Is it?

[Divebomb]

Divebomb wrote:
Your opinion on the definition of the word is meaningless when others may disagree with you.


If this is true, then why ask for a definition in the first place since it is likely that someone, somewhere, will disagree with it? This leads me to think that what you meant to say was: Your opinion doesn't matter because I disagree with you.

To clear up my original statement, since it doesn't come across as well in text: Your opinion on the definition of the word is meaningless when others may disagree with you. Your opinion doesn't matter, the truth of the definition of "sin" matters. My opinion doesn't matter either - i should have made that more clear the first time around.

Unfortunately, nobody on these boards is likely to have the answer to that question. So, in a philosophical end-all/be-all sense, Comatose's question is impossible to answer. In a realistic sense, it is what we as fallible humans can consider best for the parties involved. Most people have reaffirmed that your opinions on lying are, from a utilitarian viewpoint, flawed and not the best course of action.

I am fairly confident in saying the world most of us are familiar with revolves around a utilitarian viewpoint - even with its flaws.

It is not my desire to upset you, Divebomb, or anyone else. I only want to participate in a conversation that I thought was open to anyone who wished to share their views.

I will always speak the truth I see, whether or not I am perfect in my observations. If I am wrong, I will admit it. So far, I see nothing wrong with my statements during this discussion. If anyone shows me where I am wrong, I will adjust my thinking accordingly.

It is not what you communicate but HOW you communicate it. Anyone with even a basic sense of the English language can easily interpret your sentences as condescending. The truly condescending use their tone and sentence structure to belittle those around them rather than coming out and blatantly saying it. They do it to appear smarter by disrespecting those they are responding to.

In reality all you have succeeded in doing is alienating most people from even considering your opinions as valid. When you insult people, they tend to stray from listening or agreeing with you.

I am not saying the content of your post is rude, arrogant, or belittling. I am saying the way you communicate on these boards and in the game is infuriating because you are so blatantly rude in tone.


Normally I would consider this a private topic to discuss, but I am so fed up with your attitude that I choose to address it in context. I know that other people have had this exact same discussion with you so copping innocence is a childish maneuver.

[Comatose]

Stars please don't take this as an attack. I know we have had our differences but I am simply pointing out where you have offended.
I believe this is the order that the conversation went.

I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, Divebomb. It seems a rather depressing view of life.

It would be nice if once in awhile you grew up and made an intelligent commentary without the holier-than-thou highly condescending attitude. If you cannot comment maturely and intelligently on any topic, complex (like this one) or even the most simple, then you, Sir, may fuck off.

...I freely admit, and thought it was understood, that I only want to learn, not to tell others what to do...

Why are you sorry for the way he feels? To me and obviously to Divebomb if you feel sorry for him or others than you feel that there is a reason to be sorry. The reason that we see is that you somehow think that our feelings, beliefs, thoughts are somehow the cause of our pain or problems. I think that it is ok to have different opinions but I don't want someone to feel sorry for me because I have a different opinion. I would like to just hear the different opinion without feeling that in some way I am less than you for having that opinion. You also mentioned that you never said you were better than anyone. Well you don't have to say those exact words for that view to be expressed. The last quote was put in because at times it very much sounds like you are telling people what they need to do. If sounds very many times that you have your opinions set and are not trying to learn but trying to force your opinions on others.

[Stars]

These were found in different places in DB's last couple posts:

It is not what you communicate but HOW you communicate it. Anyone with even a basic sense of the English language can easily interpret your sentences as condescending.

I am not saying the content of your post is rude, arrogant, or belittling. I am saying the way you communicate on these boards and in the game is infuriating because you are so blatantly rude in tone.

Normally I would consider this a private topic to discuss, but I am so fed up with your attitude that I choose to address it in context. I know that other people have had this exact same discussion with you so copping innocence is a childish maneuver.

It would be nice if once in awhile you grew up and made an intelligent commentary without the holier-than-thou highly condescending attitude. If you cannot comment maturely and intelligently on any topic, complex (like this one) or even the most simple, then you, Sir, may fuck off.

Ok, I am starting to get annoyed now. It takes a lot, but I am close to anger. Listen, Divebomb, if you want to criticize my childishness, then you might want to take some time to consider your own words first. Whereas my statements are truly made with a genuine (if difficult to see) desire to learn, your petty words are blatantly and purposefully offensive. I have no need to "cop innocence" because I know what I feel as I write, and I feel none of the things you claim I am expressing. I truthfully mean everything I have said here, whether right or wrong. If wrong, I will gladly accept correction. Divebomb, you do not communicate with the purpose to educate, or even to exchange ideas; you communicate raw spitefulness. It is for this reason that I am sad for you, because usually it is only an unhappy person who chooses to act in this way.

And Comatose in another post:

Stars please don't take this as an attack. I know we have had our differences but I am simply pointing out where you have offended.

Why are you sorry for the way he feels? To me and obviously to Divebomb if you feel sorry for him or others than you feel that there is a reason to be sorry.

I know you are not attacking me, Comatose. Thank you for your constructive criticism. I have never been angry at you, nor do I hold any ill feelings towards you. I was surprised to find that you once felt otherwise. The truth is, I feel no ill towards you, Divebomb, either. I'm just saddened by some of your comments, that seem to come from a poorly conceived line of thinking.

Comatose, you are right, I have nothing to feel sorry for. After all, I am not at fault for Divebomb's behavior. I have made every attempt to keep this on an even level, above the belt so to speak. Heck, a little give and take is fun sometimes, and often helps to lead to a better understanding. Divebomb, however, you have taken this to a personal level, for reasons that you have yet to logically explain. I am not hurt, far from it. I am not afraid of what you have to say. In fact, because of your ignorant statements, I know that my position is strong, because you cannot think of any sensible argument to refute what I have said. Thank you, therefore, for making me realize that I am closer to truth than perhaps I thought I was before.

If THAT sounds condescending, then too bad. You put your own foot in your own mouth, after all. No, I am not sorry for you, rather, I feel pity, and perhaps for only that reason I am sorry. There is nothing else I can do to show how I feel during my arguments. If you don't get it from my original posts, then you should be able to see it in plain English in follow-up posts. R-E-A-D. T-H-I-N-K. If you want condescending, then here is a real taste of it. Finally, for once, I am guilty of what you have ignorantly claimed before. So, go ahead and feel justified for your ridiculous behavior now.

[Erin]

I believe the original question was in regards to sin. I also guess santa claus is in there at some point.

Quote from the english oxford dictionary

sin1
/sin/

• noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offence.

• verb (sinned, sinning) commit a sin.

— PHRASES live in sin informal, dated (of an unmarried couple) live together.

— DERIVATIVES sinless adjective.

— ORIGIN Old English, probably related to Latin sons ‘guilty’.

end quote

As for santa claus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and any other idols used by different religious sects. Yes they all are real, they are real because every single parent is each of the above, we are santa claus, the tooth fairy the easter bunny. In a world filled with wars murder and cruelity our children need something to grasp onto.

On a personal note I dont see anyone asking if god exists? Same basic principle. Is it a sin to tell our children that god exists?

[Stars]

On a personal note I dont see anyone asking if god exists? Same basic principle. Is it a sin to tell our children that god exists?

Now that is an entirely different discussion indeed. God, you see, is believed to exist by the vast majority of people in this world. I'm not one to jump on a bandwagon, so I'm not suggesting that numbers make truth. What I am saying is that there are very credible arguments for the existence of God, so much so that most people believe in Him (note: I use "Him" because that is how we are used to calling Him, although I cannot possibly fathom His being). As for Santa, no one believes (except duped children) that he exists, because there are no credible arguments for Mr. Claus (which is, a fat hairy guy that flies with magic reindeer spreading Christmas Spirit and presents to only the people that he feels are good).

Erin, you are either a brave person or an evil instigator for bringing up the question of God.

[Comatose]

It is really funny. I told my boss that my son asked if Santa existed. I told her that I told him that he didn’t exist and that I explained to him about Christmas, and the traditions associated with Christmas. Her reaction really surprised me. She said that she believed in Santa, but I thought she was only kidding and I chuckled a little bit. Then she got a serious look on her face and said, “I really believe in Santa.” No she is not deranged and she is actually one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. Like many of the views expressed in this forum she believed in the spirit of Christmas. She called that spirit Santa Claus. She is not an atheist, but she doesn’t follow any one religion. She believes in different parts of different religions. She and I have had many conversations, and even though I have a very strong Christian background we have found ways to discuss religion in a meaningful way. Even though I disagree with her stance in many ways we have wonderful conversations because we can state what we feel without saying to the other person that their position is wrong but that we think another way about that topic.

There are two reasons I wrote this. One is to point out that there are even some adults that believe in Santa. My boss is 50 years old. There are so many ideas and who are we to say they are right or wrong. It is still as valid an opinion then any others. Two, and yes this is directed to Stars, because of your anger I believe you missed the point of my post. The point is every person on this earth has a mind, and we will all think differently on at least one topic. If we want to be heard we have to work hard to say things in a way that people will be willing to listen. So many times I have read your posts and just rolled my eyes because of the way you have put things. Stars this has been a battle for quite some time. I want to believe that you have a desire to learn but I have a hard time believing it when you defend your words when so many have told you that those words are not being received the way they have been meant. I would think that would be the perfect signal for you to realize that you need to be more careful about how you treat others opinions. I say how you treat others opinions because it is not a problem when you express your opinions but when you make your ideas better than another persons ideas.

One last thing before I wrap up this long post. If my boss believes in Santa, but doesn’t totally acknowledge a God, does that make her wrong? That was of course a rhetorical question. I really don’t want to start a thread about God vs. Santa.(that was santa not satan, btw) The point again is that her ideas about things are just as valid as mine.

[Comatose]

woops. I missed Erins personal note about if God exists. While I agree for me that it is a bit different for others it really isn't that different as my post above points out. I have tried to convince or argue the point to more than one atheist that God exists. It would be about the same as me trying to convince many if not all of you that Santa exists. *shrug*

[Stars]

(that was santa not satan, btw)

Sheesh, talk about starting discussions...

Personally, I think the existence of God is obvious. I have such a hard time understanding how anyone could be convinced any other explanation for the origin of existence is adequate. God is the only description I have heard that covers everything. Every other hypothosis or theory I have heard seems insufficient, so far. Of course, I cannot say that I will never hear an alternate explanation some day that does explain it all, but that day has yet to come.
I have heard someone say that the universe itself is some sort of eternal device that perpetually recreates itself, or something like that (I'm sorry if I failed to properly describe it, but it has been a while since I heard it--I hope I got the basics of it right). But two things stick out with this explanation. First, could this just be a case of replacing the word "God" with "universe"? Second, if the universe is not God, then how does the universe exist in the first place? A thing cannot create itself, so it had to come from somewhere. Why not an eternal God that has no origin (because he is the creator of the universe of time and space, and thus not subject to its rules) to explain how things came about?
The greatest argument I have heard to refute this, is that if God is perfect, then why in heck would He need to create anything at all? That suggests change, and would a perfect God need change? He should, in His eternal perfection, just sit in stasis, never creating, or even moving for that matter. However, there is one quality of God that suggests why this is not true. Part of what makes up God is Love, an eternal Love that is as perfect as He is. It is His very nature to create and to love. That is part of his perfection.

And now my children are acting out because I am not giving them enough attention. If anyone cares, then I will continue this or any other discussion. If you prefer privacy, then send me an email or note in BR. I am not trying to convert anyone to some religion. I simply enjoy a pleasant conversation.

Take care.

[Bluestar]

Oh you guys! You make me laugh and laugh!

*blink* What? I'm innocent!

Bluei

[Joysinger]

i understand divebomb.
i understand stars.
both can sometimes be thought of as talking down to others.
yes, there was a time when i thought you did quite frequently do so, dive. however, i now also think you've stopped that (well, that's unless you start argueing with stars on here ).
stars, you might not mean to, but you frequently make this impression on others, as you can see from their answers, which might often not be polite in return, either.
looking at the fruitlessness of all these arguements that seem to repeat themselves (doesn't anyone else notice that?), i think stars just can't help it. it's hard to change yourself, and please don't start discussing whether one has to want this or not. stars is the way he is. personally, i read his notes and when i don't feel they're appropriate, i usually ignore them. or i skip them entirely and return to the thread after someone else has posted. sadly, most of the time, the thread then will go entirely off-track and end up as a battle of opinions spiced up with between-the-lines and typed out insults. they totally ruin the thread for me, and eventually others, too?

[Erin]

Erin, you are either a brave person or an evil instigator for bringing up the question of God.

I dont believe I am either of the above. Al I was pointing out was that in every so called myth, there tends to be some hint of truth. I dont follow any religion or have any real thoughts on it. All I was pointing out is that santa claus is something most children use as a good so called pick me up in what is in the end a cruel world. Just as some people use their religious icons as a pick me up.

I use the word pick me up because I admit to lacking in words to cover exactly what I mean. Heck I've never claimed to know everything, I prefer to admit I know very little but atleast I admit it and dont try to be something that clearly I am not.

Just because there is no physical proof that santa claus exists in moderns time does not mean he never existed (apart from magical slays and stuff, which we know to be fantasy). Then again I havn't seen proof in the existance of any icons. except as always something someone wrote down years and years ago. I never started out to have a religious debate but If you fancy a debate I am more than willing to exchange emails as I dont think people wanna keep reading us lot debating things that we cant change anyway.
What makes us all so special is the fact that we dont agree on everything, hell that's what makes life interesting.

[Divebomb]

Anyone who has taken so much as an introduction to Philosophy class can give a handful of arguments both for and against the existence of God. All of them are flawed in at least a highly technical sense, some less so than others.

You're right... numbers mean nothing. Look at slavery, women's oppression, etc. The numbers supported those in their time.

Gods (like Greek and Roman for instance) were originally created to explain the inexplicable. They controlled nature and the growth of crops. Science has more or less proven what causes weather patterns and vegetation.

The concept of a God of any kind has persisted because it is so widespread and because it is passed down from generation to generation. To doubt the existence of a God hundreds of years ago would result in death... it does not now.. why is that? Perhaps because people are slowly (evolutionly?) coming to the realization that maybe God isn't the end-all/be-all answer to everything.

Like Santa, perhaps "God", the word, has different implications to each person. Perhaps "God", to each person, is really the answer to the questions they cannot answer and serves as a comfort in life. This certainly would account for a world where it's acceptable to believe or not believe in different deities. I'm sure all of have heard (or said ourselves) someone say "it must be this way because God wills it so". It's an explanation for something they have no other explanation for. They do not run around saying "The sun rises because God wills it so". They (now) say the sun rises because the earth is rotating on its axis.

I believe one of the big inexplicable questions is that people want a "God" in order to explain what happens after death. The major religion that does not believe in Gods of any kind (Buddhism) believes in reincarnation - that is their explanation for what happens after death (btw, for those that didn't know, Buddha is not a "god"). People want to believe life has a purpose - why? I have no idea. Probably simply because our intellect and capacity to learn and understand is too great to accept that there can be nothing but ashes after we die. It's not an outrageous theory, I can certainly understand it. I have not decided if I ascribe to it or not, though.


Just for final kicks (notice the 2 spaces between paragraphs to separate this). Here's one of the anti-God arguments. I have included the logical argument in () for those familiar with formal logic.

1) God is one and only one. (A)
2) God is all powerful. (B)
3) If God is all powerful, God can do anything. (B>C)
4) If God can do anything, God can make me equal to God. (C>D)
5) If God can make me equal to God, God is not one and only one. (D > ~A)
6) Therefore: God is a self-contradiction (A&~A). This is a logically valid argument. The only challenges you can make are to prove that any of #1-#5 are false statements.

[Stars]

I believe one of the big inexplicable questions is that people want a "God" in order to explain what happens after death.

Probably simply because our intellect and capacity to learn and understand is too great to accept that there can be nothing but ashes after we die.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, DB. But my biggest questions have to do with origin, not death. I can accept that whatever energy that provides "life" ends after death (although the material that makes up a body will continue on through an unknown amount of time). Then again, some physicists might say that energy is never lost or gained (except for some pretty funky ideas I'm not familiar with), therefore that life energy is simply moved or changed in some way. It doesn't really matter, however, because death is inevitable, and I will either care or not care when the time comes. No, where did we come from? That is the question I am most concerned with.

I'm sure all of have heard (or said ourselves) someone say "it must be this way because God wills it so". It's an explanation for something they have no other explanation for.

I can see this in my own arguments for God. There is no other acceptable answer for the unexplainable origin of existence, so why not make up some equally unexplainable God as its creator? If that were all that I had to go on, then I would have to slip my coat back on the hanger and go sit down again. Heaven knows that would not be enough. There are other reasons, which can be difficult to describe sometimes. I have heard some people describe the "experiential" proof of God. They claim that God exists, because they have "felt" His presence on some unseen spiritual level. While I do not doubt their sincerity, I have personally had no such divine revelations. No, in the end, I must use logic, although flawed (because it is as limited as I am). Admittedly, I cannot use logic to prove that God exists, because we are dealing with absolutes beyond my understanding. Regardless, I can only play with the cards I am dealt. My argument here is simple. Everything (according to our perspective) has a beginning and an end (because we are born and then die). While this may not apply to the universe (because I don't know what the universe really is), it is the only understandable view we have of it. Therefore, the universe (time, space, energy) had to come from somewhere. A thing cannot create itself, and the word "creation" inherently implies there is a creator. Even if we did not use creation as the word, any other word for beginning implies some source for that beginning; a mother, for the birth of a child; a mind, for the foundation of an idea.

Just for final kicks (notice the 2 spaces between paragraphs to separate this). Here's one of the anti-God arguments. I have included the logical argument in () for those familiar with formal logic.

1) God is one and only one. (A)
2) God is all powerful. (B)
3) If God is all powerful, God can do anything. (B>C)
4) If God can do anything, God can make equal to God. (C>D)
5) If God can make me equal to God, God is not one and only one. (D > ~A)
6) Therefore: God is a self-contradiction (A&~A). This is a logically valid argument. The only challenges you can make are to prove that any of #1-#5 are false statements.

There are two ways to look at this. I’ll describe the one that flat out refutes this idea first. The reasoning behind this argument is flawed, because it suggests something that is “impossible”. God is perfect, and can do anything, right? What we need to do is understand what this really means. In order to do a thing, that thing must have some sort of value in order to be done. To say, for instance, that God can do anything, therefore He can make turn Himself into an ordinary house fly without His previous powers (and thus unable to return to His previous greatness) is to describe a situation that has no possibility because God is eternal and unequaled. There is no value to this, merely because of the definition of God. In other words, 1 does not equal 0. This is very much like that old math riddle that goes as follows:

a=b Given
a^2=ab Multiply both sides by a
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 Subract b^2 from both sides
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Factor both sides
a+b=b Divide both sides by (a-b)
b+b=b Substitute b for a since a=b
2b=b Combine like terms
2=1 Divide both sides by b

This doesn’t work, because we know that you cannot divide by (a-b), because that has a value of 0. If something has a value of 0, then it cannot be used in Divebomb’s equation, making the whole argument valueless.

The second way to look at Divebomb’s argument is to say that God already created His equal (long before He created us), and therefore the argument cannot be used to refute His existence. In the Bible, Colossians 1:14-16 (because it is the only source I have to describe this idea), it says, “14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”. Now, I’m not saying that the Bible is perfect, and you must all bow down now to its awesome wisdom. I’m just using it as a way to describe an idea accepted by many people with the purpose of suggesting that DB’s riddle has different answers. It’s not my place to tell you what to believe in. I’m sure you can make those judgments on your own.

The next question here; why in wild world of sports would God do such a thing? God is so unexplainable, so unreachable, so beyond our understanding that there had to be some mediator to reach us. I have heard some Christians say that God speaking to us is like one of us trying to speak to the fish in an aquarium. Sure, we are there to help them and feed them, but to them we are some massive and dangerous beast. We have no way to express our love to the fish because we are not on the same level. God, therefore, sent us someone who would be able to show us God on a level we can relate to.

Once again, I am not telling you what to believe in. I'm just looking for possible answers to some very good questions.

Ok, I hope I haven’t thrown anyone off here by referring to the Christian faith, but I just want to show more arguments for the existence of God (no matter what religion), which is where this conversation has led us now.

[Divebomb]

I’ll describe the one that flat out refutes this idea first. The reasoning behind this argument is flawed, because it suggests something that is “impossible”. God is perfect, and can do anything, right? What we need to do is understand what this really means. In order to do a thing, that thing must have some sort of value in order to be done. To say, for instance, that God can do anything, therefore He can make turn Himself into an ordinary house fly without His previous powers (and thus unable to return to His previous greatness) is to describe a situation that has no possibility because God is eternal and unequaled.

You didn't refute it, you supported it.

That's exactly the point. You even quoted the Christian faith as a mode support for your argument. I, too, used the Judeo-Christian viewpoint of God in the premises of the argument. The point is, under the very definition we are given for God, the concept of God is impossible. Even God cannot do the impossible, therefore God is not perfect, God is not all-powerful, God is, in essence, flawed.

But religions all say God is not flawed. How can this be?

You can say that God is not all powerful. ("unequaled") OR
You can say that God is not the only God. ("eteranl")
and you will have easily refuted the argument. But by doing so, you would have to admit that God is not really God at all.

[Stars]

What you are doing is saying that 1 = 0. Since 1 does not equal 0, then the argument is flawed. Saying that you can pass through a solid wall does not pass you through a solid wall. We can make as many outrageous claims as we like, but it doesn't change what is or is not. There are only two alternatives to any given single situation. A thing is, or it is not. To say that God cannot do something is not true, because the thing you describe is not a "something" to be done. You are saying that God can do something that is nothing, or God can do that nothing. I suppose that is true, God can and will do nothing, which is to say that nothing will be done in that regard. Impossibility is not the correct word here, I suppose, because we somehow view it as a limit to the limitless. I wish I could describe this as well as C. S. Lewis does in his book "The Problem of Pain". I forget how he addresses this question, but if you are interested, read the book. He is a fascinating and brilliant man.