A semi-philosophical question, For those few who have a brain Options

[Rhiannon]

Hey now, that sounds like some Yggdra talk, there.

Nah, it sounds like something I would say. It's sad that you pay more attention to a game than to a person you have to deal with, like, every day.

[Greifer]

I've been watching this for a while, so I believe I should alleviate my opinion, which if posted, would probably take up whole page.


Anyone could take their own life. My theory is that, yes it is selfish to take your own life, if another cares about you in the slightest, yet, if you truly are at hell's edge, with nothing left to continue your pitiful existance, than you should be allowed to. Unfortunately, it isn't legit.

Buddhu bringing religion bull into this, well... makes this even more complicated to answer. I myself am a nonconformist, so I couldn't care less about any deities, and it's "higher purposes" crap. I am the only one who tells me what to do, so if I feel compelled to commit suicide, and no one gives a damn about me, I probably would.

Besides, religion, gods, and how precious life is brings up the question of what the purpose of life is, which I don't believe has an answer either. Life is the time that anyone/anything is conscious, breathing or otherwise, and isn't dead. Nothing else.


Point is that if you want to take your life, do so, but just know that there's a chance you'll probably make a lot of folks feel horrible.

This post has been edited by Rzul: Jan 12 2007, 11:07 PM

[Buddhu]

[qoute]

No not quite all of them, but of course you probably haven't seen the ones with no agenda to carry out and the ones that don't tell you to abide and "be nice" to other people so based on what you typed I can see where that comes from(and yes there are such religions).

Exception to every rule. The only religion I accept is Buddhism these days.

Except that Buddhism isn't a religion.

Which is the same as using it against it... You used religion as a basis for argument against Buddhu's point.

No, I used his/her/its use of it as the basis. Instead of using religion as a concept I used the word 'religion' along with every other word Buddhu said.

And by doing so, you have taken an Atheist perspective on the issue. Using your disbelief in religion to try and point out a flaw in the argument I used.

[Greifer]

Buddhism is a religion. Just not as big as catholicism or hinduism or such. There's many different forms of buddhism, just like christianity.

[Buddhu]

I've been watching this for a while, so I believe I should alleviate my opinion, which if posted, would probably take up whole page.


Anyone could take their own life. My theory is that, yes it is selfish to take your own life, if another cares about you in the slightest, yet, if you truly are at hell's edge, with nothing left to continue your pitiful existance, than you should be allowed to. Unfortunately, it isn't legit.

Buddu bringing religion bull into this, well... makes this even more complicated to answer. I myself am a nonconformist, so I couldn't care less about any deities, and it's "higher purposes" crap. I am the only one who tells me what to do, so if I feel compelled to commit suicide, and no one gives a damn about me, I probably would.

Besides, religion, gods, and how precious life is brings up the question of what the purpose of life is, which I don't believe has an answer either. Life is the time that anyone/anything is conscious, breathing or otherwise, and isn't dead. Nothing else.


Point is that if you want to take your life, do so, but just know that there's a chance you'll probably make a lot of folks feel horrible.

But you have to think.

Where did this life come from in the first place?

Do you believe it from a purely scientific standpoint?

First of all, I think you need to clarify a few things.

Think:
1. What is life? (Is it the carrying out of biological processes? The fusion of body and soul? Something else?)

2. If you answered the first one, then try this. What animates a person (What allows us to move, breathe, think, etc)? (Is it all from the brain (chemical processes, etc?)? Is it a soul? Is it something else?)

3. Does the soul exist? What is the soul? (Well, first off, does it exist? If so, where does it come from, what is it, what is it's purpose?)

You must think about this. (yes, it is all related, trust me).

When a person passes away, what has happened to them? I'm not talking about when someone is killed or anything, because that's kinda (not entirely, though) obvious. Rather, is it the brain that simply stops (subconsciously) telling the body what to do, or has the soul left the body?

Secondly (or...whatever number of question this is)....

Back to actual discussion and a little away from the religious one. To take one's life brings in the concept of morality and motives. What determines whether an action is moral or not? (This'll give you the answer to the question).

So tell me, has everyone here heard of the "Heinz Dilemma?" If so, please tell me what you would do and your reasoning (the answer itself isn't as important as your motive; that's what I'd like to hear).

For those that don't know:

Heinz is a man, and his wife is dying of cancer (or some other such disease). There is, in town, a person who has discovered a cure for the problem Heinz's wife is suffering from. But there is a problem: the man is selling this drug at a ridiculously high price (because he knows that many people could use it and that he'll make lots of money), and Heinz cannot afford this. Is it acceptable, is it morally okay for Heinz to steal this drug in order to save his wife? Knowing no other information, tell yes or no and your reason why. In this scenario, put yourself in the place of Heinz; would you do this for your wife?

Oh, and another thing...this is most definitely more than a semi-philosophical discussion, but, rather, entirely philosophical.

Lastly (and I'm too lazy to quote this)...but, Leviur said that, after I said that I'm a girl, that it does not matter, I'm a person, or whatever (not important here). Yet, a bit later, he said him/her/it. Come on now, sir, that's just ignorance. Or stubbornness. I would like if you would refer to me as "Buddhu" when addressing me directly, or as "her" when referring to me in separate conversation.

This post has been edited by Buddhu23: Jan 12 2007, 11:32 PM

[Buddhu]

Buddhism is a religion. Just not as big as catholicism or hinduism or such. There's many different forms of buddhism, just like christianity.

No; it's not. Buddhism is a theory that is often mistaken for religion. There are certain things a religion, in order to be considered a bona fide religion, must have. And Buddhism does not have all of those. Are there sacred/profane objects? Nope, don't think so. And I know that there are many different types of Buddhism, but that still doesn't make it a religion.

edit: eh.. sorry about the double-post.

This post has been edited by Buddhu23: Jan 12 2007, 11:25 PM

[Greifer]

Buddhism is a religion. Just not as big as catholicism or hinduism or such. There's many different forms of buddhism, just like christianity.

No; it's not. Buddhism is a theory that is often mistaken for religion. There are certain things a religion, in order to be considered a bona fide religion, must have. And Buddhism does not have all of those. Are there sacred/profane objects? Nope, don't think so. And I know that there are many different types of Buddhism, but that still doesn't make it a religion.

edit: eh.. sorry about the double-post.

Do you know much about buddhism?

It's a religion, it just doesn't follow the theory of having a "greater being" watching over humanity.

It has morals and exceptions just like every other religion.


Come to think of it, anything could be considered a religion. As long as enough people believe in it, without the evidence to explain anything or why they believe or don't believe.

Hell, some people worship videogames, which in my opinion is utter fail.

I know a few folks back in Atlanta that worship and believe that the Ozzy Osbourne is Jesus, which is a radical difference of what most people think.

As long as someone believes it, no matter what their basis is, it can be considered religion, albeit not followed by the majority of the population.

It doesn't have to a bona-fide belief. It could be ridiculous.

This post has been edited by Rzul: Jan 13 2007, 12:00 AM

[Dr Strum]

What determines whether an action is moral or not?

Society.

this is most definitely more than a semi-philosophical discussion, but, rather, entirely philosophical.

It's not at all philosophical.

Are there sacred/profane objects?

The lack of Iconodulism is not a disqualification as a religion.

[Buddhu]

Society.

I was hoping someone would say this. Let's ask this. Do you think that popular opinion is conducive to free will? Or does it merely guide free-will?

It's not at all philosophical.

Sorry, but, when I got into death/religion, it became philosophical. Religion is a philosophy by which a person lives. When the topic of religion was brought up, it became philosophical.

The lack of Iconodulism is not a disqualification as a religion.

Yes, but Buddhism is not a religion. That is one of the characteristic that defines a religion. Buddhism is a train of thought not quite reaching the standing of a religion. I'm not trying to reduce it's merits, just ointing out the painfully obvious. What is the definition of a religion? Let me give you a short list (not all of it, but only a few things). Let me know if you disagree with any of this, and, if so, which parts, and how would you correct it?

I. Characteristics of a Religion
1. The practical and ritualistic
2. The experiential and emotional
3. Narrative and the mythic
4. The doctrinal and the philosophical
5. The ethical and legal
6. The social and institutional
7. The material, primarily the buildings
8. Beliefs in supernatural beings (gods)
9. A distinction between sacred and profane objects
10. Ritual acts focused around sacred objects
11. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods
12. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of quiet, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects, and during the practice of ritual, and which are associated with gods.
13. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods
14. A world view, that is, a general picture of the world as a whole and of the place of the individual in it, including a specification of its overall significance.
15. A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
16. A social organization bound together by the previous characteristics.

For a religion to be a religion it must express a belief in the reality of the spiritual dimension in the universe: a necessary condition.


And yes, Rzul, I do know a lot about Buddhism. I studied it for a while and did independent research on it.

This post has been edited by Buddhu23: Jan 13 2007, 12:11 AM

[Dr Strum]

A religion is a system of beliefs pertaining to the moral, ethic and spiritual aspects of one's life. Your requirements are far too diverse and specific.

[Buddhu]

But they are requirements nonetheless. Not very specific. Tell me one religion, a religion that is considered a religion, that does not have even a single one of these requirements. There are none. Besides, you can't separate moral from ethics. A religion simply does not have nothing more than a set of moral codes and spiritual components. That is too generic of a definition.

But, I'd like to hear your response to my first question, if you'd please.

This post has been edited by Buddhu23: Jan 13 2007, 12:19 AM

[Dr Strum]

Morals are societal, ethics are personal.

[Buddhu]

But, in the eyes of the individual, the set of ethical principles that they believe in are moral. Morality is defined by society (according to you). Therefore, so are ethics.

Does society always do moral actions? What society are we talking about? That of America? Somewhere else? Surely, if you mean all societies, you are mistaken. Every society has varying views on morality, so does that mean all societies are moral? Are all beliefs moral (again, as a society)?

I was once of the opinion that morality was decided by society. It's a little utilitarian, though, right?

Is an action moral if it causes more benefit than harm to society? I think that's what you're trying to get at, correct me if I'm wrong.

This post has been edited by Buddhu23: Jan 13 2007, 12:34 AM

[Dr Strum]

... No.

[Buddhu]

Eh? No to what?

(I'm really not trying to argue, just, after Plato, I cannot return to the cave I was once in).

It's really just a discussion now, right?

This post has been edited by Buddhu23: Jan 13 2007, 12:39 AM