I did that once and felt too weird to ever do it again, man legs aren't meant to be that soft.

What are the things you're looking forward to? any events or personal projects planned? is there any single thing that your always thinking about?

Quote from: Cadenza on December 03, 2015, 10:15:45 PM

Uh...I'm a recursive function defined on the complex numbers that makes a pretty picture, I'm not even alive now.

I guess you win, good job


700

hooray? ;~;

Lol that's less than my warm up weak fag

I look forward to the day that this becomes part of my warmup.

Too bad bench pressing has no viable means of strength IRL other than a bragging notion and aesthetics.

The original reason why I started training was because years of sitting around playing video games and jacking off on the internet was starting to make me feel sick, this is just an extension of staying healthy.

Ya. It's a handy thing to be able to lift your own body weight. I started out this year in piss poor health and worked over the last 10-11 months to get back in livable shape again. I surpassed being able to lift and carry my own weight a while back a few months ago. But still pushing it.

Couple days ago I picked something up and moved it. Figure it was pretty close to my current maximum limit for lifting things. A 280 pound generator. I weigh 220. So, not bad I guess.

It's a great feeling being able to do something with ease when before it was a struggle.

I used to lift, but college doesn't lend me enough free time anymore.

I only did it to prove the point that lifting is pointless anyway.
That is, if you're not interested in the way society thinks you should look. Which, you shouldn't be.

Being respected is useful though, not that it was ever my main goal.

Despite your urgings, I still have not gotten into a regular exercise routine. I'm sorry Jet, I've failed you as a man!

As long as you're not dead there's still time to improve yourself my love.

I just love the way John Key sells out our land, houses, businesses, and private information. He's not the kind of man who worries about the future of our people, no infact he never even has a hint of emotion in his face when having to talk to goyim. But man you should've seen how his face lit up and how he was stumbling over himself with delight when pressed on our record migration, "Isn't that wonderful, I mean come on!" he says:
Compare that to his normal look.

Isn't it fucking swell how much he enjoys fucking us over?

The hell kind of library is that?

Within my circle of friends I'm well liked, I hope other people like me but I hadn't really talked to people that i'm not friends with this year, next year I'm planning on changing that.

fucking non Americans with their factors of 10

It's terrible having internally consistent units that are common the world over.

Congrats! I don't care how fit you are, nobody should shame anybody else for it. We're all trying to better ourselves through fitness. I got into bodybuilding but lost my job 2 weeks in, so.......that's a bummer.

my max is 180 lbs or 81.6466 kgs

I weight between 135-145

Spoiler

I fear what this may start

That's terrible, but at least you can work out on almost no budget. I've been using my garage and weights taken from the dump as a makeshift gym.

A scrawny 63kg guy like me was able to lift 64kg after only a year's training and a buzz cut. I hope all of you are training in some way.

I'm not sure how a human could eat all that in one go.

Quote from: Cadenza on November 30, 2015, 06:21:10 PM

If that religion is one devoted to God then yes, in addition to the purpose of making people behave better, it also has the purpose of making them worship God. But if that religion is false then worshiping a false god is just another means to cement control.

You need to clarify what you mean by this. If that religion (say, Islam) is worshiping a false god, it's another means to control people. But if they're worshiping the 'true' God (like say, Christianity), it's more than a means to control people? How do you decide which religion is true and which is false?

It has to do with the moral justification for controlling people, if there is not a good justification behind the control then it should not take place. For a religion to be successful it must have some level of control over it's followers, or else it will loose those followers and cease to exist.
Suppose there exists a religion that is false, then for the people leading that religion there are two possibilities. The first is that they are unaware that it is a false religion, their actions may be well intentioned but they are ultimately leading their followers down the wrong path, so their actions are immoral even if they do not realize it. The second option is that they realize their religion is false but continue leading it anyway, in which case the leaders have no moral justification at all, and are being deceptive on purpose. Now if their purpose is to be deceptive then they would wish to succeed at deception, and so every immoral act of control is now available to them, as they do not care about the consequences.

In the first case people leading the religion can be forgiven provided they change their ways, but in the second case they are simply con artists acting to trick people. In both cases the religion has no justification for it's actions.

Now for determining the true religion, I do not believe my sense of morality is false, but I know that if I am not careful it can be corrupted however, so the true religion must be one that is consistent with this sense of morality and acknowledges it's potential to be corrupted. I find Islam and Judaism to be inconsistent with my morality, and Buddhism and Taoism to be more consistent, and Christianity to be both consistent and capable of explaining and dealing with the corruption of morality. I am not sure if any of that answered the question, and I feel that using process of elimination isn't enough to determine the truth, but it is the best I can do right now.

1. A religion should be founded on what your deity says is acceptable.
2. There isn't a single deity that hasn't sanctioned reprehensible things, so to say that morality is based on God's is kind of silly. How do we know God is morally perfect when he allows his name to be tied to texts that condone stoning of homosexuals or slavery?

In this case God says that morality is acceptable, which is why we all have a sense of it. Specifically I see morality as a natural part of being human, and religion to be, ideally, a means of facilitating that part of us.

I don't really know a damn thing about God, I haven't studied enough yet. All I know is that my sense of right and wrong doesn't stem from physical evolution, as immorality would be far more useful, so either immorality is the natural order of things and I am defective, or I have been granted morality and have the option of corrupting it.

Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy to me.

I would not approve of an immoral religion, and if that were the true religion then I'm fucked, but I would go against it.

You misunderstood me. When I said "science has disproven religion", I meant, "science has disproven claims that religions make about the world", like the 7-day creation story, or the flood. Those things simply did not happen.

Agreed. As far as I'm concerned God only needed to have started the big bang, everything afterwards is science.

You need to clarify this, also. How do we know which religion is 'true'? Additionally, we CAN act morally without God. 'God' doesn't influence my morality, and I'm the most moral person I know IRL.

I simply don't believe I'm mentally strong enough to be a good person without something to guide me. If you're capable of doing that then I have to ask how you're capable of doing so, what standard you hold yourself to and where it comes from.

Quote from: Cadenza on November 30, 2015, 05:44:32 PM

Religion is simply a means of controlling people's minds so that they act in a specific way.

So 'God' doesn't exist? Because if he does, then 'religion' is more than just 'a means to control people'.

If that religion is one devoted to God then yes, in addition to the purpose of making people behave better, it also has the purpose of making them worship God. But if that religion is false then worshiping a false god is just another means to cement control.

Quote

Ideally, they are controlled to become moral people that support their community and love their family.

Sure, but based on your statements above, you don't believe 'God' exists, and that would mean 'religion' is arbitrarily deciding what is 'good' the same way an atheist is.

Again, if 'God' does exist, then religion is more than a tool to control people.

I admit my belief in god has been fluctuating recently, but it is consistently moving towards belief. A religion should be founded on humanity's innate sense of morality, and that innate sense is derived from god. A religion should make people act in accordance with that morality, but there can exist religions that do not, they are perversions.

Quote

You cannot disprove that anymore than you can disprove conversations, that doesn't even make sense.

What am I supposed to be 'disproving' here?

That's my point, you said science has disproved religion but that doesn't make sense since you can't disprove the existence of something that exists.

Quote

Furthermore you can have a religion without believing in supernatural god, for most political views they act similarly to religion but substitute a man for god.

I just don't see the point of 'religion' without a deity. It's just... if you concede that religion can exist without a god, then these 'religions' are just as arbitrary as an atheist's sense of morality. If you can act morally without a god, why wouldn't you just do that...? Seems like a ton of work for nothing.

Conceding that something exists does not mean I approve of it's existence. I believe that those religions are flawed precisely because they lack an absolute morality to base everything on. The only way you could act morally without God is if your morality was logically equivalent to someone who was acting morally with God, which is a contradiction resulting from assuming you can have a morality without God.

Quote

I am not at all sure what you mean by:

Quote

recognise that eating animals or reproducing is wrong.

Could you go into more detail?

Sure. Eating animals is wrong and having kids are objectively wrong things to do. I haven't seen a single religion acknowledge or preach this.

Quote from: DAS FOTZEZERSTÖRER on November 30, 2015, 05:51:34 PM

Long story short, he's a vegan and anti-natalist.

Humans are parasitic on other lifeforms and birth is both non-consensual and creates suffering and therefore bad.

Or something like that...

Pretty much. But I'm not going to turn this into a "vegan/anti-natalist" thread. He can either acknowledge that I find both things wrong and argue from that mindset, or he can stop. I'm not going to push my ideas where they aren't welcomed.

Since the discussion wasn't about this I'm fine with not going further into it.

Quote from: Cadenza on November 30, 2015, 05:35:30 PM

Quote from: Eliab on November 30, 2015, 05:25:00 PM

Quote from: Cadenza on November 30, 2015, 05:20:32 PM

A tool to make people arrogant, ignorant, and immoral.

Quote

Atheism tells people that there is no absolute standard that you should hold yourself to...

Except morality is objective whether you're an atheist or theist.

I can hardly have a discussion if you're not going to voice you thoughts. And even if an atheist went out of their way to define morality in a way that wasn't logically equivalent to christian morality, then they could still at any moment discard it since they have no absolute basis for it.

This is why people will usually find a philosophic school of thought to follow and hold to its tenants in the likes of religious commandments.

I admit I haven't had the mental capacity to even understand most philosophy until recently, and right now I haven't had the chance to go over it, though I will start with plato today. I'm also not familiar with paganism so I'm not capable of discussing that.

I'm not an atheist because "science disproves religion" or whatever (even though it does). I'm an atheist because every deity I've encountered is just as immoral as its followers -- and any being that claims to be all-powerful, all-knowing, would recognise that eating animals or reproducing is wrong.

I don't believe God exists because there is no evidence, and I'm not a follower of religion because they're all similarly immoral.

Religion is simply a means of controlling people's minds so that they act in a specific way, ideally they are controlled to become moral people that support their community and love their family; you cannot disprove that anymore than you can disprove conversations, that doesn't even make sense. Furthermore you can have a religion without believing in supernatural god, for most political views they act similarly to religion but substitute a man for god.

I am not at all sure what you mean by:

recognise that eating animals or reproducing is wrong.

Could you go into more detail?

Also for reference, my belief in god stems from my sense of morality, that I innately believe certain actions to be good and others to be perversions, in the same way that I innately desire to eat animals and reproduce.

I'm actually a homo, no homo.