Page 21 of 71 FirstFirst ... 1117181920212223242531 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 708

Thread: Psalm 14: Who was Jesus' grandpa?

  1. #201
    Ying Yang Member Saith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75
    Because Satanism, at least Biblical Satanism, is pretty dumb.
    I mean, it would pretty much mean that you believe in God, but you choose to worship a weaker, evil being.
    If you're on about LeVayanism, then sure go for it.

  2. #202
    Bad Enough Dude to Rescue the President Kodos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,912
    Why would anyone be a Satanist? Satan does not exist and LaVayen Satanism is just atheism with a big heaping dose of ego masturbation and a pinch of Randian objectivism.

    Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!

  3. #203
    Ying Yang Member Saith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75
    That's pretty much my opinion, yeah.
    I so totally didn't spend an entire Summer preaching to my mates about how awesome and not-culty Levayanism is.

  4. #204
    Senior Member PWhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Go Away, China.
    Posts
    459
    If you're on about LeVayanism, then sure go for it.
    Yes, LeVayan.

    Why would anyone be a Satanist? Satan does not exist and LaVayen Satanism is just atheism with a big heaping dose of ego masturbation and a pinch of Randian objectivism
    If you have a problem with it, that's really just too bad. There are rituals that are not so ego-centric. Objectivisim, sure. That's something I legitimately can say I believe in.

    I so totally didn't spend an entire Summer preaching to my mates about how awesome and not-culty Levayanism is
    Quite frankly, I didn't either. In fact, I don't even participate in the rituals because, that's where I draw the line.

  5. #205
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,337
    Quote Originally Posted by PWhit View Post
    If you have a problem with it, that's really just too bad. There are rituals that are not so ego-centric. Objectivisim, sure. That's something I legitimately can say I believe in.
    How do you react to this: Rand claims that humans use logic as their tool of survival and that not serving logic is not serving the survival instinct and yet she fails to defend the survival instinct as a legitimate source of ethical behaviour. She goes on to accuse those who coerce, threaten, or harm others to get their way of being morally unjustified and 'no better than animals' yet she does not take into account situations where the survival instinct clashes against the survival instincts of others: for example in a situation where one must either kill and eat another human or die themselves. The logical course of action for one's own survival is clearly to kill and eat the other person, yet Rand would forbid this by claiming it interferes with the other individual's right to make a choice. If survival is on the line and we are forced to either restrict another's ability to make a choice or ourselves die, then Rand's philosophy is just as suicidal as the altruism she condemns.

    TL;DR: Rand was an insane sociopath.

  6. #206
    Senior Member PWhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Go Away, China.
    Posts
    459
    I personally don't follow Rand word for word. However, in this particular situation of life and death there are only two options presented when in reality there are more than two. You can go about this in many ways.

    *Starve (presented as illogical)
    *Cannibalize (presented as logical)
    *Reason and ally with the other person in efforts to gather food (not presented)
    *Use the environment to satisfy your hunger/thirst and leave the other alone. (not presented)
    *Drink your own urine for a small source of protein and nutritional satiation for the time being. (not presented)
    *Hunt an animal nearby. (not presented)
    *Fill up on water. (not presented)
    and so on.

    While you choose these options, the other can do the same. So they will make the choice anyway; whether it is executed is a different matter. If you choose any of the not presented matters, you are following moral egoism.

    Also, if the person lacks self-respect or gives himself or herself no reason to live, then they will starve, subtracting the egoism.
    And if the person cannibalizes, they are subtracting moralism.

    Even so, I never stated that I followed her word for word and word, so most likely if the only two choices were available, I would cannibalize anyway and be guilty later. Rand doesn't seem to cross me as an insane person to me. Maybe I am insane along with a fair part of the world that also agrees with her?

  7. #207
    Ying Yang Member Saith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    75
    Well, I mean, when you bring it to 'he die or you die, mofo', pretty much all morality goes out the window.

  8. #208
    Senior Member PWhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Go Away, China.
    Posts
    459
    And I agree of course, but it doesn't mean you can't find other options.

  9. #209
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,337
    Quote Originally Posted by PWhit View Post
    Even so, I never stated that I followed her word for word...
    Then why call yourself an objectivist, other than for convenience? If you only broadly agree with Rand then you're just an individualist (which I can agree with; individualism makes infinitely more sense than collectivism in both theory and practice).

    Quote Originally Posted by PWhit View Post
    Rand doesn't seem to cross me as an insane person to me. Maybe I am insane along with a fair part of the world that also agrees with her?
    Well, what is society and law but collective insanity?

    EDIT: If you're wondering what moral system I follow, broadly speaking I hang somewhere between atheistic existentialism and absurdism, and I believe the only way an ideal and universal ethical, legal, or political system can be created is through transhumanism.
    Last edited by Delphinus; 02-06-2011 at 05:19 PM.

  10. #210
    Senior Member PWhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Go Away, China.
    Posts
    459
    Then why call yourself an objectivist, other than for convenience? If you only broadly agree with Rand then you're just an individualist (which I can agree with; individualism makes infinitely more sense than collectivism in both theory and practice).
    Well then let me put it this way then. I am an objectivist to a certain extent. I believe in it but not fully enough to call myself a true objectivist. I hope it makes a little more sense because I never side 100% with one philosophy.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •