Sin is a figment of peoples imagination

[no-one-particular]

The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

This really requires a definition of 'civilized.'

That is the definition of civilized

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Chemical changes in the brain are real. Love is an imaginary concept associated with those changes and the feelings they create.

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

So, you've never been infatuated, and had people tell you 'it's not real.'
And never grown out of that infatuation...

Reality is what's there no matter who is looking at it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

This really requires a definition of 'civilized.'

That is the definition of civilized

No, you're giving examples and calling it civilized.
Not the same thing as a definition.

 

[no-one-particular]

That is the definition of civilized

No, you're giving examples and calling it civilized.
Not the same thing as a definition.

No I gave the definition. Everything else follows from that definition

 

[Keith&Co.]

That is the definition of civilized

No, you're giving examples and calling it civilized.
Not the same thing as a definition.

No I gave the definition. Everything else follows from that definition

No.
You have not given a definition. At best you've given standards for what you term 'civilized.'

 

[no-one-particular]

No I gave the definition. Everything else follows from that definition

No.
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

 

[no-one-particular]

Chemical changes in the brain are real. Love is an imaginary concept associated with those changes and the feelings they create.

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

So, you've never been infatuated, and had people tell you 'it's not real.'
And never grown out of that infatuation...

Reality is what's there no matter who is looking at it.

So you make no distinction between a circle (which is real) and a square circle (which is imaginary)?

I think I see now whats wrong with this world

 

[Keith&Co.]

No I gave the definition. Everything else follows from that definition

No.
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.'

 

[no-one-particular]

Everything else follows from the definition that I gave

"consistent with' is not the same as 'defined by.'

I didn't say it was consistent with. You are saying that I am saying consistent with. I am saying it is defined by

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you make no distinction between a circle (which is real) and a square circle (which is imaginary)?

I never said that.
There are certainly distinctions between imaginary things that can and cannot be easily represented in a physical form.
But 'real/imaginary' is not THE distinction I would make.

I think I see now whats wrong with this world

What's.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Everything else follows from the definition that I gave

"consistent with' is not the same as 'defined by.'

I didn't say it was consistent with.

No, you did not say that.
But the best you have offered is just a consistent, if vague, idea. You haven't offered A DEFINITION OF CIVILIZED.

You are saying that I am saying consistent with. I am saying it is defined by

And you're wrong.

 

[abaddon]

So you don't feel obligated to respect their delusion?

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.

Patton Oswalt has a great bit on the big floating anus.

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 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.

Imagination can be such a shitty thing to people. And belief in needless imaginations is always a problem. When that's the case there's no good reason to "respect" it. That'd be another reason to argue about the anus. Because it's a problem for the believer himself.

"Sin". I've seen imaginations about this idea hurt people's minds and it's hard to "respect" that.

 

[Treedbear]

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.

Morality is all about how to achieve a civilized society.

civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.

If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.

 

[no-one-particular]

Morality is all about how to achieve a civilized society.

civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.

If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.

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.

 

[Treedbear]

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.

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).

 

[no-one-particular]

Saying that "2+2=5 is an error" is a fact. It can be proven using logic and cause and effect. The error is real.

Saying that mixing linen and wool is a sin is irrational. It doesnt follow from logic or cause and effect. The 'sin' is imaginary

Indeed saying that anything is all-bad (infinitely bad) is illogical and impossible​

Saying that killing people is uncivilized is a fact. It can be established using logic and cause and effect. People dont want to die. Given a civilized society where everyone is equal and everyone has a say in what things are legal and what things are illegal they will inevitably choose to make muder illegal.

 

[Treedbear]

Morality is all about how to achieve a civilized society.

civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.

If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.

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.

Sorry, but if that was a response you've lost me. None of what you said contradicts the need for moral principles in a civilized society.

 

[fast]

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).

What I’m saying is not contrary to the Bible—or at least my intent is to keep what I’m saying from being contrary to it.

First, I have no qualms whatsoever with Bible verses, and it would be a gross misunderstanding to think i’m espousing disagreement with them.

Second, I hold the position that it’s words, not the referent to words, that are defined. Sin is the referent to the word, “sin,” and it’s the word, “sin” that is defined—not sin.

Third, I’m actually being charitable and accept that people sometimes mistakenly make explicit what it is that is defined; that’s why I graciously accept that the intended question is not about the definition of sin but rather the definition of the word, “sin.”

Four, while I have no qualms accepting as true what the Bible verses say, they do not answer the question posed. The Bible verses do a brilliant job in expounding upon what sin is, but my issue is that they are not definitions for the word—nor is it readily discernible that was the intention of them.

Five, there is a subtle ambiguity with the word, “is” that we should not let escape us, as it makes a mighty substantive difference. Consider the three is’s in philosophy. One is the “is of identity.” If I say that “a bachelor is an unmarried male,” that is the “is of identity.” That would be more akin to a definition.

If I say that “my ladder is tall,” that is another use (a different use and thus a different meaning) of “is” that is not akin to a definition. The Bible quotes are saying something many may find valuable, but they are not definitions just because the word “is” is used.

Six, note this definition that I just googled: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

If an act is immoral AND CONSIDERED (oh, by anyone) to be a transgression against divine law, then the act is not only immoral but a sin as well. Notice how no God is required for it to be considered, considered to be ... a transgression ... .

I don’t particularly care for that particular definition, as it lacks something, uh (not sure how to word this), stenographic observed subtelties.

 

[fromderinside]

I never considered religion to apply to morals and principles. It's all about race.

 

[aupmanyav]

Sin is any act against the society.