Got through 30 seconds before quiting. It's not worth it.

Quote from: Balsac the Jaws of Death;1378713This is true, Morality can be seen as a result of social interaction which was itself a result of our evolution as social creatures.

Thanks, this is basically what I said, but shorter. Much shorter.

The only straight-edge band I really like is Minor Threat. Because they're kind of like Bad Brains in that you can listen to their music and realize they aren't faking it, that they actually do have some talent.

Quote from: ButtplugClock;1378758Hahaha what? I didn't know that, listening to it now I don't know how I missed it. It's likable I think because its just fucking, I dunno powerful.

Also I must admit I grew out of my nu-metal phase years ago, but I still like some Slipknot.

1) There is nothing wrong with liking nu-metal. Anybody who says there is is just butt-hurt that nobody really wants to listen to Iron Maiden anymore.

2) Last time I heard, ya'll niggaz was havin' sex
with the same sex
I show no love
To homo thugs
Empty out, reload, and throw mo' slugs

Quote from: RomanClock;1378211Well I think this is where you have the effects backwards. Religion affects society, society doesn't suddenly come up with one that because acceptable on a mass scale. And location is basically irrelevant, how would the location of water change your religion, or if it were always cold, or if you were in a higher altitude. That doesn't make any sense. And what do you mean by "they betray their followers?" There are always people that move under the guise of religion.

When I used geography I meant in the sense that religions that are farther away from each other have more distinct features: while it can be said that Christianity and Islam are certainly different, nobody would argue that Shinto had greater similarities.

You caught me trying to shove too many ideas into one paragraph. I slipped up there.

Quote from: SageClock;1378127um... the whole "too many people in an elevator and getting stuck' thing happened to me and the people in my dorm once after a meeting. 18 of us were in there (mostly guys) and the floor went up a half a floor, got stuck, and it took almost 30 minutes for someone to get us out of there... yet we didn't have a news article written about us, because it's not newsworthy.

There's a simple rule on whether accidents involving minors are newsworthy: unless you are a skinny, blond white girl nobody gives a shit.

Quote from: The Hero of Winds;1378043Jesus, what kind of schools do you guys go to? I've never had anything stolen from me.

Albeit, I don't bring much of any value on a regular basis. I've never owned an iPod until four months ago.

Also I didn't keep anything besides books in my locker.

Same here. I don't understand how or why people get stuff stolen from them at school since it should be in a locker or close by you. Otherwise, it means that there are people going around with the active mentality of searching for and stealing valuables. Apparently it doesn't get much better at private schools either. I know several friends who have had their iPods stolen

Apparently I'm so smart that I'm the only person on Earth who realized how much Transformers sucked, so there you go.

I would really like to live in a world where I didn't think that all cheerleaders were either legally I'm a edgy teen or hypochondriacs, but articles like this unfortunately prevent me from doing this.

To be fair, they are all probably so anorexic that 26 or them = like...3.

The popcorn one was hilarious:

"What's that smell! It's gas! I can't breathe! I'm gonna die!"

"It smells like popcorn."

"NO IT'S GAS I KNOWS IT I'M GONNA DIE I HAVE BREATHING PROBLEMS!"

Quote from: Deep Blue;1377846My reasoning for this is that morality, and ethics in general are not constant across the gamut of human life. There are many different races (and thousands of sub-societies), each with their own ethical standards.

I was not arguing this. You are ignoring my initial concept that morality is not a specifically human trait. Animals have society and morality too (and, as you mentioned, each one is distinct).

You are right. Moral standards are not constant among any race or species, which is why they are constantly changing (racial subjugation --> equal rights), and obviously there will always be members of society that go against those moral standards.

QuoteSure you could argue that if they are all averaged together that they are more or less the same, but one has to look at the reasons for the vast differences between neighboring ancient societies as well.

Exactly. Which is why we have the word "culture" to express the variations between societies.

QuoteThe lines between ethical and moral standards are distinctly drawn on the boundaries of varied religions, and thus to argue that religion is not the basis of some moral standards would be jumping to a conclusion.

You're right, that would be. But you said that:

QuoteNo matter how you slice it, dice it, melt it down... Religion is the ancient basis of all basic forms of reinforced morality.

And it is here that I flat out disagree with you. I would be willing to concede
 that religion plays a large enough part in cultures to the point of which it defines a certain aspect of a culture or society's morality. I will not concede, however, that religion is the basis of morality, nor that it is essential for any culture to reinforce notions of morality.

QuoteGranted there are other factors, but religion is the most clearly definable (when in relation to the societies they belong to) and it directly mirrors the ethical variations.

We cannot prove that morals are a part of human evolution, but we can scientifically prove that religion is part of the evolution of morality.

I simply don't understand how people can compare human and animal societies and not come to the conclusion that social creatures at least have some sort of morality that is lacking in solitary creatures.

If we are going to talk about the ethical variations among religion, then let me just start out by saying that religion has not consistently proved to actually make people behave better towards one another and that no one religion is unique in it's subjugation and persecution of people (whether it be of a society's own people or of the people of another religion or nation). To my knowledge, there has not been a single aspect of religions, especially monotheistic ones, that has proved to me to have not been totally irrelevant, either in that it is useless or in that it is completely ignored by the same people who claim to subscribe to it.

- Religions all over the world continue to repress people sexually, whether it be to restrict sex before marriage or to tell them that their desires for the same sex are an abomination. Masturbation alone, if we are to trust religion's infallible moral guidance, can cause blindness, unsightly hair growth, the deterioration of the brain, and even cause the spinal column to dissolve.

- Violent and primitive morality create violent religions: most crimes and sins in the Old Testament, running the gambit from sex before marriage, to homosexuality, to simple teenage rebellion against parents can be solved with a simple stoning. I don't think I need to even bring up Islam.

- Religion has been and continues to be a perfect tool for war and mass murder. Because people end up associating cultural and religious identity with morality, religion has also been used as an excuse for racism, slavery, sexism and misogynists, and genocide. Because when people associate morality with religion, especially ignorant people (which, I don't have to remind you, there are a lot of in this world), they view anything else as amoral or morally abhorrent: polytheists enslave and slaughter Jews and Christians, Christians and Muslims subjugate and enslave American and African natives, Muslims suicide bomb Jews and other Muslims, Christians kill Jews and Muslims and subjugate just about everyone, Japanese polytheists crucify Christians; the list of atrocities goes on. And let's not get into pre-Christian times chiefly illustrated by simply a series of polytheistic nations conquering one another.

- Religion does not make people act better towards one another. Global atrocities aside, religion has not proved in general to be for the good of society. They champion themselves often as the guides to the lost and protectors of the poor, but more often then not dogma supersedes practice and the words of the clergy fall of deaf ears. One need only consider the complacency of ancient Jewish priests, whose inaction and hypocrisy encouraged the rise of many proclaimed messiahs and popular cults (one of which became the second monotheistic religion). This is what I mean when the morality of religion is irrelevant: because whatever tenants they might have are completely irrelevant except to those who truly concerned with the plight of others; and this is an argument for self-awareness and humanism, not religion.

- Religion has proved its true motives of control throughout history. And no number of apologists will ever truly right the indelible harm religion has inflicted on people. Because at the end of the day, no matter what atrocity a religion claims responsibility and apologizes for, they are still ready to be infallible all over again.

Quote from: RomanClock;1377850A simple look at nations across the word reveals a lot:
America and Europe are Christian based, Middle East is Muslim based, Japan is Shinto, and the various religions of Africa. Though of course religion is not the ONLY factor, there is a clear divide between each country based on religion. This divide is most prevalent between Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

This does not disprove the concept of essential-for-survival social norms that exist among all animals, nor does it invalidate the idea the morality comes before religion. Religious variations are simply the product of geographical and social variations (in other words variations of "culture," which is why no matter how good-intentioned they claim to be, they will always manage to betray their followers). No religion is unique enough to claim that they were the result of independent morality and more often then not, religion in all of these countries has proved to do more harm than they do good.

I'm sorry if you find my views egregious, but considering that so many people are religious and consider it a huge part of their lives, there really is no way that I could have put that that wouldn't be at least slightly offensive. That is not to say I was trying to be offensive. But if I feel that religion is irrelevant to morality, so irrelevant is the word I intend to use.

This debate is going in circles. We are officially trapped in the classic "chicken-or-egg" argument loop. There is really nothing I can say that will convince either of you that one came before the other, and vice versa. So why don't we end it right now. All things considered, this would probably be best.

I'm over 74,000,000,000,000 years old technically.

Quote from: Deep Blue;1377700Argues that religion is the basis for human morality

There is a line of thinking which states that the development of morality was necessitated by humans being inherently social animals and needing to cooperate if they were to survive, and that religion developed not as the basis for morality but for the control of people by one or several rulers.

If we're going to talk about ancient basis, then let's talk about humans as animals. People tend to see animals from two extremes, one in which they are peacefully living out their niche in the animal world, and the other in which they are constantly fighting with each other in chaos, tearing each other limb from limb. Both of these extremes are used by people in an attempt to distinguish themselves from and put themselves on a higher plateau than animals. The truth is that while animals have neither laws nor religion, many of them still manage to keep societies that are as stable as the environment would permit. They have their leaders and their families and pariahs, just like we do. Humans are merely highly evolved forms of these social creatures, and like these animals, we have our moments of chaos and anarchy, but we always manage to reform. If we didn't, then we would have been hunted to extinction by more efficient animal societies a long time ago.

Now that man does evolve, he becomes more self-aware and aware of the world around him. He realizes that no matter how long he lives, no matter how many beasts he conquers and makes his resources, he will never conquer death. He experiences a fear unlike any other animal. He no longer abides by the "animal condition" which drives him to socialize to survive. He now suffers from the "human condition," which makes him realize the emptiness of his existence. Man is now permanently afraid of not what he does know, but what he doesn't know.

Some members of mankind then reason that since this world seems tailor made for them that there is a big, omnipotent force that guides their success. And since they were the first to realize this, then they must be the mediums between this force and the tangible world. He then decides that there is in fact a life after this one, and that death is not simply the end. This provides solace to those of mankind who are afraid, and they associate their happiness with the rituals that the "shaman" insists will bring good favor from the force. The "shaman" becomes a celebrity, even becoming the alpha-male's chief adviser. Generations come and go, and mankind forgets how he ever could sustain a stable society without the Shaman. Things go about much as they used to, with those who disturb the fabric of life being exiled, but now what were simply crimes against the humans become crimes against the spirits (they have, after all, been indoctrinated to believe that morality was given to them by the spirits through the shaman, this being the one thing that makes him different and protects him from the savage animals). And now, any bad thing inflicted upon the village is quickly associated with actions that have angered these spirits...this...god.

And the leaders don't mind this one bit, seeing as it's much easier to get people to do what you tell them if you think that they belong to a dynasty which holds the mandate of heaven. People are not just comforted by religion, they are controlled by it, because who's going to object to the actions of somebody who receives his orders from god?

As tribes split apart, some of them choose to settle near rivers, while other decide to become nomads, carrying mankind across the world and thriving there. This separation of course causes discrepancies in ritual and folklore (hell, they can't even decide on the same god/gods). The fear is still common, however, especially for settling groups. It doesn't matter what tribe you visit, they all have their own stories about earthquakes and floods, and because of their inability to understand these events, they arbitrarily attribute them to the wrath of God. But the purpose of religion continues to be served, to provide solace to the weak, and security to the monarchs.

It is my sincere belief that people who claim that religion is the basis for morality are overestimating humans and underestimating morality.

To shorten my piece into a few sentences, no, I do not agree that religion is the basis of morality. I think that honor lies with the need to survive. Religion, on the other hand, is the product and means of fear, serves less to make people act better towards one another, and is the arbitrary result of humans coming to dominate the planet.

Quote from: GreyClock;1377607You all got trolled by Paris Hilton judging from the way you are overanalyzing and lashing out against nothing but a welcome breeze of self-mockery.

Or we just hate her.

Quote from: Hamsterinamicrowave;1377638One of our guitarists is out of town so I'm assuming he hasn't made anything up but maybe i'm wrong. And the other one is my puerto rican friend who can make shit up but is to lazy.

I'm not going to attempt to analyze your personal life and friendship with these guys, cause I just don't know any of you. I'm not even a musician (though I'm want to at least learn piano and/or guitar).

But I do know from filmmaking that it's incredibly frustrating when the people around you do not have the same strong passion for doing something as seriously as you want to do it, and I've certainly had problems with clashing vision on something. I think it's best for you to decide if you're taking the band too seriously, or they're not taking it seriously enough to be compatible with your enthusiasm.

Quote from: MasterClock;1377437Why does she think she's hot?

Because she's a rich, spoiled brat. The only difference between her and all of the fatties going around with 'you know you want this' t-shirts is that she has a sex-tape, which is far worse than being in a porno considering she didn't get paid for it, making her just a scrawny, cum-guzzling slut.

EDIT: I know she probably had writers but: "Why don't we just combine both plans, HURR." Wow. Nice work, Paris. You have single-handedly solved the energy crisis by stealing other people's ideas.

Quote from: Balsac the Jaws of Death;1377309It is in highschool, and I have to listen to it every goddamn day

Do you know what it's like being an atheist in a private Catholic school? I think you and I have some very common ground here.

Quote from: Ti-83Clock;1376895"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."  The man who said this was studying to become a priest.

The man who said that was trying to point out that Christian obsession with dogma and ritual rather than moral practice was what was disillusioning people (including himself).

I don't know if you're an atheist or not, but most of us don't subscribe to Nietzsche. I think you need to read some more atheist literature before you begin arbitrarily assigning inspiration for our disbelief. God isn't dead because he never existed. We don't believe that religion has at any point proved to be for the general good of mankind.

I would agree with you in the sense that many atheists (mostly the I'm a edgy teen fourteen-year old sect of us anyway) merely reject gods as a way of rejecting tedious and arbitrary ritual. But being an atheist in a private school, and coming from a Catholic upbringing, has certainly taught me that their's more to the philosophy of disbelief (and more importantly, being actively opposed to religion) then simply not wanting to go to mass every Sunday.

Quote from: Eric Foreman;1377559People only got butt-hurt when we found out within the guy's first episode that he was incredibly unfunny.
Oh dear God I'm arguing about which main character of That 70's Show was better on the Internet.
brb I'ma go bang some chicks.

No you're not, I believe I will be the one banging chicks. If you recall, you only had sex with one woman in your entire life. The rest of the time you spent in your basement making models of Star Wars ships, playing with dolls, and reading comic books.

Quote from: Slurpee;1377370predator go read Superman Red Son
go go go

Randy Pearson doesn't read comic books. He's too busy having sex with women. As opposed to Fore-play, who has only had sex with one woman ever in his entire life.

Quote from: Eric Foreman;1377554Except that none of the viewers liked him and he was so "awesome" he didn't even appear in the final episode.

Because the only people who liked Fore-play were all scrawny, whiny fagots who related to him, and they got all butt-hurt when someone replaced him who was actually likable in every conceivable way.

Quote from: Eric Foreman;1377228Actually Topher Grace left the show to film Spiderman 3.  He's rich now.

And he ended up playing the whiny, scrawny little fagot who became the most pusified version of Venom ever in the worst Spiderman movie of the trilogy.

On the other hand, the new guy came into town and within only a few days time, completely usurped your role, except this time everybody liked him and he always won in the end.