• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Talking Religion...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
What proof is there of this remark?


Again, if the measure is the acquisition of power. I'm not convinced that's the case. (Although, again, I see an "alpha male" angle as it relates to non-theistic concepts).

But.. in any case.. this commentary does go directly to the point I was making earlier... if what is moral can change, there is no such thing as morality. Morality CLEARLY does change, by the way.... it's cultural. In certain cultures things we would consider to be straight WRONG are considered to be perfectly right. And, conversely, things we believe to be RIGHT or perfectly understood as wrong minded to them.

A lot of wars have been fought over these differences, when you think about it.

Killing people over a different set of ideas is objectionable to me. It's... immoral... :wink2:
Click to expand...
I actually think we're agreeing. Nietzshe wasn't arguing for some kind of existential morality. He didn't believe in some "real" standard of right and wrong the way that I do. He just carried out the logic to it's fullest extent. It's all in the pleasure part of his philosophy. If in the universal sense it doesn't matter what choices I make then I've got about ~80 years to live how I please. So therefore I should do whatever is pleasing or pleasureable to me.

Nietzshe, I think rightly, concluded that ultimate power was the best way to achieve ultimate pleasure. It's not that gaining power is right in some existensial sense, it's just that you would be a fool not to make your life as pleasurable as possible on this earth.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1797672; said:
Still helping the fellow man is subserviant to the aquisition of power and is only good if it is a means to that end. Screwing you guys over may be just as if not more than viable option to obtaining the power. So if screwing you over was a better way to gain power then helping you would actually become immoral.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you think that obtaining power is the ultimate goal of those who don't base their morality on divine authority. As BKB stated, humans are a social animal and dependent on others for survival. Helping out the fellow man also helps you.

If god were proven to not exist, would you immediately revert to killing, stealing and screwing over people to obtain power?
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus said:
I'm not sure why you think that obtaining power is the ultimate goal of those who don't base their morality on divine authority. As BKB stated, humans are a social animal and dependent on others for survival. Helping out the fellow man also helps you.

If god were proven to not exist, would you immediately revert to killing, stealing and screwing over people to obtain power?
Click to expand...
It's not a hypothetical I have to worry about. But I would immediatly start considering what I could do to maximize my pleasure and I wouldn't give a lick about continuing man's betterment.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1797689; said:
I actually think we're agreeing. Nietzshe wasn't arguing for some kind of existential morality. He didn't believe in some "real" standard of right and wrong the way that I do. He just carried out the logic to it's fullest extent. It's all in the pleasure part of his philosophy. If in the universal sense it doesn't matter what choices I make then I've got about ~80 years to live how I please. So therefore I should do whatever is pleasing or pleasureable to me.

Nietzshe, I think rightly, concluded that ultimate power was the best way to achieve ultimate pleasure. It's not that gaining power is right in some existensial sense, it's just that you would be a fool not to make your life as pleasurable as possible on this earth.
Click to expand...

I'm not familair with Nietzsh's rationale for so concluding. I understand what you're saying, I just don't know how he got to ultimate power being required for ultimate pleasure. I certainly can see the relation, but I also can easily see the two not being related.

In my own life, for example, I have an almost pathological resistance to the acquisition of power and I consider myself a very happy person. Money doesn't buy me happiness. (I realize that's most likely not Nietzshe's point, I'm just saying money is a measure of some kind of power, right? I'm quite a bit happier without it...)

Edit: as I think about it.. that's because you only obtain power through WORK... I don't find work pleasurable.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1797695; said:
It's not a hypothetical I have to worry about. But I would immediatly start considering what I could do to maximize my pleasure and I wouldn't give a lick about continuing man's betterment.
Click to expand...
That's interesting...

I don't want to come off as judgmental... but, wouldn't it be easy for one to conclude then that you have a great many desires which you keep in the deep recesses of your mind ... impulses you don't act on, but which you'd prefer to if you didn't believe you'd be damned for doing so?

For me that is completely foreign. Sure, I think about doing awful things to people... but... I'm never worried I'd actually do them.

Again, I'm not suggesting you'd be some sort of pervert or murderous freakshow... but... the things the bring you pleasure - to the extent that those activities are "stopped" by your belief in a God ....

I don't know.... I already do what feels good, I guess. Nothing would change if there were, or were not a G-d. I've stopped myself from doing things that would feel good, but which would have long term consequences of making me feel bad .... but... in the scheme of things... that's simply just a recognition that it's not pleasurable to chose to do the short term pleasure thing.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1797695; said:
It's not a hypothetical I have to worry about. But I would immediatly start considering what I could do to maximize my pleasure and I wouldn't give a lick about continuing man's betterment.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why your basis of morality is inferior to mine. I'm not motivated by fear of eternal damnation but instead by a sense of responsibility and compassion toward all humankind.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
I'm not familair with Nietzsh's rationale for so concluding. I understand what you're saying, I just don't know how he got to ultimate power being required for ultimate pleasure. I certainly can see the relation, but I also can easily see the two not being related.

In my own life, for example, I have an almost pathological resistance to the acquisition of power and I consider myself a very happy person. Money doesn't buy me happiness. (I realize that's most likely not Nietzshe's point, I'm just saying money is a measure of some kind of power, right? I'm quite a bit happier without it...)

Edit: as I think about it.. that's because you only obtain power through WORK... I don't find work pleasurable.
Click to expand...
Yes in the same way that the betterment of man is subserviant to power so power is subserviant to pleasure. Now considor a monarch though. A monarch yes has to balance the needs of not wanting to be overthrown with his own pleaure seekingness, but you would have to admit that a monarch would in general have greater access to those things pleasureable to him wouldn't he?
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1797702; said:
Yes in the same way that the betterment of man is subserviant to power so power is subserviant to pleasure. Now considor a monarch though. A monarch yes has to balance the needs of not wanting to be overthrown with his own pleaure seekingness, but you would have to admit that a monarch would in general have greater access to those things pleasureable to him wouldn't he?
Click to expand...
The Monarch analogy is akin to what I was talking about when I mentioned the "alpha male" So... yeah, I get that.

I guess I'm just not convinced that power and pleasure are examinations of the same... don't even know what to call it.. I guess what i'm saying is, Power is not the only path to pleasure... in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1797704; said:
And I think you're a fool because when you're dust none of it matters and you can't prove that it does.
Click to expand...
You're discounting that it makes him feel good to do good. There is no other objective, necessarily. Becoming dust... or living on... wouldn't change his desire to feel good by doing good.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
You're discounting that it makes him feel good to do good. There is no other objective, necessarily. Becoming dust... or living on... wouldn't change his desire to feel good by doing good.
Click to expand...
Then we're still only talking about pleasure aren't we? It makes him feel good to help mankind. It makes Jeffrey Dahmer feel good to eat mankind. So you would conclude, I think, universally speaking of course, that Jeffrey Dahmer is not morally wrong? Right?
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1797704; said:
And I think you're a fool because when you're dust none of it matters and you can't prove that it does.
Click to expand...
I appreciate only being called a fool as I've been called much worse by others. :biggrin:

And it frightens me to share this planet with so many others who think this life is just a throw-away and that there is something even better after you're dead. That as long as you repent and accept Christ you are forgiven for all the bad shit you do in this life.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top