no-one-particular
Atheist
That is the definition of civilizedThis really requires a definition of 'civilized.'The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
That is the definition of civilizedThis really requires a definition of 'civilized.'The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
Chemical changes in the brain are real. Love is an imaginary concept associated with those changes and the feelings they create.What would you use as a distinction between 'real nonmaterial' things and 'imaginary nonmaterial' things? And as long as it remains 'just an idea,' it's imaginary.
We can list the rules that create and/or govern it, such as to make the imaginary circle different from an imaginary square, but it's still pretty imaginary.
No. As long as it remains 'just an idea' it is nonmaterial. Love is a real thing even though it is nonmaterial.
So, you've never been infatuated, and had people tell you 'it's not real.'Reality is why doesn't go away when you're not looking at it . Love doesn't go away when you're not looking at it
No, you're giving examples and calling it civilized.That is the definition of civilizedThis really requires a definition of 'civilized.'The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
No, you're giving examples and calling it civilized.That is the definition of civilized
Not the same thing as a definition.
No.No, you're giving examples and calling it civilized.That is the definition of civilized
Not the same thing as a definition.
No I gave the definition. Everything else follows from that definition
No.No I gave the definition. Everything else follows from that definition
You have not given a definition. At best you've given standards for what you term 'civilized.'
Chemical changes in the brain are real. Love is an imaginary concept associated with those changes and the feelings they create.So, you've never been infatuated, and had people tell you 'it's not real.'Reality is why doesn't go away when you're not looking at it . Love doesn't go away when you're not looking at it
And never grown out of that infatuation...
Reality is what's there no matter who is looking at it.
"consistent with' is not the same as 'defined by.'No.No I gave the definition. Everything else follows from that definition
You have not given a definition. At best you've given standards for what you term 'civilized.'
Everything else follows from the definition that I gave
"consistent with' is not the same as 'defined by.'Everything else follows from the definition that I gave
I never said that.So you make no distinction between a circle (which is real) and a square circle (which is imaginary)?
What's.I think I see now whats wrong with this world
No, you did not say that."consistent with' is not the same as 'defined by.'Everything else follows from the definition that I gave
I didn't say it was consistent with.
And you're wrong.You are saying that I am saying consistent with. I am saying it is defined by
Then I'd argue the good person is probably good most of the time in spite of the anus. For such a person, it's that big floating anus that is what... well, 'messes up' their life.Patton Oswalt has a great bit on the big floating anus.No I don't respect delusions. If you're bringing up "respect" as a matter of "do you argue with them?" then that depends on my mood and the social context.So you don't feel obligated to respect their delusion?
Imagine someone is a good person because they think that there is a big giant anus floating invisibly over his head, and they believe that if they misbehave, the anus will suck them up where the shitweasels will get him.
Okay, fine. We appreciate that you have this belief, and we appreciate that this belief makes you a better person. And, you know, we respect your right to tell anyone who will listen about the big floating invisible anus ... But, no, we do not respect the big floating invisible anus NOR do we respect the belief in the big floating invisible anus. Nope. Nuh-uh. We just think you're crazy. NICE, but crazy.
And don't get us started on the shit weasels.
Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.
There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".
There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.
If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.
Morality is all about how to achieve a civilized society.
If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.
Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.
If there is a God, and if God recognizes an act as wrong, and if God is not mistaken, then if God says an act is wrong, then it’s wrong, but don’t confuse the informative conveyance of what is said to be wrong with the basis for why it’s wrong.
An act is not wrong because God says it’s wrong, even if it’s true that an act is wrong when God says it’s wrong.
Saying that an act is wrong is informative, but saying that the Bible conveys to us that certain acts are wrong is not untrue—even if there is no God and the Bible is fallible.
Any act considered wrong by the Bible that is in fact wrong is a sin. There’s still a question (however) about whether an act (presuming possibility of biblical error) that an act that isn’t wrong is a sin when it’s still considered wrong by the Bible. It depends, but it depends on what a sin is, not whether the basis for something in the Bible is considered sin.
Question: "What is the definition of sin?"
Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).
Morality is all about how to achieve a civilized society.
If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.
An objective person is a person who understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.
But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.
You have a very liberal view of the Bible definition of sin. This is what I always heard when I was a Roman Catholic (I'll borrow from abaddon's link):
Question: "What is the definition of sin?"
Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).