/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

Currently at Radio Ernstiwan:


Hail Odin! by Christenklatscher666

M3U - XSPF


Niedliche Scheissmusik by Funpaku

Online player

M3U - XSPF


File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 50138
125 kB, 988 × 694
The sun's orbit around the center of the Milky Way takes about 225-250 million terrestrial years. That's a 25 million year margin of error. Think about what your lifespan means in just that error gap.

Marcus Aurelius wrote to think on how vast the eternity of time is behind us in the past, and how vast the eternity in the future, and likewise with space.

Given our apparent insignificance in the cosmic scale (think of the "pale blue dot"), do you really think God cares if you masturbate or cheated on your wife? Do all these things really matter in such a vast universe where all our earthly deeds could be incinerated in the expanding sun, buried under magma, or annihilated by a meteor? It seems to me that religion is human-centric, rather than being centered on the divine.
>>
No. 50141
>>50138
I think that ethical norms existed before religion (or, at least, organized religion; stuff like animism is likely as old as humanity itself) and then got incorporated into it. It's no wonder, considering that religion served as the primary cohesive force of society in ancient times, so the mundane laws and regulation necessary for the tribe's survival became divine, plus religion added some crime-preventing measures ("If you do these bad things, you're going to Hell, and nothing will save you!"). In time, legislature was becoming more and more sophisticated, just like religion: you've got different castes like priesthood (who were responsible for laws and keeping of knowledge) and nobility (who were rulers and decision-makers), both of whom, naturally, became sacred as means to keep the society stable (it's easy to rebel against some random warlord, but not so much against The One True King Anointed By Godâ„¢). The separation of religion and society only began when ruling classes started discovering new methods of keeping the masses in check, but before that religion was highly concerned with worldly matters. So the religions that aren't anthropocentric are actually the weird ones, and, I strongly suspect, are a fairly modern invention.
>>
No. 50147
>>50138
On this issue, I take a humanitarian-solipsist stance.
Roughly, I can formulate it as, since we are the centers of our subjective existences, our human values are, in fact, the ultimate values as far as our subjective experiences are concerned. Other paths lead to despair and nihilism.
Why would I value some billion year old dust over my own spiritual conceptions of meaning?

Beside the cosmic scale, I take this stance on every day, human scale as well. For example, some Hollywood pop star or some tech CEO will have more recognition, praise, money, fame, etc., than a scientist or philosopher writing a seminal work that lasts through the ages. If you take an "ultimate" or "global" stance, you have to accept that in the universal scale, the pop star is more "important" than the scholar. I refuse to accept this stance, and decide to value things on my own scale.
Not only is there an "objective" or "divine" scale of importance than mere circumstantial popularity or mass or scale or wealth or whatever other material metric you choose, but I am also free to define for myself what's important or not.

The galaxy isn't as important as us because we're the only ones in it (as far as we know) who can do mathematics. The pop star is not as important as the scholar because philosophy and science are more important than pop-music. I, personally, decide that humanity is more important than a bunch of ancient star-dust and space rocks because who's going to object? Not the star-dust and rocks, that's for sure, they can't talk. So fuck em.

t. big dick own meaning decider.
also drunk
>>
No. 50149
>>50147
>than a scientist or philosopher writing a seminal work that lasts through the ages. If you take an "ultimate" or "global" stance, you have to accept that in the universal scale, the pop star is more "important" than the scholar.

But your argument is self-defeating, because in the universal scale the scientist's work lasts through the ages like you said, while the pop star will be forgotten. How many film stars from the 1940s can you name? Probably very few.

>I, personally, decide that humanity is more important than a bunch of ancient star-dust and space rocks because who's going to object? Not the star-dust and rocks, that's for sure, they can't talk.

Fair enough, we're on a higher order of organization, but what about my initial question then of what is "sinful" vs not? I wasn't comparing humans to entropic star dust, rather I was comparing a tiny human to a large gas giant in scale. You shooting your load is nothing compared to a storm on Jupiter, so why should you masturbating be so important to God.
>>
No. 50150
>>50147
I believe OP meant moral philosophy of conventional religions specifically, that is, behavioral norms forced upon believers by the dogma. Your personal worldview, on the other hand, denies those norms completely and instead adheres to ones you yourself created in a sorta-Nietzschean way, and it doesn't have much to do with the fairly rigid ethics promoted by popular religions as "universal".
>>
No. 50151
897 kB, 599 × 649
>>50149
Whatever is written down, is what humans decide is worth writing down. God doesn't write history, humans do. We decide that the scholar is more important than the pop-star, even if the latter has more "scale" or "energy" than the former.

>why should you masturbating be so important to God.
I am God. If God disagrees, well, he's free to prove otherwise.
>>
No. 50152 Kontra
>>50150
I don't think it's interesting to discuss the validity of conventional religious moral beliefs because they're obviously dumb as hell.
So let's not.
>>
No. 50153
>>50150
Abrahamic morality has been thoroughly BTFO'd through the ages by all kinds of philosphers and scholars, even contemporaries of rise of christianity and islam, etc., so I'm note sure why this has to be discussed, but for the sake of the argument:
You can take the same stance of "selfish solipsism" and apply it to an Earth-centric world-view. The rest of the universe, in all its grandness and complexity, is merely a "side effect" of a universe that is capable of hosting Earth. What did Sagan say again? "To make an apple pie from scratch, you first need to create the universe"? Well, same applies, but replace the apple pie with Earth.
This works on all scales. In order for a writer to create a great work of literature, someone had to invent paper. Someone also had to invent either the computer, or the typewriter, or ink and feather. Before that, someone had to invent carving runes on stone. Are we then to say that putting notches into boulders is more important than Gilgamesh? Are we to say that the guy who first figured out that you can grind a pretty blue rock to make a new pigment is more important than Vermeer's Girl With A Pear Earring? Absurd.
Same is the notion that the grand mechanical setting of the universe (galaxies and stars) are more important than the thing they were designed to give birth to: Earth and its inhabitants.