the belief that the situation is not such whereas any god exists. The former is atheism, but the latter is more unclear. For instance, if one believes in spirits, the latter still fits the description. Atheism is the belief that no gods exist at all. Since atheism is confirmed a belief, then, is it a religion? A religion typically includes several aspects: a base theology, a specific theology, and then derived credos and doctrines. The individual components are far more fuzzy in far-eastern philosophy than western philosophy; separating Taoism into these components is a life's work, but something such as Christianity (I only continue to use this as an example because it can be related-to widely) is easily dissected. The idea of no worship of other gods but the one God is perfectly logical, provided the premise of there existing but one god. Therefore, with no god, what affairs follow? The idea that there is no god does not necessarily dictate that there is no morality, just that the morality must be derived from elsewhere than the Divine. The quickest resolution to the question is that human nature provides the answer to morality, or perhaps natural law. If something as universal as human nature or natural law governs the specifics of atheism, than atheism truly is both a base ideology and a religion.

I saw the movie a couple months ago. It was very interesting, obviously a movie with very anti-drug messages. A Scanner Darkly cannot be overlooked for anyone who likes the style of underground cinematography. The plot line is rather abstruse, but it is presumeably part of the feel the director is trying to convey; it is hard to follow at times, especially when the characters in the movie are using Substance-D (a ficticious narcotic drug), which conveys the muddling effect on judgment that such drugs have. Keanu Reeves was probably not the best choice of actors to have in the movie, though, because he inevitably portrays the same character despite any effort, or lack thereof, to make his characters more dynamic. In A Scanner Darkly, Substance-D is supposed to have split his personality, but it is very difficult to discern which of his two personalities was prevalent in a given moment. The most pleasing part of the movie was the animation, which followed the same style as other movies like A Requiem for a Dream. The film itself has been animated-over, so it has the effect of both being animated and true-life acting. You must see A Scanner Darkly, but I would wait until situations are friendlier rather than pour so much blood and sweat over getting a seat.

Whether religious or not, any reasonable person decently fluent in history knows that the fall of the Roman Empire was a loss to the enlightened world. The Romans held the most power in the world in their time. Their philosophers and scientists made many advancements, which respectively formed the basis of modern thought and scientific progress. More importantly, however, is the fact that Rome held the western world together. The ancient world was filled with various ethnic groups, which were used to governing themselves until they were annexed by the Romans, who though they allowed these groups to continue their customs, pressed their Roman rule onto them. The world grew dependent upon the Roman order, also known as the pax Romana, or Roman peace. So what happens when the greatest and most powerful entity on earth is pushed over by barbarians? The world goes mad, with warfare raging across the countryside. There is no more order. The stability that used to foster progress is dead and is replaced by cavemen clad in loincloths throwing dung at each other. People yearned again for peace, and only one institution has the weight necessary to restore order, the organisation that was already established to a length during the Empire: the Catholic Church. Aided by the Byzantines from the East, the Church seized control. The Pope, however, was not a caesar. The Church failed to give the conditions necessary for the same sort of enlightened golden age that reigned during the Romans. Instead, the western world was forced to endure a thousand years of Dark Ages. Knowledge was witchcraft, and God forbid knowledge should survive without the Church's guidence!?Though a sliver of discovery was usurped by the Church, much knowledge faced the same fate as the library at Alexandria. One keen example of this is Archimedes' original discovery (as opposed to that of Newton) of calculus, which was carefully documented on several pages only to be haphazardly erased and be obscured by prayers scrawled on the same pages. I can objectively state that the "Roman" Catholic Church was not a fare trade-off for SPQR.

Affecting the minds of young ones? I hardly think that the gay and bisexual population is going to become so large as to outnumber the amount of straight people, so influence would be pretty balanced, if anything. However, I highly doubt that the gay community would have any major effect on young minds at all. Sexual orientation is a matter of attraction: gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, and asexual are all legitimate lifestyles, but children as young as eleven years old are extremely unlikely in either gender to feel drawn towards either gender. Children will not feel attracted to anyone until they encounter puberty, at which time they can begin to discern their own orientations. Therefore, a seven-year-old thinking she is a lesbian is ridiculous. Second, what terrible detrimental effect would there be if that seven-year-old thinks she is a lesbian? The situation being highly unlikely as it is in theory besides, it is entirely unimagineable for a girl of that age to be leading a queer philandering sex life. In short, the augmentation to the communities with alternative lifestyles will have little to no effect on the youth whatsoever. As to the original topic: My school is a very formal, very conservative Catholic boys school as well. The rainbow crew is rightly very timid of displaying their colours for fear of being lynched, in a matter of speaking. However, the most conservative boys are developing in a world that is gradually drifting towards liberalism, at least in the westernmost parts of the globe. Whereas the most conservative amongst us could theoretically secede from society and go live off in a gated Christian community somewhere, it is simply not practical. What is more practical, on the other hand, is to learn acceptance and humility. The different lifestyles aid in that essential learning, however sparse those alternative lifestyles may be. This enlightenment is even congruous with the Catholic viewpoint, the base of which is on the liberal side of Christianity, though by no means the most open-minded. Catholicism holds an acceptance for different persuasions, so long as those persuasions do not dominate human sexual nature. To put it more bluntly, gay is OK so long as the pants stay on. I wish there were even ore diversity in the school. Diversity also brings about a certain sense of understanding. For example, a white man who has lived a sheltered life is going to be rather upset when he is confronted by an ethnic man pleading for food. That is a fact of life. The sheltered man may still respond positively or negatively, but the step outside of his comfort zone he must make greatly disturbs him, and he feels intimidated. The situation is not the sheltered man's fault, either, for the situation could have been such that he had simply never been exposed to the proper elements to handle his encounter with more composure. The more diversity and the more cultures to which we are exposed, the more empathetic, accepting, and enlightened we can become.

It is the nature of any species to seek propogation of its own kind. The fittest of a species live on through difficult times to produce stronger offspring, more adapted to their environment. Humankind is no different in respect to being the outcome of offspring intent on survival. However, because humans have come to be more advanced mentally than physically, they have acquired the power rather than to adapt to their own environment, to adapt their own environment to them.This fact alone does not make them parasites, however. A parasite is a creature that feeds off a host, causing damage continually as it thrives. The relationship is entirely one-sided: the parasite takes complete advantage of the host, for it gives nothing back in return for whatever resources it snatches from its host. If humans were parasites, what would be their host? Suggested has been the notion that nature itself would be the host to the humans, where humans are painted as vile beings that rape and pillage the countryside with factories, housing developments, pollution, and other evils of so-called progress. Seeing as how humans are part of nature, the parasite would be feeding off of itself. Humans are natural; all things made by humankind are natural because of the former. The detrimental effects seen on ecosystems throughout the globe are merely the product of humankind's cerebral upper-hand in nature. Eventually, however, their cerebral upper-hand will be their demise, because they will have exhausted all their resources and will have made the planet mostly, if not entirely, uninhabitable. For this reason new trees are planted where a wood has been deforested, new sand and vegetation given to where sand dunes have been worn-away, and lush reservations saved from human progress in order that humankind does not take complete dominance over the rest of creation.Such even being that the destruction of the planet is still winning the race against humankind's current half-hearted attempts at restoration, the solution certainly isn't as drastic as the annihilation of the human species or the elimination of Earth. Would destroying the planet be fair to the animals and vegetation who do have neither the powers to destroy nor save the Earth? It also makes no sense why humans, as the only beings capable of such a thing, would destroy their own planet out of punishment to themselves, since they're allegedly so selfish. Mass-destruction of all humans, on the other hand, is a much more viable option. Resources for humankind are already so slim; they would certainly come back in full once humans are gone?think of all the wonderful things that could be done then: solving world hunger with regrown food supply and fertile land; health problems eliminated through cleansed air, soil, and water; and life and liesure abound in earth-sprung riches like gems and natural gas, having recovered. It's a good thing humankind has evolved so far mentally that they can now think of brilliant ideas like destroying themselves to recover resources to use for their own benefit. If this seems too selfish in the way that only humans can be, consider how grateful the rest of nature will be when the few human martyrs give themselves up to demolish all of their kind. No badger nor sparrow will ever forget their sacrifices.

The reasons as to why the Roman Empire fell really depends on what sense we mean by "The Roman Empire." If we're even talking about the empire, that is, the emperor's state, then it could have fallen for several reasons. As already mentioned, there were many corrupt emperors in succession. The cult of the emperor, where thrived the practise of deifying the leaders, certainly inspired humongous ego. Of course these men felt that as being godheads as well as figureheads of the state, they deserved respect and all things that go with it, despite the well-being of the Empire. Resources that should have been used to maintain public services were used foolishly as luxeries for heads of state. A second reason for the fall is obvious and has been seen throughout history in respect to many empires, most recently in my mind the Drittes Reich. Put simply, the Empire occupied too much land and was guarded by too few. The Roman Empire stretched from Britannia through Africa. The opposition had already gotten so bad in Britannia that a wall had to be built to keep the enemy from Roman territory. The Roman army was very strong in the day of Caesar. The legions endured forced marches lasting for days, building in a few hours an entire fort that housed all the gear, animals, and the soldiers themselves. The individual was rugged, knowing no comforts or luxeries in excess. The problem is the culture changed; people became used to luxeries and were no longer apt nor fit to do the sort of hard labour they'd done before. Some of Caesar's first words written in his De Bello Gallico: "The strongest of all these are the Belgians, because they are the farthest away from the civilised culture of our Province, and very seldom do merchants carry to them things which tend to effeminate minds." By "things which tend to effeminate minds," Caesar surely means "excess treasure which turns our citizens into a bunch of sissies to the point where they can't do their work like they used to." The Belgians originated from northernmost Gaul, whence incidentally the barbaric invaders who finally did western Rome in came. Caesar is an oracle. ^^;; We could also possibly define the Roman Empire by culture and people, who were diverse and relatively accepting, so long as you paid your dues. When a people was conquered, the Roman Empire demanded tribute, but let that people continue on its customs and private affairs. The Romans kept their laws, and all under Rome were also expected to obey. Any laws passed exclusively within a province were valid within that province only, and Rome really didn't care. Such was the case with the Jews and Christians. Rome didn't care about Jesus. Notice how in the Bible, the Pharisees are basically powerless until they can find a reason why Rome would care about Jesus, hence the story where they try to trick Jesus by showing him the coin with Tiberius Caesar's face on it, etc. Pontius Pilate, praetor of Judea, didn't see anything wrong with him, but under pressure by the people, sent him to death. Those who presided over his apostle Paul's cases didn't believe Paul had done anything, either. They reacted with frustration and anger over those who prosecuted him, mainly because they had no legal ground whatsoever. They didn't care. However, when Constantine became Caesar-Pope, everything changed. Paganism was made illegal, and all of the sudden, church married state. The culture and people of Rome were killed, and Rome fell in that respect.

Oil is a tremendous commodity. The few oil barons who have dominion over the entire earth's oil supply are making exorbitant amounts of money at the expense of the rest of the world's population. As the scarcity of oil rises, so does the price of oil. The capitalist system is such that the oil goes to the highest bidder; that is, if China is willing to pay $70 a barrel whereas the United States is willing only to pay $65, then the oil company is most benefitted by selling the oil to China. Other nations, who need oil as well, are forced to offer greater sums than they had previously offered. For instance, the United States may respond by offering $71 a barrel. In this way, the prices of oil is bid-up by the countries of the world.The response to this oil situation for many automobile manufacturers has been to produce more fuel-efficient cars, such as hybrid cars. Even ethanol and grease-powered engines have become more popular recently. However, what are the ultimate implications of the technological adaptation?From an economic point of view, the automobile manufacturers are recognising the market and taking advantage of the situation. Not to say that this is immoral in any way, because the trend for companies to use a given situation to their advantage creatively is called innovation or progress. Consumers of these products won't have to endure the present oil crisis as harshly as many others. However, only a part of the population in any country will possess these products, and there will be a large number who drive only gasoline-powered engines and use only gasoline-powered equipment. The demand for oil nationwide, therefore, will still exist. If the same predicament holds true for each country on the planet, then the oil problem continues.From an ecological point of view, the alternatively fueled equipment and vehicles is good for the planet. Burned gasoline emits pollutants including chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer. Because a smaller amount of petrol is used?if any?in the newer products, the ecological conditions would seem like they would be much better than if everyone were to continue petrol consumption at a constant, unwavering rate.However, we must consider the impact if oil were to completely run-out worldwide. In this case, the world would have no choice but to convert to newer, cleaner technologies if it wanted to maintain the same living conditions and luxeries it had before. Not only would oil demand fall, it would be annihilated. Of course, the easiest way to get oil off the planet is to use it up completely. The sooner oil is gone, the sooner the planet is clean.Feedback?