Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sin

vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 9:51:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not even sure how one defines this....
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 10:53:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 9:51:32 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
I'm not even sure how one defines this....

Every Christian has their own interpretation of it. Ranging from it merely be breaking God's law to some sort of deity to which God is ultimately subservient to.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:23:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
sloth, gluttony, lust, envy, greed, ... i'm out
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:28:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:23:15 PM, bluesteel wrote:
sloth, gluttony, lust, envy, greed, ... i'm out

Some think humans trying to achieve immortality is a sin . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:44:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:28:03 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:23:15 PM, bluesteel wrote:
sloth, gluttony, lust, envy, greed, ... i'm out

Some think humans trying to achieve immortality is a sin . . .

Lol, I don't really think it's sinful for someone to wander around Africa looking for the "Spring of Life" or wandering around Mexico looking for Jesus' chalice.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 12:56:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:44:05 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:28:03 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/4/2010 12:23:15 PM, bluesteel wrote:
sloth, gluttony, lust, envy, greed, ... i'm out

Some think humans trying to achieve immortality is a sin . . .

Lol, I don't really think it's sinful for someone to wander around Africa looking for the "Spring of Life" or wandering around Mexico looking for Jesus' chalice.

I know what boo you are talking about but I am talking about the use of machines to achieve this task . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 1:56:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 9:51:32 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
I'm not even sure how one defines this....

Sin is an imaginary flaw that allows religious asceticism to continue the vicious cycle of injuring and healing your psyche.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 1:57:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 1:56:04 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 12/4/2010 9:51:32 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
I'm not even sure how one defines this....

Sin is an imaginary flaw that allows religious asceticism to continue the vicious cycle of injuring and healing your psyche.
It is imaginary to you, but not to me. Be grateful to the fact that many people do good because they fear committing sins.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:01:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 1:57:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/4/2010 1:56:04 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 12/4/2010 9:51:32 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
I'm not even sure how one defines this....

Sin is an imaginary flaw that allows religious asceticism to continue the vicious cycle of injuring and healing your psyche.
It is imaginary to you, but not to me. Be grateful to the fact that many people do good because they fear committing sins.

Regardless of how you feel an imaginary concept affects your life, it is still imaginary. If you wore a metal breastplate every day to avoid being gored by a unicorn, it doesn't make the unicorn real.

And I'm grateful that there a people who do good because it is GOOD, not because they are scared of a dreadful doom.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:04:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:01:26 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Regardless of how you feel an imaginary concept affects your life, it is still imaginary. If you wore a metal breastplate every day to avoid being gored by a unicorn, it doesn't make the unicorn real.
Your thinking is imaginary; it seems like I am talking to nobody. My evidence does not exist.

And I'm grateful that there a people who do good because it is GOOD, not because they are scared of a dreadful doom.
If few people believed in sin, few people would do good. "Good" is/can be too subjective among non-religious people.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:09:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 12:23:15 PM, bluesteel wrote:
sloth, gluttony, lust, envy, greed, ... i'm out

PRIDE! and anger too. Index of mal-adjustments.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:11:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:04:54 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/4/2010 2:01:26 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Regardless of how you feel an imaginary concept affects your life, it is still imaginary. If you wore a metal breastplate every day to avoid being gored by a unicorn, it doesn't make the unicorn real.
Your thinking is imaginary; it seems like I am talking to nobody. My evidence does not exist.

If thinking was imaginary, nobody could think. Without thought, there could be no interaction. People interact, ergo everything is imaginary, or thinking occurs. But nice try.

And I'm grateful that there a people who do good because it is GOOD, not because they are scared of a dreadful doom.
If few people believed in sin, few people would do good. "Good" is/can be too subjective among non-religious people.

You have no evidence for this. There are relatively few people who do not believe in sin, but many of them still do good. The only warranted inference you can make from this information is that, actually, if fewer people believed in sin, there might be MORE good. Further, "good" is so subjective among religious people, even those in the same denominations (take Islam, for example), that your argument completely fails.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:15:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sin is a religious term. Thus, it is defined within the scope of religion.

To say that there is no sin is a hackneyed assertion of a disagreement with religion. But, sin is clearly transgressions based on moral or ethical tenets of a religion.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:16:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:11:47 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If thinking was imaginary, nobody could think. Without thought, there could be no interaction. People interact, ergo everything is imaginary, or thinking occurs. But nice try.
Classic way of evading.

You have no evidence for this. There are relatively few people who do not believe in sin, but many of them still do good. The only warranted inference you can make from this information is that, actually, if fewer people believed in sin, there might be MORE good. Further, "good" is so subjective among religious people, even those in the same denominations (take Islam, for example), that your argument completely fails.
Same as above. Atheists are too good at such nonsense. Please address my points. One, define "good." Two, see the major "goods" and "bads" among any religions, not "good" as worshiping one God or two gods.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:16:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:15:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Sin is a religious term. Thus, it is defined within the scope of religion.

To say that there is no sin is a hackneyed assertion of a disagreement with religion. But, sin is clearly transgressions based on moral or ethical tenets of a religion.
Yes, but the classical atheist wishes to see beyond that.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:17:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:01:05 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/4/2010 2:00:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There is no sin.
Yes there is.

Well, I don't really know. But I don't think so.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:21:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:17:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Well, I don't really know. But I don't think so.
There is a difference between the theological truth of sin, and the mere existence of sin. Something can exist yet be invalid. If you think that a sin is not a sin, then the sin still exists. If a religion says that intoxicants are sinful, then the sin exists, but whether you perceive it as a sin or not does not invalidate the existence of the sin, which comes from Religion X. See, two companies can - for the sake of argument - make two different products with the same name, e.g., Slinso. If one says that Slinso is cure for cancer, another says Slinso is cure for obesity, then it does not mean that Slinso does not exist; rather, "Slinso" is perceived differently.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:29:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:16:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/4/2010 2:11:47 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If thinking was imaginary, nobody could think. Without thought, there could be no interaction. People interact, ergo everything is imaginary, or thinking occurs. But nice try.
Classic way of evading.

Right, because giving a deductive proof your position is wrong and then criticizing you for making a stupid argument is evasion. Right.

You have no evidence for this. There are relatively few people who do not believe in sin, but many of them still do good. The only warranted inference you can make from this information is that, actually, if fewer people believed in sin, there might be MORE good. Further, "good" is so subjective among religious people, even those in the same denominations (take Islam, for example), that your argument completely fails.
Same as above. Atheists are too good at such nonsense. Please address my points. One, define "good." Two, see the major "goods" and "bads" among any religions, not "good" as worshiping one God or two gods.

Lol - I had an entire semester course in undergrad about how to define "good" - and if you want an objective standard, empirical utilitarianism is the way to go. If you want a folk-ish answer, convergence theory provides you with a list of "good" principles (i.e. don't murder, don't steal, etc...).

"Good" in a religious context simply means all the converged-upon "good" principles that aren't religious, plus worship God. Religion didn't make morality - it co-opted moral principles.

The TL;DR point i that nobody can say that belief in sin compels good behavior, or that people who don't believe in sin are somehow less good than those that do. There is simply no evidence to support this proposition, and considerable evidence to the contrary.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:32:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:15:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Sin is a religious term. Thus, it is defined within the scope of religion.

To say that there is no sin is a hackneyed assertion of a disagreement with religion. But, sin is clearly transgressions based on moral or ethical tenets of a religion.

Suppose I say that a Shmin is defined as an action that follows the moral and ethical tenets of a religion (so for Christians, feeding the poor is a Shmin and killing the poor is a Sin).

Is a Shmin any less imaginary because I defined it? How bout this:

A Dookenhip is a being that cleans your clothes. They live only in washing machines, and only clean your clothes when you pay them with laundry detergent.

Imaginary or real?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:54:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:32:39 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 12/4/2010 2:15:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Sin is a religious term. Thus, it is defined within the scope of religion.

To say that there is no sin is a hackneyed assertion of a disagreement with religion. But, sin is clearly transgressions based on moral or ethical tenets of a religion.

Suppose I say that a Shmin is defined as an action that follows the moral and ethical tenets of a religion (so for Christians, feeding the poor is a Shmin and killing the poor is a Sin).

Is a Shmin any less imaginary because I defined it? How bout this:

A Dookenhip is a being that cleans your clothes. They live only in washing machines, and only clean your clothes when you pay them with laundry detergent.

Imaginary or real?

Imaginary.

Now, let's try this.

I've never heard of a Dookenhip, nor a Shmin, and furthermore, don't believe that they exist. Therefore, your statements are meaningless to me, as there are no Dookenhips or Shmins, and you subsequently have not made an argument at all. Thus, I must be right.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 2:57:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:29:16 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Lol - I had an entire semester course in undergrad about how to define "good" - and if you want an objective standard, empirical utilitarianism is the way to go.

Uh huh. And which version of utilitarianism are you talking about? What is good?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 3:15:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:29:16 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Right, because giving a deductive proof your position is wrong and then criticizing you for making a stupid argument is evasion. Right.
Your view of what exists and what is valid is illogical in and itself.

Lol - I had an entire semester course in undergrad about how to define "good" - and if you want an objective standard, empirical utilitarianism is the way to go. If you want a folk-ish answer, convergence theory provides you with a list of "good" principles (i.e. don't murder, don't steal, etc...).

"Good" in a religious context simply means all the converged-upon "good" principles that aren't religious, plus worship God. Religion didn't make morality - it co-opted moral principles.

The TL;DR point i that nobody can say that belief in sin compels good behavior, or that people who don't believe in sin are somehow less good than those that do. There is simply no evidence to support this proposition, and considerable evidence to the contrary.
Yes, I can also give you a lengthy response, if you take the time to perceive my statements correctly. I implied that people do good usually because they do not want to sin. "Sin" is as good as "bad" from a religious perspective. The fact that you do not differentiate between existence and validity is your case.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 3:17:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:54:49 PM, Ren wrote:

I've never heard of a Dookenhip, nor a Shmin, and furthermore, don't believe that they exist. Therefore, your statements are meaningless to me, as there are no Dookenhips or Shmins, and you subsequently have not made an argument at all. Thus, I must be right.

Whether or not a statement has meaning for someone has no impact on it's truth value. And you can make true statements about imaginary objects. Meaning, truth, and existence are independent.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 3:20:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 3:15:35 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/4/2010 2:29:16 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Right, because giving a deductive proof your position is wrong and then criticizing you for making a stupid argument is evasion. Right.
Your view of what exists and what is valid is illogical in and itself.

Right - your opinion about my views dictates what is logic. My mistake. Who's evading now?


Lol - I had an entire semester course in undergrad about how to define "good" - and if you want an objective standard, empirical utilitarianism is the way to go. If you want a folk-ish answer, convergence theory provides you with a list of "good" principles (i.e. don't murder, don't steal, etc...).

"Good" in a religious context simply means all the converged-upon "good" principles that aren't religious, plus worship God. Religion didn't make morality - it co-opted moral principles.

The TL;DR point i that nobody can say that belief in sin compels good behavior, or that people who don't believe in sin are somehow less good than those that do. There is simply no evidence to support this proposition, and considerable evidence to the contrary.
Yes, I can also give you a lengthy response, if you take the time to perceive my statements correctly. I implied that people do good usually because they do not want to sin.

And other people do good for good's sake. That people do good "usually" because of sin is the indefensible position. Some people do in fact do good because they are afraid to sin by not doing good.

"Sin" is as good as "bad" from a religious perspective. The fact that you do not differentiate between existence and validity is your case.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this statement makes no sense to me...
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 3:22:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:57:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/4/2010 2:29:16 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Lol - I had an entire semester course in undergrad about how to define "good" - and if you want an objective standard, empirical utilitarianism is the way to go.

Uh huh. And which version of utilitarianism are you talking about? What is good?

Well for empirical utilitarianism, "good" is understood as a benefit to an individual as an organism - physical, social, and mental well-being. I'm NOT talking about hedonistic utilitarianism (maximize pleasure) or a subjective utilitarianism (maximize good for me).
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 3:27:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 2:00:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There is no sin.
And there's no FREEDO but I don't walk around telling everyone now do I.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 3:28:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 3:27:35 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/4/2010 2:00:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There is no sin.
And there's no FREEDO but I don't walk around telling everyone now do I.

True dat!
kfc