I kept adding things in to deal with the most common objections because I was curious what it would take to get the percent of "Yes" answers above 50%.

I still haven't managed it.
I wonder what would happen if you inverted the status quo. Like roobee said, suppose everyone took the pill centuries ago, and instead what you're offering them is a pill that returns their lifespan back to normal and gets rid of all of those advantages.

"The status quo is okay" is a strong force to reckon with, and I think shifting it to your favour might help weed out who's just finding an excuse to take the 'do nothing' option and who really actually doesn't want any life extensions.
 
Funny, I was answering "Yes" from the second one. In fact I would prefer the second pill if it comes with appropriate healing.

Then again, I'd sell my humanity for pseudo-immortality in about 5 seconds. ...and I'd wonder why anyone thought my humanity was worth that. Not true immortality though. Living forever unable to die is not fun, eventually.

I also started saying yes for the second onward, mainly because without details the first sounds too much like a trap.

Um, no, that's not what we're saying. As a theist that makes this argument, I am quite clear that this is not what I'm saying. Let me try to explain what I am saying in a clear fashion.
My point is that he has simply misunderstood our argument,

I am not going to weigh in on the religion and morality arguments going on, since it is currently Monday morning for me and I don't have the spoons (they're currently stirring my much-needed tea).

I will just point out, before suggesting we get back to plan crafting because we were just unconscious on the floor with an S-ranker known for human (and every other kind of) experimentation, that @Raxner, you are certainly entitled to say what you mean when you say the statement EJ referenced. However, you have been speaking as if you represent everyone who might say that, and how they feel as well, and I don't think that's fair, and caution you to stop doing as such. Other theists may have differing opinions from yours, much like how other atheists don't all agree with me (which is certainly for the best).

Okay, now can we get back to figuring with what to do about the snake in the room? Oh, and housing people. And spending Noburi's XP. And...
 
Last edited:
Quick thought, supposing Hazo does come clean to the rest of the clan or Orochimaru about being mentally compromised, I dont see how he wouldn't be a liability for the Isan mission the moment Jonin aura comes into play, especially with missing-nin being recruited for.

A) He either stays behind and gets treated. Goketsu's interest are protected on the home front.

B) He still goes.

Maybe we should play up the consequences suffered to keep the home front standing and trust the others?
 
This is actually a thing that theists say to atheists a lot: "Without God, you atheists have no foundation for morality. There's nothing stopping you from raping and murdering."

I find this statement horrifying, since what the theist is actually saying, almost certainly without realizing it (EDIT: and likely without intending it, as it probably doesn't really align with their values), is that they want to rape and murder and only their belief in God is holding them back.
Um, no, that's not what we're saying.
Yes, that is exactly what y'all are saying. I don't think it's what you *mean*, but it's what that question says. "I don't want to murder or rape" is a reason to not murder and rape. If one says that God is the *only* reason to not murder and rape then they are saying that they want to do it but don't because God forbids it. If you, Raxner, in fact do *not* want to do it then the statement is obviously false, because atheists generally don't want to murder or rape either, no God required. I believe that you, Raxner, are a moral person and that you do not want to go around murdering and raping, and that you would continue to have this lack of desire even if you got amnesia and forgot about your belief in God. It is therefore trivial to see that atheists may well have the same basis for not murdering and raping.

So what is the basis for the assertion that murder (or any other act) is wrong everywhere, everywhen, and for everyone?
Every moral system has an axiomatic foundation. The foundation you have chosen is "what God says". The foundation I have chosen is "what promotes human weal and prevents human woe." I choose this for many reasons, among them the fact that it's a lot safer. The god of the Bible (which, OOC, I know is the one you are referring to) is a bit scary if you read only the Torah and a bit bipolar if you read both the Old and New Testaments. Should he get in another Isaac-sacrificing or Midianite-genociding mood, I'd prefer not to base my foundation on him.



I was saying yes from fairly close to the beginning, up until it was mentioned that everyone else would be getting it too. That brings up a whole lot of questions about how we're going to deal with overpopulation,
First, keep in mind that what is being offered at the end is agelessness, not immortality. An accident will eventually kill you, no matter how careful you are. Might be something as simple as choking on a peanut while watching Netflix on your couch, but there will be something. I heard an estimate that it would take about five hundred years on average. I have no idea what that was based on if it's true in the specific, but there is definitely an LD50 for simply existing in the physical world.

A society of the ageless would be different than what we have now, that is certain. Still, we can make some predictions:

As a general rule, birth rate drops as affluence increases. Compound interest will, over the course of centuries and assuming that modern Western conditions mostly continue, make the vast majority of people modestly affluent. Young people might work for one or two hundred years to build up their stake and would then be able to largely retire. Or, perhaps people would go in and out of the workforce, taking century-long vacations and then working their way back up the ladder for the next century. Ageism would no longer be an issue to contend with, so it would be a lot easier to do so

Space development would become more prevalent, if only because today there are a handful of private individuals who recognize the potential and/or find the idea exciting. Give it a *very* pessimistic 500 years and we will have enormous amount of energy (space-based solar), nigh-unlimited material resources (asteroid mining), nigh-unlimited living space (space stations, asteroid homes, generation ships, Mars and Moon colonies, etc), and easy/cheap access to all of it. (Space elevator / laser launch / etc)

My point is that he has simply misunderstood our argument,
Nope. That's why I was careful to go back and add the provisos: I do not believe that the average theist wants to commit murder or rape, but when they say "without God there is no reason not to" -- which is an exact quote that I have heard multiple times, not a strawman paraphrase -- what they are accidentally saying is what I wrote...which, again, is not what they actually want. Theists who use this phrase are either acknowledging themselves to be immoral monsters or are assuming the premise that atheists are immoral monsters.

I don't know what statistics you are referring to. Do you have a reference for me?
fivethirtyeight.com

Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists?

Dear Mona, I recently read an article that said most of the prison population is religious while there are very few atheists in prison. Please tell if this is t…
There are a lot of grains of salt to be taken here. The statistics linked above are from numbers released by the US Federal Bureau of Prisons based on a survey of roughly 216,000 prisoners. The numbers are self-reported and inmates who claim to be religious are more likely to get parole, so there are incentives to lie. Still, if you believe that these numbers are even slightly reflective of reality then atheists are far more law-abiding than theists.

If I don't believe in Him, I cannot even ask myself the question of whether such-and-such an action is morally wrong and have that question make sense.
Nonsense.

Well, perhaps *you* can't, but atheists can. Saying otherwise is simply not acknowledging the clear reality that atheists can be moral people too.


EDIT:

In other words, the only real difference is that [theists are] able to assert your morality as universal
Except they can't. At most they can assert either:

1) Their morality is based on what God wants, in which case it's still subjective.

2) There is an objective standard of morality which exists outside of God and he is merely a channel for relaying that standard to humanity. In which case that standard is not dependent on God and theists have no special claim to it.
Unless you want to assert that your religion as a whole is a more powerful tool of indoctrination than the cultures of secular societies, which would lead to less murderers in religious societies
Note that this is not the case. Violent crime rates decrease as countries become more secular.
 
Last edited:
There is an objective standard of morality which exists outside of God and he is merely a channel for relaying that standard to humanity. In which case that standard is not dependent on God and theists have no special claim to it.
Unless one believes that the objective morality can not be arrived at by mere human logic, but that an all-knowing good would know it. In which case listening to God would be the only way to know it.
 
I'm not normally the "Now is the time to panic!" guy, but I would like to remind everyone that Orochimaru is back in the house, we have a bunch of civvies that are probably going to get evicted soon that need housing (hell, we could use some too), Oro alluded to some vague chakra plague and a bunch of other scary things, just swatted us down like a bug before becoming intrigued, and that Velorien is writing the next update, which is probably coming out on Halloween.

...


WHAT DO WE DO?!?!? AIIIIIIIEEEEE
 
I'm not normally the "Now is the time to panic!" guy, but I would like to remind everyone that Orochimaru is back in the house, we have a bunch of civvies that are probably going to get evicted soon that need housing (hell, we could use some too), Oro alluded to some vague chakra plague and a bunch of other scary things, just swatted us down like a bug before becoming intrigued, and that Velorien is writing the next update, which is probably coming out on Halloween.

...


WHAT DO WE DO?!?!? AIIIIIIIEEEEE
Meh. What's the worst that could happen?

[х] Go with the flow
 
Unless one believes that the objective morality can not be arrived at by mere human logic, but that an all-knowing good would know it. In which case listening to God would be the only way to know it.
That's a claim that would require evidence. Specifically, if you want to claim that God has provided humanity an objective moral standard then you need evidence for all of the following:
  1. An objective moral standard exists
  2. [Optional, only needed if making roobee's suggested assertion] That moral standard is only accessible to omniscient beings
  3. A god exists
  4. That god is omniscient
  5. That god had transmitted a moral standard to humanity
  6. That god chose to transmit the objective moral standard
  7. That god transmitted the standard accurately
  8. The standard was received and understood accurately
Note that this is the absolute easiest case to prove. If you get here then you can show that there was at least one person who accurately received an objective moral standard from God at one time. Then we can get into questions of how that standard survived centuries or millennia of translation, cultural dispersion, ecclesiastic politics, etc.

The idea that any modern religious group has access to an objective moral standard is, frankly, laughable. And that's before we get into what the holy books actually say.
 
I'm not normally the "Now is the time to panic!" guy, but I would like to remind everyone that Orochimaru is back in the house, we have a bunch of civvies that are probably going to get evicted soon that need housing (hell, we could use some too), Oro alluded to some vague chakra plague and a bunch of other scary things, just swatted us down like a bug before becoming intrigued, and that Velorien is writing the next update, which is probably coming out on Halloween.

...


WHAT DO WE DO?!?!? AIIIIIIIEEEEE
[X] Lore Update
 
[] Protoplan: Spooky Scary Skeletons
  • Clean up and then gather Team Uplift + Naruto
  • Things didn't go that bad, actually. We got through like four topics before we annoyed him, and having a seizure against his KI probably interested him more than annoyed him.
  • Before anything else, ask everyone else what they think of Orochimaru.
  • Here are our options, as a clan:
    • We can vacate the compound wholesale.
    • We can arrange rent payments to stay on the property.
    • He would be willing to join the Goketsu if he becomes Clan Head and gets to rebrand it.
  • A lot of this comes down to Naruto:
    • You have a claim on the title of Lord Goketsu, the clan is yours if you want it.
    • If we vacate the compound altogether we'll need a place to stay, and hopefully a place for the KEI ninja to stay. If the Uzumaki compound can be that place then that's probably preferable to renting land on the Orochimaru estate.
      • If not then the former Shimura Estate might be a good pick, assuming we can afford it and/or get our money from the Goketsu Estate back from the Tower.
  • We don't have to make the decision right away, but with Orochimaru sooner is probably better.
  • Oh, and Noburi, Orochimaru talked about 'decontamination' of the octocat, and kind of implied Konoha might be facing a chakra plague. Should we be worried?
  • Go͜ m̀͞a͠ḱ̨͝e̶͞ ̀͏̵ş͠͏òm̡e ̷̧͡p̛̕ưm̡̀͠p̢͢͝k͢͏̢i̛̕n̸ ̢͜pie̛͡.
Of note:
I didn't mention us wanting to be Orochimaru's apprentice because it's more of a personal thing than a clan thing, and might distract from the topic of where we want to stay and whether we want to be the Goketsu or Yasha.
Also the pumpkin pie thing is a Halloween joke but I'm kind of curious to see what would happen.
 
I don't think there's any reason we should become a clan with Orochimaru especially with regard to the latest chapter. A clan is a family first, and we should never lose sight of that, unless we want to become a bunch of Kurosawa.
 
[x] Lore Update: Kagome's Forbidden Lore

Particular topics:
  • Information on his sources. He'd said it's dangerous to share, but you insist.
  • His interpretation of the events pertaining to Akatsuki. What was their plan, who was Pain, what are the Five?
  • Did he update his picture of what's happening since the last time we spoke?
  • Cosmology. What are the other Paths? Where Out stands?
  • What's in Bear?
 
Last edited:
I'm not normally the "Now is the time to panic!" guy, but I would like to remind everyone that Orochimaru is back in the house, we have a bunch of civvies that are probably going to get evicted soon that need housing

If it helps: I doubt the civilians will get evicted. We pretty much just handed Orochimaru a fully populated farm.
 
For the correctness of moral standard to be objective it needs to be independently verifiable through experiment. You cannot do so because morality is not a physical property you can measure. It is a subjective social construct like "the true meaning of Christmas". Morality being subjective doesn't mean you have to stop judging people by your own standards, you can still go on hating Hitler.

I think the plan should include taking a breather or something before gathering everyone. Running into Kagome while we are still dealing with the after effects has the potential to be problematic.
 
Last edited:
I'd add asking keiko to hint at the pangolin jutsu benefits of joining the clan to naruto (however vaguely she desires). And asking naruto whether he wants to join the clan.

Also, asking mari whether we can send ice/ryo to those we made deals with. And whether it can be scaled up to random civilians

and asking them how they got to where hazou is

[x] Lore Update: Kagome's Forbidden Lore
I think we should include the actual plan we have for the forbidden lore instead of just saying lore update. forget where our plan for that was
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
@Velorien,
  • Would you be willing to do the Forbidden Lore interlude next update? You've previously stated your interest.
  • If yes, would it be acceptable to specify the topics we're asking Kagome about (e. g., his sources, his interpretation of the Akatsuki mess)?
 
[x] Lore Update: Kagome's Forbidden Lore

I'm too pissed at Oro atm and last few chapters were pretty intense, so having a little break would be appreciated. Otherwise I'd go with IV's Protoplan
 
Wowza. I remember skimming this thread a couple years ago, but I only just got caught up. Holy shit, this is an incredible quest, and generally just amazing storytelling. Awesome job, QMs.

Re Orochimaru: The main thing I'm worried about with him becoming clan head isn't our safety (there must be some sort of legal punishment for killing clan members, or at the very least the income loss is a disincentive). I think the major con is the intense lack of agency. Can anyone imagine Psycho Snake Uncle letting us pursue our goals in good faith?

Then again, it might be the best way to achieve our common goals (immortality, etc), and maybe that should take priority over agency or happiness or what-have-you.

also
[x] Lore Update: Kagome's Forbidden Lore
 
Back
Top