46 replies to this topic

[luvsmyncis]

In fact, the more religious you are, the more sinful you feel and the more sensitive you are to sins.

The more religious you are, the more you feel qualified to judge other people for their sins.

[Bone]

Speaking of sin, I could really go for some Cinnabon right now.

[redlion]

Ever since fallen of Adam, we have inherited the original sin so sin has become a part of human nature (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God). Everyone exhibits some forms of sin but no one can escape from sin on his own. In fact, the more religious you are, the more sinful you feel and the more sensitive you are to sins. Whereas on the other hand, the more sinful a person is, the less sinful the person feel and more numb the person is to sins. That's why apostle Paul said he is the worst among sinners.

For a second I thought you were GarenaMaster.

Thank god you're just a christian.

[Romy]

Ever since fallen of Adam, we have inherited the original sin so sin has become a part of human nature (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God). Everyone exhibits some forms of sin but no one can escape from sin on his own. In fact, the more religious you are, the more sinful you feel and the more sensitive you are to sins. Whereas on the other hand, the more sinful a person is, the less sinful the person feel and more numb the person is to sins. That's why apostle Paul said he is the worst among sinners.

What's your stance on Cyborgs?

[Grandmaster]

The more religious you are, the more you feel qualified to judge other people for their sins.

 

Actually, only God can judge, no one else can. Just like how everyone left when Jesus told the people who brought the woman who committed adultery "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her".

 

However, nowsdays, the word "judge" is being used too loosely. Just because a religious person express his view on certain issues based on the Bible does not mean he is judging anything. It's just like a lawyer expressing his view on certain issues based on the laws but ultimately the judgement lies on the judge, not the lawyer.

 

What's your stance on Cyborgs?

 

Can you elaborate more specifically which aspects of it? Also, are you referring to the cyborgs in real life or in flims?

[allzero]

The difference between a 'good' and 'bad' person is perception. I think even the shittiest person you know probably had at least one person who saw them as a friend.

[Cass]

Well if you ask the spiders I'm the shittiest person alive. I'm a mass murderer.

[Cyo]

Dunno, I think I'm a pretty aight dude.

[Mandie]

I'm not a nice person by the world's standards.

[theorange]

It all depends on your perspective, and if you care what other people think about you.

 

If you don't care what other people think about you, it really doesn't matter does it? Its all subjective, there isn't necessarily a "true bad" or "true good", its all peoples opinions on things, even if 1 person things one way, and 100 people think the other way, it doesn't make one way right or wrong.

[redlion]

It all depends on your perspective, and if you care what other people think about you.
 
If you don't care what other people think about you, it really doesn't matter does it? Its all subjective, there isn't necessarily a "true bad" or "true good", its all peoples opinions on things, even if 1 person things one way, and 100 people think the other way, it doesn't make one way right or wrong.

Moral relativism is a trap. Arguing from that stand point leads to inevitably flawed views. Is it right that inuit families abandon weak children in the snow? Is it right that albino children in africa are killed and chopped up for use in religious ceremonies?

These case studies may be less true today than they were when written (my Ethics book was written thirty years ago) but the point remains that some things are universally wrong.

The idea that some morals are universal is the basis of international law in our society. The universal declaration of human rights, the Geneva Accords, etc, were all constructed and ratified on the basis that (among other things) no one should be subjected to slave labor if they're captured in war.

[Romy]

Moral relativism is a trap. Arguing from that stand point leads to inevitably flawed views. Is it right that inuit families abandon weak children in the snow? Is it right that albino children in africa are killed and chopped up for use in religious ceremonies?

What designates something as "flawed" however?

[redlion]

What designates something as "flawed" however?

An argument is flawed primarily if it is not sound. There are other ways to be flawed (logical fallacies mainly), but here we're talking about the basic form of argumentation, the syllogism. What follows is

A BRIEF SOJOURN INTO FORMAL LOGIC
with
HERREN GODEL, ARISTOTLE und RUSSELL

Spoiler

A sound argument would be one in which (1) the conclusion follows logically from the premise (in other words, it's valid), and (2) all of the premises are true.

An example of a flawed or unsound argument would be

All organisms with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

This is a valid argument (the consequence follows logically from the premise) but not sound because the first premise is not true.

Formal logic ftfw!

[Josh]

The more religious you are, the more you feel qualified to judge other people for their sins.

 

Are you speaking on behalf of the rest of the world who identify themselves as being religious?

 

Grandmaster, I highly recommend learning how to focus your writing, especially coming from a religious background in the debate section. It took me awhile to learn, but once you learn how to pick out the meaningful responses from the facetious ones it becomes a lot more manageable. 

Edited by Josh, 04 August 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[Romy]

An argument is flawed primarily if it is not sound. There are other ways to be flawed (logical fallacies mainly), but here we're talking about the basic form of argumentation, the syllogism. What follows is

A BRIEF SOJOURN INTO FORMAL LOGIC
with
HERREN GODEL, ARISTOTLE und RUSSELL

Spoiler

A sound argument would be one in which (1) the conclusion follows logically from the premise (in other words, it's valid), and (2) all of the premises are true.

An example of a flawed or unsound argument would be

All organisms with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

This is a valid argument (the consequence follows logically from the premise) but not sound because the first premise is not true.

Formal logic ftfw!

 

So why is leaving a baby in the snow an "unsound" or "flawed" decision?

[Josh]

So why is leaving a baby in the snow an "unsound" or "flawed" decision?

 

I'm interested in knowing this as well. Some cultures have come up with practices that they deem perfectly acceptable and have done this via their own free will. At what universal reference point do we compare their culture in order to conclude they are flawed? 

[Romy]

At what universal reference point do we compare their culture in order to conclude they are flawed? 

Exactly.

There isn't one.

 

You can't objectively say that any set of morals is "more correct" then any other.

[redlion]

So why is leaving a baby in the snow an "unsound" or "flawed" decision?

Sorry, did you just hear yourself say that?

[Romy]

Sorry, did you just hear yourself say that?

Answer the question.

 

"Because it's a baby" is not a valid answer.

[Junjie]

But isn't bad or good, right or wrong, when you come down to it, about how to live life better? Sorry if this makes my post off-topic by the way, by not talking about soundness or validity of arguments and so on, but I thought this was more essential when it comes to morality. So, if you go by that, leaving a baby in the snow to die is not quite a good idea, because you're basically saying that screw helpless human lives that are under my power/care, I will just get them to die. And, this may be debatable, but that's probably not going to help you live a very good life, particularly in an Inuit society which requires everyone to work together in such conditions in order to survive. Instead you're more likely to end up callous, selfish, distrustful (since, for example, if you could do that to others, you would soon realise that others could easily do similar things to you), and so on. So it's not that it's "moral relativism", but more of like it just doesn't make sense for a human being to do that.

[masxed]

 

• Lust - Hooooly shit that Big Mac looks tasty, I'd eat the hell out of that Big Mac.
• Gluttony - Super size me motherfuckers.
• Greed - Super size me motherfuckers.
• Sloth - *yawn* Is it time for a Big Mac yet?
• Wrath - If I don't get a fucking big mac meal in the next 10 minutes I will go fifty shades of pregnant on your ass.
• Envy - Why does this bitch get to watch her kids play in the ball pit while she eats her Big Mac and I'm sitting here waiting, that's not fair.
• Pride - Success! The Big Mac is mine! I am the champion of demanding Big Macs!
  
  (The above is me determining that by your standards, I am a really shitty human being when I am hungry.)

 

LEGIT   Rofl can't stop laughing at this post.

 

 

As to answer the OPs question, just observe how much you contribute to others/the rest of the world versus how much energy you devote to yourself and it will become apparent weather you are a good person or not. Everyone will be a certain mix but observe your intent and what you lean towards in life.