To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-01-2017, 07:47 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 10:09 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 09:04 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Please read the following web-page: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/iag...oming-gods
Becoming Gods

Putz.
I guess I'll never understand the compulsion to troll.

What an idiotic article. It gets about a D-.
Under the guise of academic wanking he actually never even defines his terms, says what a "god" is or how it is we are becoming what the title claims.
Fail

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-01-2017, 08:06 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(09-01-2017 07:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 10:09 PM)pablo Wrote:  Putz.
I guess I'll never understand the compulsion to troll.

What an idiotic article. It gets about a D-.
Under the guise of academic wanking he actually never even defines his terms, says what a "god" is or how it is we are becoming what the title claims.
Fail

Just another theist with rampant mouth VD mate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
09-01-2017, 08:45 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  We are not agreeing to definitions because the participants here wanting to restrict the vocabulary within a religious context.
As I said, "We should not be looking for similarities that aren't there, we should be defining which meaning we are using and stick with it." It is not a question of arbitrary exclusion, it is a question of picking which meaning rather than randomly conflating meanings.
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  However, when adjoining atheism into the discussion, we have to use the broader denotations and definitions. One can bandy about synonyms, but these tend to muddy the waters. It is better for the theist and the atheist to agree that "sin" is a transgression against a rule, law, ordinance, or even an accepted norm, irrespective of a deity.
Except that sin, like worship, is a religious concept and has meaning AS a religious concept. Metaphorical / hyperbolic usages of the word outside the religious context clearly cannot shed light on a discussion of the religious concept, just as bringing theological arguments into a discussion of the secular usage would not be helpful either.

Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't handle or understand or am not interested in or am offended by discussion of a religious concept. In fact, as a former believer, I'm actually quite interested in such discussions, as I believe it's helpful to theists who have doubts, just as it would have been for me.
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Worship, too, must be expanded beyond the religious norms of rites and traditions. Our English is peppered with expanded meanings, such as "He practices his weight lifting program religiously."
Why MUST it be? Because you imagine it violates some notion of political correctness on the part of unbelievers? Because we are devoid of any ability to understand or discuss the actual concepts in their actual proper context?
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  "If we look at the matter from a psychological standpoint, one condition is evident in every instance; it may be consciously realized or it may be nascent, but there iit is—a sense of need. Even if to the individual the act be a mere form imposed by external authority, the imposition implies a realization by someone of this need, while the act often creates the conscious feeling on the part of the one who performs it.
What does this word salad of yours even mean? Everything everyone does is driven by some sort of need and influenced by emotion. Make a useful observation, why don't you?
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  "Professor Leuba points out the “religion in its objective manifestation appears as actions, attitudes, creeds, and institutions; in its subjective expression it consists of impulses, desires, purposes, feelings, emotions, and ideas, connected as cause and as effect with the religious reactions and attitudes.” Worship may be seen as “objective manifestationPsychological Discussion of Worship” or as “subjective expressions,” and both, to a certain extent, are cause and effect. In the crudest worship there is a degree of subjective expression (feeling and desire) acting as cause, but the objective manifestation often reacts, intensifies, and makes conscious that subjective expression, and then is itself the cause."
I don't have time this morning to read the link, but I'm guessing that if I do, the esteemed professor will be discussing the psychology of ONE definition of worship: the religious one.
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Again, our English language is peppered with the words worship that have nothing to do with religion: "He worships the ground she walks on."
I hope by now (in vain, I'm sure) that you understand that this is entirely beside the actual point. "He" does not literally "worship" the ground expecting to curry favor with the ground. It is a double hyperbole: his adoration for the woman has some characteristics similar to religious worship, and he adores her so ardently that it extends to the very ground she walks on. It's a METAPHOR for actual worship of supernatural entities, it is an attempt to be EVOCATIVE but not to conjure the actual thing being evoked.

It is no different than the old joke among network technicians when they can't figure out what's causing a problem: "Well, I guess we'll have to sacrifice a token ring adapter to the network gods". It is a JOKE, not literal religious worship or religious sacrifice to literal gods or an actual belief that gods control computer networks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
09-01-2017, 08:55 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(09-01-2017 08:45 AM)mordant Wrote:  It is no different than the old joke among network technicians when they can't figure out what's causing a problem: "Well, I guess we'll have to sacrifice a token ring adapter to the network gods".

Two weeks later he'll be quoting this as an example of what the heathens get up to in their spare time Facepalm Also... FEAR THE NETWORK GODS! FEAR THEM!

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
09-01-2017, 09:16 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 04:54 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 07:42 AM)SYZ Wrote:  You're welcome to "submit" this notion, but unless one is a theist, it's meaningless. Worship is defined specifically as the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity, or the reverent honour and homage paid to God or a sacred personage...

Again, the notion of theism and atheism are mere psychological and philosophical concepts. I'll ignore the insult, as it appears you are lacking in both areas.

You're so embarrassingly wrong about atheism that it hurts me! You obviously have not the faintest idea of what it actually is.

I am pleased though to see that you acknowledge that the notion [a vague or imperfect perception or idea ] of theism only exists in one's brain, and has no basis in reality. A small win for atheism I guess? Cool

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
09-01-2017, 10:02 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
The article he posted in Psychology Today isn't about literally becoming gods, either. It's about the wealthy getting to enhance, extend, and improve their lives in numerous ways (including epigenetic and social factors that give their offspring cumulative advantage) while the poor suffer and continue to suffer relatively decreasing levels of health, self-determination, and general welfare.

At the end, he makes a reference to the Morlocks and the Eloi from The Time Machine, I suppose trying to drive home his point that some humans are becoming godlike while others continue to live in relatively barbaric conditions. The irony is that even The Time Machine doesn't describe these human sub-species as gods and not-gods, but as tech-free, innocent food animals and the technology-deranged monsters who prey upon them.

I'm trying to figure out what the point of linking to it was, and why I wasted my time reading it, looking for his point.

All we seem to have here is another person who can't grasp that a word which possesses more than one definition doesn't mean you get to use something that falls under definition #2 as an example of that thing also possessing the characteristics in definition #1 and #3 "because words".

It's a sin just how many guys we get in here who all sound exactly like this one.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
09-01-2017, 10:23 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  We are not agreeing to definitions because the participants here wanting to restrict the vocabulary within a religious context.

That is correct. There is a distinct lack of agreement here.

Quote:However, when adjoining atheism into the discussion, we have to use the broader denotations and definitions.

No, not going to do that. I prefer to use "sin" specifically for behaviours that allegedly annoy gods.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Astreja's post
09-01-2017, 11:18 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  We are not agreeing to definitions because the participants here wanting to restrict the vocabulary within a religious context.

That is the context in which those words are used. Your broadening their definitions weakens them and confuses the meaning.

Quote:However, when adjoining atheism into the discussion, we have to use the broader denotations and definitions.

No, we don't. 'Sin' is a religious concept and not applicable in other settings except humorously or hyperbolically.

Quote:One can bandy about synonyms, but these tend to muddy the waters. It is better for the theist and the atheist to agree that "sin" is a transgression against a rule, law, ordinance, or even an accepted norm, irrespective of a deity.

It is your over-broad use of those terms that muddies the waters.

Quote:Worship, too, must be expanded beyond the religious norms of rites and traditions. Our English is peppered with expanded meanings, such as "He practices his weight lifting program religiously."

No, it mustn't. Mushing meanings together impoverishes the language and decreases clarity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Chas's post
09-01-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(09-01-2017 06:43 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(08-01-2017 10:20 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  We are not agreeing to definitions because the participants here wanting to restrict the vocabulary within a religious context.

No, the participants here want to restrict the vocabulary to one definition of a word at a time. Conflating multiple definitions and usages only serves to make clear communication impossible. Equivocation is not an argument.

Quote:However, when adjoining atheism into the discussion, we have to use the broader denotations and definitions.

No, we really don't. If we are discussing religious beliefs then words like 'sin' and 'worship' and 'faith' have meanings within a religious context that differ significantly from their use within a secular context. If you want to look at the way a religious person uses the words vs the way a secular person does then that could be interesting but simply saying that because the same word can be used there is some equivalence in meaning is just nonsense.

Quote:One can bandy about synonyms, but these tend to muddy the waters.

Only one person here is trying to muddy the waters.

Quote:It is better for the theist and the atheist to agree that "sin" is a transgression against a rule, law, ordinance, or even an accepted norm, irrespective of a deity.

That isn't what a theist means by that word though. The deity is an important part of the concept of sin for believers. If you remove that then the word loses meaning for them. For non-believers there is no deity involved but the word is used in a metaphorical way to imply transgressing a moral norm and often doesn't apply to minor infractions of civil laws.

Quote:Worship, too, must be expanded beyond the religious norms of rites and traditions. Our English is peppered with expanded meanings, such as "He practices his weight lifting program religiously."

Yes, it is. We have a colorful language that lets us express a lot with few words. Nobody (except maybe you) understands that sentence to mean that the person actually thinks their weights are gods but rather just that the zeal with which the person enjoys their workouts is similar to the zeal that devotees feel fro their religion. It is a metaphor, not an equivalence.

Quote:< a lot of unrelated crap about people having needs >

Yes, people need things in their lives to care about. Some focus almost exclusively on one thing while others have more varied tastes. Looking into why that seems to be the case and why people choose different things is a valid topic. Insisting that the literal use of "worship" for the religious and the metaphorical use of "worship" for secular means they are doing the same thing doesn't help make that point though.

Quote:Again, our English language is peppered with the words worship that have nothing to do with religion: "He worships the ground she walks on."

You appear to be unable to distinguish between the literal and the poetic uses of words. He isn't worshiping the ground and he isn't worshiping her in the same sense that a theist worships their god.

(08-01-2017 10:58 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of sin

1. 1a : an offense against religious or moral law
2. b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food>
3. c : an often serious shortcoming : fault

Words have multiple definitions and how a word is used in context tells us which definition is intended by the speaker. The definitions may be related, even overlapping, but they are not identical and conflating them makes your message garbled.

Quote:Synonym Discussion of sin
offense, resentment, umbrage, pique, dudgeon, huff mean an emotional response to or an emotional state resulting from a slight or indignity. offense implies hurt displeasure <takes deep offense at racial slurs>. resentment suggests lasting indignation or ill will <harbored a lifelong resentment of his brother>. umbrage may suggest hurt pride, resentment, or suspicion of another's motives <took umbrage at the offer of advice>. pique applies to a transient feeling of wounded vanity <in a pique I foolishly declined the invitation>. dudgeon suggests an angry fit of indignation <stormed out of the meeting in high dudgeon>. huff implies a peevish short-lived spell of anger usually at a petty cause <in a huff he slammed the door>.

Words have synonyms that can sometimes be exact matches or may convey different nuances of meaning. Those nuances are important and you seem to be ignoring them entirely. If those nuances didn't exist then we wouldn't use different words to express different facets of an idea.

As far as I can tell, you have a very black and white view of the world. That is making it harder for you to describe things to people who see in color. We see pale red and pale blue and you want to make us call it light gray.

Metaphors, synonyms, equivocations!!!

Damnit, stop using words to express ideas it'll just confuse Where'sWaldo.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
09-01-2017, 01:56 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(06-01-2017 02:03 AM)theBorg Wrote:  I am asking the opinion of theists, not the nonsense of the false atheists.

If you are the "atheist", please, play here the theist.

If you are angry (or else-way unfriendly), please go away, do not garbage mine thread!

Angry

Atheist = not a theist
False Atheist = someone falsely claiming to be not a theist = theist!

Therefore, this:
(06-01-2017 02:03 AM)theBorg Wrote:  I am asking the opinion of theists, not the nonsense of the false atheists.
actually says this:
I am asking the opinion of theists, not the nonsense of the theists. Facepalm

==================================

"atheist" = not really an atheist, but falsely claiming to be one = theist

So this:
(06-01-2017 02:03 AM)theBorg Wrote:  If you are the "atheist", please, play here the theist.
actually says this:
If you are the theist, please, play here the theist. Facepalm

==================================

(06-01-2017 02:03 AM)theBorg Wrote:  If you are angry (or else-way unfriendly), please go away, do not garbage mine thread!
The OP is garbage so it's already too late. Garbage in, garbage out. Drinking Beverage

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: