The definition of sin

Everybodyknows · Dec 16, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
And how does a person with that position approach morality? I asked you if you were saying that moral nihilists are psychopaths, and you said no. Would a moral nihilist rescue an infant from a burning building? If so, why? Perhaps... because it's obvious to them that they should?

You're the nihilist, you tell me what motivates you and what dictates what you ought to do? A radical nihilist would not even use the terms right and wrong or moral and immoral in their vocabulary.

Intellectually, I understand that morality is a fiction that we invented. There is no right or wrong. But that is not how I'm going to live my life.

This is why I'm confused. You hold the ideology of nihilism but you reject it when it comes to its application in living life. That's probably because nihilism is a dead end philosophy and has no useful application in living life. You wear the t-shirt but you don't live your life that way. Wouldn't it be more authentic to just accept whatever moral philosophy you actually live in practice?

But empathy would be more like a vector than simply a value. It's not like you either have empathy or you don't. Empathy can be directionalized. You said so yourself with your example of how you have descending levels of empathy for animals that are less and less related to us. I pointed out that one could have no empathy for a Nazi, while having empathy for his friends.

So I'd like you to explain how this psychological test would work. Perhaps you kill a cat in front of me, and I feel some emotional discomfort but not a lot. But then you kill *my* cat in front of me and my reaction is much different. And maybe you can recognize that I have a general feeling of empathy for humans that is higher than what I feel for cats - even my own cat - but then you go and kill a child molester in front of me and you don't sense that I have any emotional reaction. So there is not necessarily a clear hierarchy wherein I favor one species over another. The test that you're proposing is utterly unfeasible.

I don't know much about this topic. There are various psychological tests that place subjects on some kind of empathy scale. It's probably a crude tool but nonetheless we could make some kind of general comparison of empathy levels. Then we could see if your proposition is true that people with a higher empathy score would be more likely to agree with the statement "eating meat is wrong". The reason I'm pushing this point is that I'm dubious of your claim. But you raise a good point there in that it is not merely having empathy but also the way we apply that empathy. We don't value animal life as much as human life in general and it is certainly not obvious that we should.

When I say, "It is obviously wrong to kill" that is shorthand for, "It is obvious to anyone with acute empathy that killing would be offensive to one's sense of empathy in much the same way that eating a bowl of salt would be offensive to one's sense of taste."

I find this a little tautological, it's saying that to one that finds an action wrong it is obviously wrong. To one who values all life equally it goes without saying that they would find deliberately killing any creature wrong. The thing is we don't value animal life equally to human life, and we don't even value all human life equally as you have said. Why do you think we should value animal life equally?

Morality as an abstract concept is a fiction. We sense morality through our empathy - here, it is not an abstract concept but rather a subjective experience.

I see morality as the sum of our collective experiences of labeling actions right and wrong. Morality is collectively defined and not an individual experience.

Would a skeptic accept the law of non-contradiction as absolutely true, or would a skeptic only accept it tentatively and to the degree of certainty that is warranted?

The sceptic has to accept the law of non-contradiction in order to even be a skeptic. The laws of logic aren't absolute truths, they are rules that govern binary (true or false) thinking, similar to your mathematical axioms. If you can't accept that a proposition is either true or false it makes it impossible to be sceptical in regards to truth propositions.

Very good point. I was equivocating terms here.

Truth, in the sense that I think you mean it, does not exist. In the sense that I mean it, truth is something that is arbitrarily defined.

We can make a hypothetical logical system right now. All we need is some rules:

1) All families consist of a father, a mother, and two children.
2) Every boy has a sister.
3) There are more girls than boys.

In our discussion, I tacitly assumed that you would not consider any of these statements to be true. But as far as I see things, this is as far as truth can go. I've created a logical system with some rules which I've declared to be true. So everything I said above is true. We can then derive more truths from our initial set of truths, such as "There is at least one family with two girls and no boys."

Science makes some basic assumptions as well. What we would call truths. We then can derive more truths from these initial assumptions. And the scientific method is the best way to do this.

What makes scientific truths superior to truths derived from some other system?

You've nailed it. You have perfectly described nihilism, and you have explained why its rejection is unreasonable.

How is saying that every system has some rules or assumptions an explanation of nihilism? Are you saying that nihilism is free of all assumptions? Then it's rejection is as unreasonable as the rejection of solipsism. But also it's completely useless as a system because we cannot go anywhere with it nor say anything at all about reality for that matter.

You don't realize how much you already agree with it.

I understand it, I just don't find it a useful approach to living a meaningful life.

Correct. Philolsophers have given up trying to solve hard solipsism because they realized that they are unable to answer actual questions.

What is there to solve? It's an unfalsifiable position. There is no conceivable way one could prove it wrong. It's of philosophical interest because it suggests that we can only be sure of the existence of our own mind.

It just depends on how broad a definition you want to give to philolsophy. Make it too broad and you'll be forced to concede that earthworms are philolsophers.

The foundations were laid by Aristotle and the Greeks, others have contributed throughout the course of history. You don't need to be too broad, just read up on the history of the scientific method.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 16, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
You're the nihilist, you tell me what motivates you and what dictates what you ought to do? A radical nihilist would not even use the terms right and wrong or moral and immoral in their vocabulary. This is why I'm confused. You hold the ideology of nihilism but you reject it when it comes to its application in living life.

Suppose some cavers get caved in. They know they're likely to die. But it's best to act as though they won't die, so they remain calm and preserve their oxygen.

You, as a follower of Christ, ought to sell all that you have, give the money to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel - or you ought to have done this instead of starting a family. If you had the love of Christ in you, you would not hesitate in doing this.

See, there is a difference between what is true, and what we ought to do. And there's a difference between what we ought to do, and what we will do.

That's probably because nihilism is a dead end philosophy and has no useful application in living life.

Even the correct philolsophy is useless in daily life. That's how pathetic philolsophy is.

You wear the t-shirt but you don't live your life that way. Wouldn't it be more authentic to just accept whatever moral philosophy you actually live in practice?

After you, good sir.

I don't know much about this topic. There are various psychological tests that place subjects on some kind of empathy scale. It's probably a crude tool but nonetheless we could make some kind of general comparison of empathy levels. Then we could see if your proposition is true that people with a higher empathy score would be more likely to agree with the statement "eating meat is wrong".

Won't work.

The reason I'm pushing this point is that I'm dubious of your claim.

I noticed.

But you raise a good point there in that it is not merely having empathy but also the way we apply that empathy. We don't value animal life as much as human life in general and it is certainly not obvious that we should.

I never once said that we should value animal life the same as human life. I simply say that it's obviously wrong to do harm to them. You dispute this. By any chance, would you protest if a cannibal wanted to slash your throat, rip the flesh off your bones, and eat his fill?

Or how about if aliens arrived to earth, and they were of a much higher order of intelligence than humans. Would they have the right to eat our flesh, even if they did not need to do so to survive? Would they have this right because they are of a higher intelligence?

What is it that gives us the right to eat animal flesh in your opinion?

I find this a little tautological, it's saying that to one that finds an action wrong it is obviously wrong.

We're digging down to the core here and have reached rock bottom. Do you expect something profound? Do you complain about the law of identity being a tautology? "Something is what it is and is not what it is not." Do you suggest we just discard this because it is a tautology?

To one who values all life equally it goes without saying that they would find deliberately killing any creature wrong. The thing is we don't value animal life equally to human life, and we don't even value all human life equally as you have said. Why do you think we should value animal life equally?

Again, I never once said we should value animal life equally. What are you talking about?

I see morality as the sum of our collective experiences of labeling actions right and wrong. Morality is collectively defined and not an individual experience.

Therefore...?

The sceptic has to accept the law of non-contradiction in order to even be a skeptic. The laws of logic aren't absolute truths, they are rules that govern binary (true or false) thinking, similar to your mathematical axioms. If you can't accept that a proposition is either true or false it makes it impossible to be sceptical in regards to truth propositions.

You have not really clarified anything here. I asked if a skeptic should accept the law of non-contradiction either (1) absolutely or (2) tentatively and to the degree of certainty warranted. You answer by saying that the skeptic must accept this law of logic without providing the clarifying qualifier, and you then say that the laws are not absolute. So it's still not clear to me what your position is.

What makes scientific truths superior to truths derived from some other system?

Scientific truths will tell you things about physical reality. Truths in the logical system I invented will tell you nothing about physical reality.

How is saying that every system has some rules or assumptions an explanation of nihilism? Are you saying that nihilism is free of all assumptions? Then it's rejection is as unreasonable as the rejection of solipsism. But also it's completely useless as a system because we cannot go anywhere with it nor say anything at all about reality for that matter.

I never said that nihilism has any use. Only that it is the reasonable assessment of what is before us.

I thought I've made it very clear that philolsophy doesn't have much of anything to offer.

I understand it, I just don't find it a useful approach to living a meaningful life.

Again, the trapped cavers would be reasonable to know that they are likely to die, but to act as though they won't.

There is a difference between what is true and what is useful.

It's true that killing is ultimately neither right nor wrong, since right and wrong are fictions we've invented. Is that a useful approach to living one's life? I'd think not.

What is there to solve? It's an unfalsifiable position. There is no conceivable way one could prove it wrong.

Agreed.

It's of philosophical interest because it suggests that we can only be sure of the existence of our own mind.

I would dispute that.

The foundations were laid by Aristotle and the Greeks, others have contributed throughout the course of history. You don't need to be too broad, just read up on the history of the scientific method.

I'm not a historian.

Everybodyknows · Dec 17, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Suppose some cavers get caved in. They know they're likely to die. But it's best to act as though they won't die, so they remain calm and preserve their oxygen.

In that situation hanging on to life for the longest possible time is the rational thing to do regardless of how slim your chance of rescue is.

You, as a follower of Christ, ought to sell all that you have, give the money to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel - or you ought to have done this instead of starting a family. If you had the love of Christ in you, you would not hesitate in doing this.

I assume you are speaking of Luke 18:18-22. Jesus isn't stating this as a rule that everyone must follow. Jesus generally teaches principles not rules.

See, there is a difference between what is true, and what we ought to do. And there's a difference between what we ought to do, and what we will do.

What determines what you ought to do? Why as a nihilist do you even feel there are things you should do?

I never once said that we should value animal life the same as human life. I simply say that it's obviously wrong to do harm to them. You dispute this. By any chance, would you protest if a cannibal wanted to slash your throat, rip the flesh off your bones, and eat his fill?

Or how about if aliens arrived to earth, and they were of a much higher order of intelligence than humans. Would they have the right to eat our flesh, even if they did not need to do so to survive? Would they have this right because they are of a higher intelligence?

What is it that gives us the right to eat animal flesh in your opinion?

If we don't value animal life equally to human life then why is it obvious? Presumably you agree that we have a spectrum of empathy somewhat related to the intelligence of the animal. Where do you draw the line of what is wrong to eat. Out of these animals tell me which ones you would feel it is wrong to eat.
Cow
Chicken
Fish
Oyster
Zooplankton

As for rights, surely you don't think they actually exist. If super intelligent aliens wanted to eat us we would have no say in the matter. Whatever we feel about right and wrong would be utterly irrelevant to them. Might has right.

We're digging down to the core here and have reached rock bottom. Do you expect something profound?

Something a little more profound than asserting something is obviously wrong.

Do you complain about the law of identity being a tautology? "Something is what it is and is not what it is not." Do you suggest we just discard this because it is a tautology?

The law of identity is not a truth statement about reality. It's a statement about definition that is essential to accept if you're going to express yourself using language. A word is synonymous with its definition, a proposition implies itself. If you don't accept that then it renders language entirely meaningless and you cannot have a conversation about anything. I imagine it would be the same in mathematics if you reject the principle of equality, that the terms on either side of the = sign are expressing the same vale. It's just a basic assumption one must accept to progress any further, but it doesn't state a truth about reality.

You have not really clarified anything here. I asked if a skeptic should accept the law of non-contradiction either (1) absolutely or (2) tentatively and to the degree of certainty warranted. You answer by saying that the skeptic must accept this law of logic without providing the clarifying qualifier, and you then say that the laws are not absolute. So it's still not clear to me what your position is.

The same with the law of non-contradiction. It isn't a truth statement, so to say you accept it absolutely or tentatively is nonsensical. It's a rule that is inevitable if we are going to adopt binary thinking. If I don't accept that true and false are mutually exclusive then it renders skepticism meaningless because skepticism is a position in regards to truth claims.

Therefore...?

Morality is an abstraction not an experience.

Scientific truths will tell you things about physical reality. Truths in the logical system I invented will tell you nothing about physical reality.

Are scientific truths about physical reality arbitrary or objective?

I never said that nihilism has any use. Only that it is the reasonable assessment of what is before us.

I thought I've made it very clear that philolsophy doesn't have much of anything to offer.

Even the correct philolsophy is useless in daily life. That's how pathetic philolsophy is.

We are having a debate about morality so we are inevitably in the field of philosophy. You said yourself that we cannot approach morality scientifically. So philosophy can't be that useless after all. I encourage you to at least learn a little about the things you wish to criticise.

There is a difference between what is true and what is useful.

It's true that killing is ultimately neither right nor wrong, since right and wrong are fictions we've invented. Is that a useful approach to living one's life? I'd think not.

Nihilism is useless so you are approaching morality from some other philosophical stance that is useful.

Agreed.

I would dispute that.

You would dispute that solipsism is unfalsifiable after you agree that it is unfalsifiable?

Silly Uncle Wayne · Dec 17, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
However, a religion like Islam, as far as I understand, makes it absolutely clear what is considered right and wrong.

If that were true, ever muslim would be either condemning suicide bombers or becoming them. The ambiguity exists in Islam as it does in every religion.

Nihilist Virus said:
Christianity, on the other hand, does not make it clear what is right or wrong. One might think that the rules are similar to Islam in that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, but that does not seem to actually be the case.

Actually it is very clear: there are no rules, only a relationship. And that relationship drives everything else. As soon as any Christian (whether an individual or a denomination) starts to lay down the law about what it MUST be, they have missed the point of the Kingdom of God.

Nihilist Virus said:
It would seem to make sense that the law as dictated by God through Moses is the "objective morality" that some Christians refer to, which would mean that sin is defined as defiance of any of the 600+ commandments in the law. Yet, essentially no Christian on earth would attest to the absolute authority of everything listed in the Mosaic law.

Primarily the problem with this is one of covenants. Any decent theologian will tell you that the covenant that includes the Law is one made with the Jews and agreed with them, it is not therefore binding to anyone outside that covenant, it is however informative. And Christian who is obedient to the law because it IS the Law has missed the point of the grace.

An easy way to explain this is to do with speed limits. Do you obey the speed limits because you are afraid of the consequences of disobedience (prosecution, fines, etc.) or because it is a sensible way to ensure the safety of yourself and others. If the former then you are legalistic, whereas if the latter you are under grace.

Nihilist Virus said:
I've never gotten a clear answer on this issue. Worse, I don't know if I've ever even seen two Christians agree on this. Worst, this is the criteria by which we will be evaluated as worthy of eternal hellfire, and yet we have no access to this criteria.

Partly the problem would be the idea of it being a criteria by which you are evaluated for eternal hellfire, because not everyone agrees with that, but also there are a ton of theological stances on the issue... however if you think that no two Christians agree, I'd say you aren't looking hard enough.

Nihilist Virus said:
The purpose of this thread is for someone to present a clear definition of sin. I must be able to apply your definition to any conceivable scenario and determine for myself if an action qualifies as sinful. If you think my expectations are unreasonable, please explain why Islam is capable doing this.

The problem is that a person who wants a clear definition is being legalistic not gracious.

Sin is that which separates us from God, gets in the way or drives us away from him. For that reason sin may be different for different people.

As an example, drinking alcohol is not inherently sinful, but to an alcoholic drinking it IS sinful. That is why list of sins won't work because they may not be valid for everyone (see in particular Romans 14: The Weak and the Strong). Even the law is presented as cases rather specifics, though that doesn't stop people applying it as specifics when it suit them.

Rather than concentrating on sin and defining what it is, you would be best concerning yourself (as the NT does) on what it isn't. Start with the OT summary of the Law: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength; and love your neighbour as yourself.'

If you do that then you need never worry about sin again (in theory anyway, in practise people find this difficult).

Nihilist Virus · Dec 18, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
In that situation hanging on to life for the longest possible time is the rational thing to do regardless of how slim your chance of rescue is.

Yep.

I assume you are speaking of Luke 18:18-22.

Don't forget Luke 12:33, where Jesus addresses the twelve.

Jesus isn't stating this as a rule that everyone must follow. Jesus generally teaches principles not rules.

Typical Christian response. If Jesus told the rich young ruler to always put his left shoe on first, you better believe nearly all Christians would be doing it. But this is quite a painful command, so nearly no Christians do it.

Jesus said that his followers must take up their crosses daily. I'm not seeing that happening. It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would approve of Christians owning TVs and computers, which they use to touch, while children are starving to death.

You won't bear your cross. You won't cut your hand off if it causes you to sin. You won't sell all that you have and give the money away. These things Jesus is asking of you aren't hard. It's not like he's asking you to run a one-minute mile or jump ten feet up in the air. These are things that you could do right now, but you won't.

I eat meat, even though I think it's wrong. I admit that my behavior is despicable. I did so from the very beginning. To me, things like honesty and integrity are more valuable than "winning" a debate.

What determines what you ought to do? Why as a nihilist do you even feel there are things you should do?

My conscience. My empathy. Haven't we discussed this?

If we don't value animal life equally to human life then why is it obvious?

It's obvious to me because I have empathy for animals. If you lack this, then it's not obvious to you. And for that I am truly sorry.

Presumably you agree that we have a spectrum of empathy somewhat related to the intelligence of the animal.

Yes, although I would prefer to correct that in myself. I hold humans as generally having a higher value as living beings than any other species, but I would prefer to feel equal empathy for all living things.

Where do you draw the line of what is wrong to eat.

Where do you draw the line of what is alive?

Out of these animals tell me which ones you would feel it is wrong to eat.
Cow
Chicken
Fish
Oyster
Zooplankton

It is wrong to kill anything that is alive. I'm well aware that this is not feasible. But if we first ask ourselves what is feasible before honestly assessing good and evil, then we're going to be wrong before we even begin.

As for rights, surely you don't think they actually exist.

Of course not.

If super intelligent aliens wanted to eat us we would have no say in the matter. Whatever we feel about right and wrong would be utterly irrelevant to them. Might has right.

The fact that we would be incapable of stopping them is irrelevant to the question of whether their behavior is right or wrong.

Something a little more profound than asserting something is obviously wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you.

The law of identity is not a truth statement about reality. It's a statement about definition that is essential to accept if you're going to express yourself using language. A word is synonymous with its definition, a proposition implies itself. If you don't accept that then it renders language entirely meaningless and you cannot have a conversation about anything.

But language already is meaningless. Every language must be either defined circularly or via primitive terms. There's no known alternative.

I imagine it would be the same in mathematics if you reject the principle of equality, that the terms on either side of the = sign are expressing the same vale. It's just a basic assumption one must accept to progress any further, but it doesn't state a truth about reality.

Right. We have to have some initial assumptions. We leverage these assumptions to come to new conclusions, but there is nothing intrinsically true about these assumptions. That's what I'm doing in our discussion on morality. You can say that I have some axioms, such as "It is wrong to kill" and "It is wrong to cause unnecessary harm." These things are not intrinsically true, but rather are initial assumptions and we go from there. If you don't like my initial assumptions on this issue, then your morality is offensive to me.

The same with the law of non-contradiction. It isn't a truth statement, so to say you accept it absolutely or tentatively is nonsensical.

You're going off the rails here. The law of non-contradiction is definitely a truth statement. Have you never seen a truth table? Let's make one.

So let's re-examine where we are with what you said. You initially remarked,

"The law of identity is not a truth statement about reality. It's a statement about definition that is essential to accept if you're going to express yourself using language."

I agree that the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are not truth statements about reality. But they are definitely truth statements within any logical system containing them, and that's all we were meant to be assessing. No one ever looked under a rock and found the law of non-contradiction.

So I'm not sure what your point is or what you're attempting to argue on behalf of. I'm asking if a skeptic is skeptical of these basic laws of logic, and it's like a trick cigar is blowing up in my face.

It's a rule that is inevitable if we are going to adopt binary thinking. If I don't accept that true and false are mutually exclusive then it renders skepticism meaningless because skepticism is a position in regards to truth claims.

But... you said that basic laws of logic are not truth statements. Now I'm even more confused.

Morality is an abstraction not an experience.

I can go with that, but it only manifests in reality as empathy and conscience.

Are scientific truths about physical reality arbitrary or objective?

Both.

We are having a debate about morality so we are inevitably in the field of philosophy. You said yourself that we cannot approach morality scientifically. So philosophy can't be that useless after all. I encourage you to at least learn a little about the things you wish to criticise.

I abhor philolsophers, so I don't see myself doing that any time soon.

Nihilism is useless so you are approaching morality from some other philosophical stance that is useful.

True and useful are not the same thing. I seem to have established that.

You would dispute that solipsism is unfalsifiable after you agree that it is unfalsifiable?

I dispute the absolute existence of one's mind. It is argued that the things we experience can be fake, or simulated, or etc, but that our consciousness must be real. That's the notion I'm disputing.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 18, 2017

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
If that were true, ever muslim would be either condemning suicide bombers or becoming them. The ambiguity exists in Islam as it does in every religion.

It's not ambiguous at all. It's very clear that Muslims are supposed to murder other people. It's just that human nature compels most Muslims to not do that.

Actually it is very clear: there are no rules, only a relationship. And that relationship drives everything else. As soon as any Christian (whether an individual or a denomination) starts to lay down the law about what it MUST be, they have missed the point of the Kingdom of God.

Sorry, this seems like nonsense to me.

Primarily the problem with this is one of covenants. Any decent theologian will tell you that the covenant that includes the Law is one made with the Jews and agreed with them, it is not therefore binding to anyone outside that covenant, it is however informative. And Christian who is obedient to the law because it IS the Law has missed the point of the grace.

Based on what you're saying, I cannot see how homosexuality is forbidden. Yet Paul specifically condemns homosexuals and says that they will not go to heaven. Can you clarify this please?

An easy way to explain this is to do with speed limits. Do you obey the speed limits because you are afraid of the consequences of disobedience (prosecution, fines, etc.) or because it is a sensible way to ensure the safety of yourself and others. If the former then you are legalistic, whereas if the latter you are under grace.

I don't see how your analogy will apply in every conceivable scenario. Do you have a better one?

Partly the problem would be the idea of it being a criteria by which you are evaluated for eternal hellfire, because not everyone agrees with that, but also there are a ton of theological stances on the issue... however if you think that no two Christians agree, I'd say you aren't looking hard enough.

OK. Can you find me two such Christians, then, and let me cross examine them?

The problem is that a person who wants a clear definition is being legalistic not gracious.

When God had Jesus killed instead of simply forgiving us as an act of will, was he being legalistic or gracious?

Sin is that which separates us from God, gets in the way or drives us away from him. For that reason sin may be different for different people.

Is thinking logically a sin, then? Because that is what has driven me away.

As an example, drinking alcohol is not inherently sinful, but to an alcoholic drinking it IS sinful.

Why is it sinful for an alcoholic to drink?

That is why list of sins won't work because they may not be valid for everyone (see in particular Romans 14: The Weak and the Strong). Even the law is presented as cases rather specifics, though that doesn't stop people applying it as specifics when it suit them.

So then we are sent to hell based on a criteria that is unknown.

Rather than concentrating on sin and defining what it is, you would be best concerning yourself (as the NT does) on what it isn't. Start with the OT summary of the Law: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength; and love your neighbour as yourself.'

If you do that then you need never worry about sin again (in theory anyway, in practise people find this difficult).

You have me confused with someone who is interested in becoming a Christian.

Everybodyknows · Dec 18, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Don't forget Luke 12:33, where Jesus addresses the twelve.

Typical Christian response. If Jesus told the rich young ruler to always put his left shoe on first, you better believe nearly all Christians would be doing it. But this is quite a painful command, so nearly no Christians do it.

Jesus said that his followers must take up their crosses daily. I'm not seeing that happening. It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would approve of Christians owning TVs and computers, which they use to touch, while children are starving to death.

You won't bear your cross. You won't cut your hand off if it causes you to sin. You won't sell all that you have and give the money away. These things Jesus is asking of you aren't hard. It's not like he's asking you to run a one-minute mile or jump ten feet up in the air. These are things that you could do right now, but you won't.

I eat meat, even though I think it's wrong. I admit that my behavior is despicable. I did so from the very beginning. To me, things like honesty and integrity are more valuable than "winning" a debate.

I don't have much time to address this point in great detail, I suggest you start a thread on this.
Jesus never makes a rule that you must give up all your possessions. In these verses he is addressing specific people, the twelve and the rich young ruler. Jesus had other followers who did have possessions, some were even wealthy, and he never seemed to have much of a problem with them owning stuff. The rich young ruler asks what to do to be saved, Jesus replies that keeping the rules is not the complete picture. The motives of the heart are what is important to God.

My conscience. My empathy. Haven't we discussed this?

It's obvious to me because I have empathy for animals. If you lack this, then it's not obvious to you. And for that I am truly sorry.

No need to pity me. Remember there is no morality so if we differ on what is obvious to us then there is no need to judge.

Yes, although I would prefer to correct that in myself. I hold humans as generally having a higher value as living beings than any other species, but I would prefer to feel equal empathy for all living things.

I'm not seeing the difference between equal value and equal empathy. It would seem that if you hold other species to have lower value that by default you would have lower empathy for them.

Where do you draw the line of what is alive?

Lets keep it simple. DNA. Metabolism. Capable of reproduction at some stage in the lifecycle.

It is wrong to kill anything that is alive. I'm well aware that this is not feasible. But if we first ask ourselves what is feasible before honestly assessing good and evil, then we're going to be wrong before we even begin.

So we start with feasibility in determining right and wrong. It's not feasible for us to never kill anything that is alive. Therefore it's not wrong to kill some things that are alive. Conclusion: It is wrong to kill anything that is alive?

So is it wrong to eat a carrot? Is it wrong that you kill millions of germs every time you wash your hands?

The fact that we would be incapable of stopping them is irrelevant to the question of whether their behavior is right or wrong.

Who determines right or wrong behaviour, us or them? Perhaps they are reptiles that have never evolved emotion or morality so nothing is wrong for them, they are just hungry.

But language already is meaningless. Every language must be either defined circularly or via primitive terms. There's no known alternative.

Definition is what gives language meaning. If it's meaningless why are you even bothering to debate me?

Right. We have to have some initial assumptions. We leverage these assumptions to come to new conclusions, but there is nothing intrinsically true about these assumptions. That's what I'm doing in our discussion on morality. You can say that I have some axioms, such as "It is wrong to kill" and "It is wrong to cause unnecessary harm." These things are not intrinsically true, but rather are initial assumptions and we go from there.

Agree up to here.

If you don't like my initial assumptions on this issue, then your morality is offensive to me.

Why would you be offended at another persons morality if assumptions aren't intrinsically true (including yours). All assumptions should be treated equally. Why do you think your assumptions are better than mine?

You're going off the rails here. The law of non-contradiction is definitely a truth statement. Have you never seen a truth table? Let's make one.

So let's re-examine where we are with what you said. You initially remarked,

"The law of identity is not a truth statement about reality. It's a statement about definition that is essential to accept if you're going to express yourself using language."

I agree that the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are not truth statements about reality. But they are definitely truth statements within any logical system containing them, and that's all we were meant to be assessing. No one ever looked under a rock and found the law of non-contradiction.

So I'm not sure what your point is or what you're attempting to argue on behalf of. I'm asking if a skeptic is skeptical of these basic laws of logic, and it's like a trick cigar is blowing up in my face.

Yes I meant that it is not a truth statement about reality. So we agree on that. Of course the axioms of a logical system are going to be truth statements within that logical system. It wouldn't really work if you had axioms that are false.

My point is that the law of non-contradiction tells us that a premise is either true or false. If you are skeptical of this and think a premise could possibly be both true and false then what is there to be skeptical about anymore. One can be skeptical about the rules of chess, but if you want to play chess you must accept the rules. The rules are what defines the game. If I move my rook diagonally then I'm no longer playing chess. So the question of whether we should accept the rules of the game tentatively or as absolute is nonsensical.

But... you said that basic laws of logic are not truth statements. Now I'm even more confused.

If we don't accept the laws of binary logic then we can't reason logically anymore. The notions of true and false break down. Unless perhaps you come up with some other alternative system of logic based on different axioms.

I can go with that, but it only manifests in reality as empathy and conscience.

Agree

Both.

Unclear. Is a scientific truth both arbitrary and objective or are some truths objective and others arbitrary?

I abhor philolsophers, so I don't see myself doing that any time soon.

You've just engaged in 8 pages of philosophical debate.

I dispute the absolute existence of one's mind. It is argued that the things we experience can be fake, or simulated, or etc, but that our consciousness must be real. That's the notion I'm disputing.

Oh ok, so your a metaphysical nihilist too. Is our consciousness some illusion of the nothingness?

Nihilist Virus · Dec 19, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
I don't have much time to address this point in great detail, I suggest you start a thread on this.

Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow me

Jesus never makes a rule that you must give up all your possessions.

He was asked a direct question: what must I do to get into heaven? Did anyone else ask him this question?

In these verses he is addressing specific people, the twelve and the rich young ruler.

Do you expect him to address Donald Trump?

Nothing in the Bible is addressed specifically to *you*. All of the epistles were written to specific churches for specific reasons. Why not just whimsically ignore their contents as well?

Jesus had to be talking to someone. Are you demanding a soliloquy?

Jesus had other followers who did have possessions, some were even wealthy, and he never seemed to have much of a problem with them owning stuff.

Right. And Jesus also dined with sinners, befriended a harlot, and forgave the men who crucified him. I don't see how his friendship with wealthy men implies that he endorses their greed.

The rich young ruler asks what to do to be saved, Jesus replies that keeping the rules is not the complete picture. The motives of the heart are what is important to God.

Right... do you intend to tell me that you have a pure heart when you own a TV and computer, which you presumably use for sin every day, while children starve to death? If you loved the starving children and hated sin, it would be obvious that you should sell your possessions which cause you to stumble and use the money to feed the starving children.

Or are you logging in with a public computer at a library?

No need to pity me. Remember there is no morality so if we differ on what is obvious to us then there is no need to judge.

I'm not judging you, just lamenting your lack of empathy for living creatures.

I'm not seeing the difference between equal value and equal empathy. It would seem that if you hold other species to have lower value that by default you would have lower empathy for them.

If an evil man invented a cure for all known diseases purely for fame and fortune, he would be of more value than a mentally retarded child. However, I would probably feel more empathy for a child with such a disability than I would for an evil man. I see no correlation between value and empathy here. I can have generally equal value for both man and beast while holding man to be of more value.

Lets keep it simple. DNA. Metabolism. Capable of reproduction at some stage in the lifecycle.

It's wrong to kill any such thing. If we were capable of sustaining ourselves without ever doing so, then there would be universal agreement that it is wrong to kill any living thing.

So we start with feasibility in determining right and wrong.

Yes, unfortunately.

It's not feasible for us to never kill anything that is alive. Therefore it's not wrong to kill some things that are alive.

That seems to be the consensus.

Conclusion: It is wrong to kill anything that is alive?

How is your conclusion a question?

So is it wrong to eat a carrot? Is it wrong that you kill millions of germs every time you wash your hands?

Yes to both, and again, we wouldn't do these things if we didn't need to.

Who determines right or wrong behaviour, us or them? Perhaps they are reptiles that have never evolved emotion or morality so nothing is wrong for them, they are just hungry.

If they have no empathy, then we won't even have a discussion on morality with them.

Definition is what gives language meaning. If it's meaningless why are you even bothering to debate me?

This is a silly question. The inherent meaninglessness of language is a problem for all of us and for all worldviews, not just nihilism. Nihilism is the only one that accepts it. If you study the core foundations of mathematics - primitive terms - then this will perhaps be more obvious.

Agree up to here.

Great!

Why would you be offended at another persons morality if assumptions aren't intrinsically true (including yours).

Look, at some point we have to agree on basic ideas. I'm not saying that these basic ideas are absolute or intrinsically true, but we need to agree on some tentative or conditional basis. We need to agree, for example, that Hitler was in the wrong. If you're not on board with this, let me know now. If you're just playing games because you've found a nihilist online, then you're wasting my time. I have already explained myself to you in exhaustive detail.

Again, it is my empathy that causes me to be offended by certain moral issues in the same way that a heaping spoonful of salt on your tongue would offend your sense of taste.

All assumptions should be treated equally. Why do you think your assumptions are better than mine?

All assumptions should be treated equally? No... that's a stupid idea, and you know it.

Yes I meant that it is not a truth statement about reality. So we agree on that. Of course the axioms of a logical system are going to be truth statements within that logical system. It wouldn't really work if you had axioms that are false.

My point is that the law of non-contradiction tells us that a premise is either true or false. If you are skeptical of this and think a premise could possibly be both true and false then what is there to be skeptical about anymore.

But you can't force things to be either true or false, and not both, unless you insist that the law of non-contradiction is true. I literally just made a truth table and showed you that. Now I'm asking what you might mean by "true" here. I'm asking if you hold the law of non-contradiction as absolutely true or conditionally/tentatively true, and you're saying the question is nonsense. So I don't think you're understanding how truth tables work.

One can be skeptical about the rules of chess, but if you want to play chess you must accept the rules. The rules are what defines the game. If I move my rook diagonally then I'm no longer playing chess. So the question of whether we should accept the rules of the game tentatively or as absolute is nonsensical.

OK, so now you answered my question here while insisting that you have not answered it. The rules of chess are obviously tentative and not absolute, as I could invent a chess variant if I like. You are using this as an analogy for the laws of logic, so I take your answer to be that you hold the laws of logic as tentatively true. You are a nihilist.

If we don't accept the laws of binary logic then we can't reason logically anymore. The notions of true and false break down. Unless perhaps you come up with some other alternative system of logic based on different axioms.

That's already been done. It's called fuzzy logic, where truth is not binary. Instead of a truth value being either 0 or 1, in fuzzy logic a truth value lies anywhere between 0 and 1. My understanding is that this branch of logic is used in descriptions of quantum mechanics, since the law of excluded middle does not seem to apply on that scale (as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment). The law of excluded middle is logically equivalent to the law of non-contradiction as follows:

The law of excluded middle:
Av~A

Apply double negation:
~(~(Av~A))

Distribute:
~(~A~v~~A)

Simplifying the interior yields the law of non-contradiction:
~(~A·A)

The law of non-contradiction is not and cannot be absolute as it does not even hold in our own universe. An electron can simultaneously be in two contradictory states at the same time.

The law of non-contradiction necessarily has a truth value, as I showed you in the truth table. It is nonsensical to discuss a logic in which the law of non-contradiction has no truth value. Even in fuzzy logic it will have a (potentially non-integer) truth value.

It has long been assumed that the law of non-contradiction was true in all possible worlds, and hence absolutely true; this has been shown to be false. Yet another stone on the scale of nihilism.

Agree

OK.

Unclear. Is a scientific truth both arbitrary and objective or are some truths objective and others arbitrary?

A scientific truth is both arbitrary and objective as far as I can see. Perhaps clarify the acute meaning of "arbitrary" that you are intending here.

You've just engaged in 8 pages of philosophical debate.

And where has it gotten us?

Oh ok, so your a metaphysical nihilist too. Is our consciousness some illusion of the nothingness?

I'm not claiming that it is. Only that we can't show it is not.

Everybodyknows · Dec 19, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow me

I've skimmed through a bit. Via Crucius has given you some pretty good expalnations.

He was asked a direct question: what must I do to get into heaven? Did anyone else ask him this question?

Read Luke 19:1-10. It seems zacchaeus got his salvation by only giving half his wealth to the poor. Jesus seems a bit inconsistent in applying the 'rules' doesn't he.

Do you expect him to address Donald Trump?

Nothing in the Bible is addressed specifically to *you*. All of the epistles were written to specific churches for specific reasons. Why not just whimsically ignore their contents as well?

Jesus had to be talking to someone. Are you demanding a soliloquy?

I don't ignore anything. Jesus generally taught moral principles not absolute moral rules that all must follow.

Right. And Jesus also dined with sinners, befriended a harlot, and forgave the men who crucified him. I don't see how his friendship with wealthy men implies that he endorses their greed.

Wealth ≠ Greed

Right... do you intend to tell me that you have a pure heart when you own a TV and computer, which you presumably use for sin every day, while children starve to death? If you loved the starving children and hated sin, it would be obvious that you should sell your possessions which cause you to stumble and use the money to feed the starving children.

Or are you logging in with a public computer at a library?

Some people do if they feel so called. Again it's not a rule that everyone must do. Some give all, some give half, some give their time. This is entirely consistent with scripture.

I'm not judging you, just lamenting your lack of empathy for living creatures.

Why?

If an evil man invented a cure for all known diseases purely for fame and fortune, he would be of more value than a mentally retarded child.

Isn't this discrimination? The way morality has progressed in our times is that we hold all people to be of equal value. The value of a human life is equal regardless of who you are or what you do.

However, I would probably feel more empathy for a child with such a disability than I would for an evil man. I see no correlation between value and empathy here. I can have generally equal value for both man and beast while holding man to be of more value.

So you have lower empathy for some humans. Why do you think we should have equal empathy for all animals then?

It's wrong to kill any such thing. If we were capable of sustaining ourselves without ever doing so, then there would be universal agreement that it is wrong to kill any living thing.

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
What feelings do you identify and then share with a carrot?

Yes, unfortunately.

That seems to be the consensus.

How is your conclusion a question?

You started with that conclusion, but the argument from feasibility leads us to a contradictory conclusion.

Yes to both, and again, we wouldn't do these things if we didn't need to.

Sorry I just don't understand how you have reasoned this? Why not extend your empathy to inanimate objects too then. Whats so special about the chemical reactions in a cell compared to the chemical reactions in a test tube?

If they have no empathy, then we won't even have a discussion on morality with them.

Then they would have the right to eat us and not be acting immorally in doing so?

This is a silly question. The inherent meaninglessness of language is a problem for all of us and for all worldviews, not just nihilism. Nihilism is the only one that accepts it. If you study the core foundations of mathematics - primitive terms - then this will perhaps be more obvious.

What exactly do you mean by language being meaningless?

Look, at some point we have to agree on basic ideas. I'm not saying that these basic ideas are absolute or intrinsically true, but we need to agree on some tentative or conditional basis. We need to agree, for example, that Hitler was in the wrong. If you're not on board with this, let me know now. If you're just playing games because you've found a nihilist online, then you're wasting my time. I have already explained myself to you in exhaustive detail.

Morality is a consensus on these basic ideas. You are pushing some moral values that are outside of the general consensus, which is fine you might change the world eventually, but you cant expect people to agree with you by default. You need a more convincing argument of why we should feel empathy for carrots than just saying it's obvious if you have empathy.

Again, it is my empathy that causes me to be offended by certain moral issues in the same way that a heaping spoonful of salt on your tongue would offend your sense of taste.

Everyone (almost) has empathy. Not everyone applies that empathy in the same way. A person who is sodium deficient would love a spoonful of salt.

All assumptions should be treated equally? No... that's a stupid idea, and you know it.

If there is no inherent truth to them then how can we evaluate them?

But you can't force things to be either true or false, and not both, unless you insist that the law of non-contradiction is true. I literally just made a truth table and showed you that. Now I'm asking what you might mean by "true" here. I'm asking if you hold the law of non-contradiction as absolutely true or conditionally/tentatively true, and you're saying the question is nonsense. So I don't think you're understanding how truth tables work.

It's absolutely true within it's system of logic. If we step outside that system we can question it's truth but in doing so we throw out the definition that true and false are mutually exclusive.

OK, so now you answered my question here while insisting that you have not answered it. The rules of chess are obviously tentative and not absolute, as I could invent a chess variant if I like. You are using this as an analogy for the laws of logic, so I take your answer to be that you hold the laws of logic as tentatively true. You are a nihilist.

Your chess variant would be called Nihilist Chess and differentiated from traditional Chess by definition. The rules of Chess are true throughout the universe, anyone anywhere playing by these rules would be recognised as playing Chess. If they aren't playing by the rules then they are playing some other game. There is nothing about the universe that defines Chess we have made the definition.

That's already been done. It's called fuzzy logic, where truth is not binary. Instead of a truth value being either 0 or 1, in fuzzy logic a truth value lies anywhere between 0 and 1. My understanding is that this branch of logic is used in descriptions of quantum mechanics, since the law of excluded middle does not seem to apply on that scale (as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment). The law of excluded middle is logically equivalent to the law of non-contradiction as follows:

The law of excluded middle:
Av~A

Apply double negation:
~(~(Av~A))

Distribute:
~(~A~v~~A)

Simplifying the interior yields the law of non-contradiction:
~(~A·A)

Yes I'm aware, but I don't have much knowledge of how these other logical systems work.

Do you think the axioms of mathematics are absolutely true or do you accept them tentatively?

The law of non-contradiction is not and cannot be absolute as it does not even hold in our own universe. An electron can simultaneously be in two contradictory states at the same time.

The law of non-contradiction necessarily has a truth value, as I showed you in the truth table. It is nonsensical to discuss a logic in which the law of non-contradiction has no truth value. Even in fuzzy logic it will have a (potentially non-integer) truth value.

It has long been assumed that the law of non-contradiction was true in all possible worlds, and hence absolutely true; this has been shown to be false. Yet another stone on the scale of nihilism.

I was of the understanding that QM doesn't contradict the laws of logic because when we measure things they take on a definite value.

A scientific truth is both arbitrary and objective as far as I can see. Perhaps clarify the acute meaning of "arbitrary" that you are intending here.

Nihilist Virus said:
"True" is a label that we arbitrarily put on things. It has no meaning beyond that.

I'm going off what you said. What do you mean by "True" is a label that we arbitrarily put on things.

And where has it gotten us?

But you can't stop

I'm not claiming that it is. Only that we can't show it is not.

Then we can't show anything and Islam is just as valid as Nihilism

Nihilist Virus · Dec 20, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
I've skimmed through a bit. Via Crucius has given you some pretty good expalnations.

OK. Well previously you said you don't have time to discuss this. Now you at least skimmed, so that's an improvement. But I think this issue deserves careful consideration: nothing is more obviously a sin than disobeying Jesus, and Christians from all over the world just dismiss this because of how much of an overwhelming hardship it implies.

Like I said, if Jesus told the rich young ruler to always put his left shoe on first, then Christians worldwide would be doing this. You not only failed to address this, but you redacted this statement of mine from your previous response. If we want to be honest, it's not enough to just refrain from lying. We have to face a hard truth instead of fleeing in terror.

Read Luke 19:1-10. It seems zacchaeus got his salvation by only giving half his wealth to the poor. Jesus seems a bit inconsistent in applying the 'rules' doesn't he.

No, it seems Zacchaeus was reserving the other half of his wealth to right his previous wrongs. Did you literally not even read the passage?

I don't ignore anything. Jesus generally taught moral principles not absolute moral rules that all must follow.

What is your source for this? This seems to be an assertion pulled out of thin air. "Love your neighbor as your self, and love your God with all your soul" - general guideline? Can I be an evil scumbag and still be a Christian?

This attitude you're displaying is no different than Peter arguing with God. "Not so, Lord" is what you're saying to virtually everything Jesus ever said. I guess you must figure you know best.

Wealth ≠ Greed

Correct. One is a possession, and one is an attribute. But one generally does not acquire wealth without greed, and no one holds onto their wealth without greed.

Some people do if they feel so called.

So Christians just go by what they feel like doing instead of what their God actually said? Is there anything at all that one couldn't use this "I was called to do it" excuse for? A woman drowned her children in a tub because she thought God told her to do it. Obviously you don't think God told her to do that. But, presumably, there are other things a Christian could do which are not commanded in scripture and yet you would agree that they were called to do it. How do you know where to draw the line? People disagree on a lot of things, and this "calling" hogwash can only lead to division in the church. Some Christians will say that God clearly told them to minister to gays, and others will say that only a demon would tell them to do that. Who's right?

Again it's not a rule that everyone must do.

Again, this is an assertion that came out of thin air.

Some give all, some give half, some give their time. This is entirely consistent with scripture.

Show me how it is consistent please.

Why?

Because the world would be a better place if we all had empathy for all living creatures.

Isn't this discrimination? The way morality has progressed in our times is that we hold all people to be of equal value. The value of a human life is equal regardless of who you are or what you do.

What a bizarre thing to say. I don't know what value a slow child has to society. In fact, such a child is a burden - a burden that the child's family members will gladly bear because of their empathy. Value is what one can offer to society. I don't know what you think such a child has to offer.

The equality that you're thinking of is how we are to be treated. All people deserve to be treated equally, and that is something I agree with. But we are all of different values to society, and if you disagree with this then you're simply wrong.

So you have lower empathy for some humans. Why do you think we should have equal empathy for all animals then?

Because they have a central nervous system and a consciousness, and they are capable of feeling pain and terror to roughly the same degrees as us.

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
What feelings do you identify and then share with a carrot?

What emotional connection would a mother have with a clump of four cells in her womb? Yet many mothers would die for those four cells, wouldn't they? It's because they know the clump of cells will grow into a child. If I look at a carrot, I can see the roots coming out of it. I can see that it needs nourishment to survive, and that's something with which I can empathize. If the carrot were to not get its nutrients, it would wither and die. While it has no nervous system, and hence it won't suffer, I can still imagine the withering happening to myself.

You started with that conclusion, but the argument from feasibility leads us to a contradictory conclusion.

Yeah... that's how logic works. If you start with different assumptions, you will have a different conclusion. If you have a point here, I'm not seeing it.

Sorry I just don't understand how you have reasoned this? Why not extend your empathy to inanimate objects too then. Whats so special about the chemical reactions in a cell compared to the chemical reactions in a test tube?

A ridiculous question. Life is special. That's a common assumption that we should all share. Do you expect me to explain that to you?

Then they would have the right to eat us and not be acting immorally in doing so?

I said,

If they have no empathy, then we won't even have a discussion on morality with them.

You immediately replied with a "then" as though you're following logically to the next step. The next logical step in your opinion, apparently, is that they will not be acting immorally.

There's moral, immoral, and amoral. The aliens in my original thought experiment have now become amoral with your modifications. Amoral is not moral. Amoral is not immoral. Amoral is just amoral. Spiders are amoral. You made it so that these hypothetical aliens have the morality of life forms such as spiders, and now you're asking me if they're not immoral for eating us.

What exactly do you mean by language being meaningless?

Again, look up primitive terms/primitive notions.

Morality is a consensus on these basic ideas. You are pushing some moral values that are outside of the general consensus, which is fine you might change the world eventually, but you cant expect people to agree with you by default. You need a more convincing argument of why we should feel empathy for carrots than just saying it's obvious if you have empathy.

Carrots would be difficult. But I've given good arguments with regards to animals, and you just shrug it off.

Everyone (almost) has empathy. Not everyone applies that empathy in the same way. A person who is sodium deficient would love a spoonful of salt.

I fail to see your point. I already said that morality is subjective. In fact I've said it cannot be objective.

If there is no inherent truth to them then how can we evaluate them?

We evaluate them by how they play out in the real world.

It's absolutely true within it's system of logic. If we step outside that system we can question it's truth but in doing so we throw out the definition that true and false are mutually exclusive.

So it is conditionally true then.

Your chess variant would be called Nihilist Chess and differentiated from traditional Chess by definition. The rules of Chess are true throughout the universe, anyone anywhere playing by these rules would be recognised as playing Chess. If they aren't playing by the rules then they are playing some other game. There is nothing about the universe that defines Chess we have made the definition.

It seems we are using different definitions of "absolute." Absolute means unchangeable. Your chess analogy fails because I can easily change the rules. You say it won't be chess anymore. Well what if I campaign and I get everyone to agree on a new rule for chess? Then it's still chess. So I can change a rule. So the rules are not absolute.

As I've been trying to say, many philolsophers have thought that the law of non-contradiction is absolute. I have shown it is not. That's all I was trying to do. You seem to agree, yet you're still arguing.

Yes I'm aware, but I don't have much knowledge of how these other logical systems work.

OK.

Do you think the axioms of mathematics are absolutely true or do you accept them tentatively?

The latter.

I was of the understanding that QM doesn't contradict the laws of logic because when we measure things they take on a definite value.

But we know that they do logically impossible tasks while not being measured. Again, look at the double-slit experiment. When we don't peek at which slit an electron goes through, we can send them through one by one and we still get an interference pattern. They interfere with themselves.

I'm going off what you said. What do you mean by "True" is a label that we arbitrarily put on things.

I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. Again, look at truth tables. We have random propositions which we label as true or false just to see what happens.

But you can't stop

I certainly can, particularly if you continue to redact questions from the conversation.

Then we can't show anything and Islam is just as valid as Nihilism

Islam is nowhere near as valid as nihilism. Islam makes a ton of unsubstantiated claims. Show me a claim in nihilism.

Everybodyknows · Dec 21, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
OK. Well previously you said you don't have time to discuss this. Now you at least skimmed, so that's an improvement. But I think this issue deserves careful consideration: nothing is more obviously a sin than disobeying Jesus, and Christians from all over the world just dismiss this because of how much of an overwhelming hardship it implies.

It's not disobeying Jesus because Jesus isn't giving a law.

Like I said, if Jesus told the rich young ruler to always put his left shoe on first, then Christians worldwide would be doing this.

And it would profit them nothing.

You not only failed to address this, but you redacted this statement of mine from your previous response. If we want to be honest, it's not enough to just refrain from lying. We have to face a hard truth instead of fleeing in terror.

I redacted it because shoes are a stupid analogy when we are talking about the virtue of charity.

, it seems Zacchaeus was reserving the other half of his wealth to right his previous wrongs. Did you literally not even read the passage?

No it doesn't say that he had nothing left, nor that he gave up his well paying job of tax collector.

What is your source for this? This seems to be an assertion pulled out of thin air. "Love your neighbor as your self, and love your God with all your soul" - general guideline? Can I be an evil scumbag and still be a Christian?

The Bible. Love is a virtue. If we have love our actions will be good.

This attitude you're displaying is no different than Peter arguing with God. "Not so, Lord" is what you're saying to virtually everything Jesus ever said. I guess you must figure you know best.

You simply don't understand the teachings of Jesus if you think he came to give new laws.

Correct. One is a possession, and one is an attribute. But one generally does not acquire wealth without greed, and no one holds onto their wealth without greed.

I disagree. Sometimes God blesses people with wealth.

So Christians just go by what they feel like doing instead of what their God actually said? Is there anything at all that one couldn't use this "I was called to do it" excuse for? A woman drowned her children in a tub because she thought God told her to do it. Obviously you don't think God told her to do that. But, presumably, there are other things a Christian could do which are not commanded in scripture and yet you would agree that they were called to do it. How do you know where to draw the line? People disagree on a lot of things, and this "calling" hogwash can only lead to division in the church. Some Christians will say that God clearly told them to minister to gays, and others will say that only a demon would tell them to do that. Who's right?

God told us the importance of living virtuously. No one is right and no one is responsible for anyone else. We are all responsible for living authentically before God.

Again, this is an assertion that came out of thin air.

Your asserting that it's a rule out of thin air.

Show me how it is consistent please.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

because the world would be a better place if we all had empathy for all living creatures.

Would it be better for us?

What a bizarre thing to say. I don't know what value a slow child has to society. In fact, such a child is a burden - a burden that the child's family members will gladly bear because of their empathy. Value is what one can offer to society. I don't know what you think such a child has to offer.

The equality that you're thinking of is how we are to be treated. All people deserve to be treated equally, and that is something I agree with. But we are all of different values to society, and if you disagree with this then you're simply wrong.

Do you think you should get a lesser punishment for killing a disabled person than someone who is valuable to society? Equal value is the basis of human rights.

Because they have a central nervous system and a consciousness, and they are capable of feeling pain and terror to roughly the same degrees as us.

So then why wouldn't you have equal empathy for all humans?

What emotional connection would a mother have with a clump of four cells in her womb? Yet many mothers would die for those four cells, wouldn't they? It's because they know the clump of cells will grow into a child. If I look at a carrot, I can see the roots coming out of it. I can see that it needs nourishment to survive, and that's something with which I can empathize. If the carrot were to not get its nutrients, it would wither and die. While it has no nervous system, and hence it won't suffer, I can still imagine the withering happening to myself.

Your projecting human emotional experience onto carrots.

Yeah... that's how logic works. If you start with different assumptions, you will have a different conclusion. If you have a point here, I'm not seeing it.

You started with a conclusion. Does logic work by starting with a conclusion?

A ridiculous question. Life is special. That's a common assumption that we should all share. Do you expect me to explain that to you?

From a naturalistic atheist perspective what is so special about the chemistry in a cell. The only assumption we generally share is that consciousness is special.

I said,

If they have no empathy, then we won't even have a discussion on morality with them.

You immediately replied with a "then" as though you're following logically to the next step. The next logical step in your opinion, apparently, is that they will not be acting immorally.

There's moral, immoral, and amoral. The aliens in my original thought experiment have now become amoral with your modifications. Amoral is not moral. Amoral is not immoral. Amoral is just amoral. Spiders are amoral. You made it so that these hypothetical aliens have the morality of life forms such as spiders, and now you're asking me if they're not immoral for eating us.

Whatever their morality, by what basis could we judge it? Only from the perspective of our own subjective morality.

Again, look up primitive terms/primitive notions.

How do intuitive assumptions make language meaningless?

Carrots would be difficult. But I've given good arguments with regards to animals, and you just shrug it off.

Carrots would be impossible. Agree you give some good arguments for animals, you may convince me not to eat cows, but probably not oysters.

I fail to see your point. I already said that morality is subjective. In fact I've said it cannot be objective.

If it's subjective then why are you offended.

We evaluate them by how they play out in the real world.

Good. By what criteria?

So it is conditionally true then.

It seems we are using different definitions of "absolute." Absolute means unchangeable. Your chess analogy fails because I can easily change the rules. You say it won't be chess anymore. Well what if I campaign and I get everyone to agree on a new rule for chess? Then it's still chess. So I can change a rule. So the rules are not absolute.

As I've been trying to say, many philolsophers have thought that the law of non-contradiction is absolute. I have shown it is not. That's all I was trying to do. You seem to agree, yet you're still arguing.

I think we generally agree here. What I'm trying to say is that axioms are true within their system in a kind of self referential way. If we want to use that system we accept them necessarily, if we use some other system then they are entirely irrelevant and questioning their truth is also irrelevant because they are not truths about reality but merely descriptive of the system.

But we know that they do logically impossible tasks while not being measured. Again, look at the double-slit experiment. When we don't peek at which slit an electron goes through, we can send them through one by one and we still get an interference pattern. They interfere with themselves.

We can only infer what goes on when they are unobserved, but really we have no idea. As soon as we try to observe them the wave function collapses.

I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. Again, look at truth tables. We have random propositions which we label as true or false just to see what happens.

Does a truth table give us objective truth?

I certainly can, particularly if you continue to redact questions from the conversation.

These posts are getting way too long, I have to redact some things, particularly since you keep bringing up new subject areas. Can we try and streamline it a little, it's difficult to respond to 26 different points with the detail they deserve.

Islam is nowhere near as valid as nihilism. Islam makes a ton of unsubstantiated claims. Show me a claim in nihilism.

Why do claims matter if our minds don't even exist.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 21, 2017

Everybodyknows said:
It's not disobeying Jesus because Jesus isn't giving a law.

And it would profit them nothing.

I redacted it because shoes are a stupid analogy when we are talking about the virtue of charity.

No it doesn't say that he had nothing left, nor that he gave up his well paying job of tax collector.

The Bible. Love is a virtue. If we have love our actions will be good.

You simply don't understand the teachings of Jesus if you think he came to give new laws.

I disagree. Sometimes God blesses people with wealth.

God told us the importance of living virtuously. No one is right and no one is responsible for anyone else. We are all responsible for living authentically before God.

Your asserting that it's a rule out of thin air.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Would it be better for us?

Do you think you should get a lesser punishment for killing a disabled person than someone who is valuable to society? Equal value is the basis of human rights.

So then why wouldn't you have equal empathy for all humans?

Your projecting human emotional experience onto carrots.

You started with a conclusion. Does logic work by starting with a conclusion?

From a naturalistic atheist perspective what is so special about the chemistry in a cell. The only assumption we generally share is that consciousness is special.

Whatever their morality, by what basis could we judge it? Only from the perspective of our own subjective morality.

How do intuitive assumptions make language meaningless?

Carrots would be impossible. Agree you give some good arguments for animals, you may convince me not to eat cows, but probably not oysters.

If it's subjective then why are you offended.

Good. By what criteria?

I think we generally agree here. What I'm trying to say is that axioms are true within their system in a kind of self referential way. If we want to use that system we accept them necessarily, if we use some other system then they are entirely irrelevant and questioning their truth is also irrelevant because they are not truths about reality but merely descriptive of the system.

We can only infer what goes on when they are unobserved, but really we have no idea. As soon as we try to observe them the wave function collapses.

Does a truth table give us objective truth?

These posts are getting way too long, I have to redact some things, particularly since you keep bringing up new subject areas. Can we try and streamline it a little, it's difficult to respond to 26 different points with the detail they deserve.

Why do claims matter if our minds don't even exist.

You're dodging too many of my questions, and repeating your own questions despite having been answered multiple times.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Dec 21, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
You have me confused with someone who is interested in becoming a Christian.

No I never confused you with someone who was interested in becoming a Christian, but you are coming across as someone who is confused and likes it that way - if you don't want people to answer your questions, then don't ask them, but if you do ask the question then at least try and deal with the response sensibly.

There are millions of Christians and somehow you think that no two of them will respond the same way in trying to help you understand what sin is? That sounds more like someone who either doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand, or would rather that there was no simple answer.

I said before, 'Start with the OT summary of the Law: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength; and love your neighbour as yourself.'

The purpose of this phrase is to SUM UP the Law, which includes all of those pesky rules and regulations in Torah and more importantly WHY they are there. SIN is NOT loving the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength; and NOT loving your neighbour as yourself.

That is simple and applicable to most people and situations and if there is any doubt then you are probably doing something wrong. This relates to the point about relationship with God. If you are in a close relationship you know what the other person wants of you. You know what they like or don't like and you are not making wild stabs in the dark when you take an action and hope they like it. Relationship with God works in the same way, but he doesn't expect us to be perfect or get it right every time, but he does expect us to try to get it right and to learn from our mistakes. If your spouse has a list of things that they want you to do at all times, you are not relating to them at all, but to the list. Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that relationship with God is the goal, not being obedient to lists of things that we should or shouldn't do. If we are relating with God then we would or wouldn't be doing those things as a natural outworking of our relationship, not because they are listed somewhere.

For all Christians the goal is to have an eternal relationship with God.

And you asked why alcohol is sinful to alcoholic. Do you even know what an alcoholic is? Or what any form of addiction is? If so I wonder why you ask the question? There is a clear difference between placing a beer in front of an alcoholic and placing one in front of a normal person. And that difference defines why it is sinful for one and not the other and why then any lists of sins are always going to be insufficient to cater for every situation. This is vitally important to understand because it means that whatever things that are sinful for me, may not be sinful for you.

And yes, thinking logically may be sinful for you because it becomes an excuse for you to avoid relating to God, whereas thinking logically leads me and many others towards God so it is fine for us.

Hawkins · Dec 22, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
What's next, are you going to ask me if all the Nazis who executed Jews were evil?

The next is that, if slavery is an human establishment accepted by the most conscientious persons on earth, God thus reserves the right to design a mechanism to identify the good from the bad, just as each and every covenant does.

Are you trying to say that Hitler is not evil? Or there those executed the Jews are considered the most conscientious persons on earth?

In Christianity, there's a final judgment following everyone, whether he executed the Jews or not.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 22, 2017

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
No I never confused you with someone who was interested in becoming a Christian, but you are coming across as someone who is confused and likes it that way - if you don't want people to answer your questions, then don't ask them, but if you do ask the question then at least try and deal with the response sensibly.

There are millions of Christians and somehow you think that no two of them will respond the same way in trying to help you understand what sin is? That sounds more like someone who either doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand, or would rather that there was no simple answer.

Try reading through this thread, and then imagine being me. Then tell me that you really think there is a simple answer.

I said before, 'Start with the OT summary of the Law: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength; and love your neighbour as yourself.'

This is severely problematic. Reading through the Bible, it's quite clear that your neighbor would be another Hebrew man of fatherly age. A child is not your neighbor. A woman is not your neighbor. A foreigner is not your neighbor.

This is why Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan. It was commonly understood that a Hebrew man of fatherly age was your neighbor, and that a Samaritan could not be (because everyone was racist). So Jesus said, "What if the person who is your neighbor by definition doesn't care whether you live or die, but yet this other person who is not your neighbor by definition helps you and saves your life - who, then, is your neighbor?"

Jesus would not have had to say this if "Love your neighbor" meant "Love everyone." It absolutely does not mean that.

The purpose of this phrase is to SUM UP the Law, which includes all of those pesky rules and regulations in Torah and more importantly WHY they are there. SIN is NOT loving the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength; and NOT loving your neighbour as yourself.

This law that you are citing is a list of racist and sexist declarations in which it is legal to rape and own slaves.

If I lend consideration to a law written by men who regularly practiced racism, sexism, rape, slavery, and genocide, then I should perhaps also comb through Mein Kampf for any moral nuggets that it might contain as well. Right?

Ancient Hebrew didn't even have a word for rape. Could you offer a conjecture as to why that is?

That is simple and applicable to most people and situations and if there is any doubt then you are probably doing something wrong. This relates to the point about relationship with God. If you are in a close relationship you know what the other person wants of you. You know what they like or don't like and you are not making wild stabs in the dark when you take an action and hope they like it. Relationship with God works in the same way, but he doesn't expect us to be perfect or get it right every time, but he does expect us to try to get it right and to learn from our mistakes. If your spouse has a list of things that they want you to do at all times, you are not relating to them at all, but to the list. Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that relationship with God is the goal, not being obedient to lists of things that we should or shouldn't do. If we are relating with God then we would or wouldn't be doing those things as a natural outworking of our relationship, not because they are listed somewhere.

Why would anyone want a relationship with a deity who has killed millions, including innocent children? A deity that could save us from our misery on earth, yet refuses?

For all Christians the goal is to have an eternal relationship with God.

Then why did God not just create us in heaven to begin with?

And you asked why alcohol is sinful to alcoholic. Do you even know what an alcoholic is? Or what any form of addiction is?

OK. So you think I'm stupid.

If so I wonder why you ask the question?

Because nowhere in the Bible does it say that addiction is a sin.

There is a clear difference between placing a beer in front of an alcoholic and placing one in front of a normal person.

I agree. But you're using secular reasoning here.

And that difference defines why it is sinful for one and not the other and why then any lists of sins are always going to be insufficient to cater for every situation.

Citation needed.

This is vitally important to understand because it means that whatever things that are sinful for me, may not be sinful for you.

So we started with a law that enforces racism and sexism, and allows rape and slavery, and then we get to the point where "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me." You've covered the whole spectrum of absurdity in one post. Achievement unlocked.

And yes, thinking logically may be sinful for you because it becomes an excuse for you to avoid relating to God, whereas thinking logically leads me and many others towards God so it is fine for us.

I never thought I'd see someone say this. Wow.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 22, 2017

Hawkins said:
The next is that, if slavery is an human establishment accepted by the most conscientious persons on earth, God thus reserves the right to design a mechanism to identify the good from the bad, just as each and every covenant does.

Non sequitur.

Are you trying to say that Hitler is not evil?

I was using a counter example. If you want to say that there were slave owners who were not evil, then by that reasoning there might have been Nazis who executed Jews and yet weren't evil. I reject both as being equally absurd.

Or there those executed the Jews are considered the most conscientious persons on earth?

This question is incoherent.

In Christianity, there's a final judgment following everyone, whether he executed the Jews or not.

Right, and the final judgment has nothing to do with accountability. It has to do with whether or not you believed in a particular proposition.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Dec 22, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Try reading through this thread, and then imagine being me. Then tell me that you really think there is a simple answer.

So I took your advice and went through the thread... skipping the bits where people are going in to asides on nihilism and on free will and other such things and in fact only three definitions have been provided by people here for sin and they are broadly in agreement with each other.

The first is 'Transgressing the Law' (initially by TimeOfLife), then later supported by a quote from Wayne Grudem and someone quoting the book of John. So that is at least four who agree with this definition (including Grudem).

The second espoused by EverybodyKnows and supported by YouAreAwesome and later independently set forth by me defines sin as not loving God, neighbour or self. This idea was also supported by the person who quoted four scripture verses: sin is unrighteousness = not right with God equivalent not loving God; That which is not faith is sin (faith is trust in God, equivalent to not loving God); Knowing what is wrong and not doing it. This can also be linked with the first definition since loving God, Neighbour and self is a summary of Torah.

The third is probably the most vague and easy to dispute and has only been espoused directly by one person: 'Sin is anything you've done that you feel convicted is wrong'. Though here too this can be linked to things that both I and EverybodyKnows had said.

There were two early definitions that actually define the consequences of sin, not sin itself: separation from God & Absence of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Other parts of the discussion delved into individual sins (slavery, sabbath, etc.) which might help understand aspects of sin, but do not define sin unless you want to be legalistic and have 'a list of sins'.

I never thought that theologically there was only one answer, but I did think that the answers would be broadly in agreement and that 'no two Christians agree on a definition' was completely wrong... and I was right.

All this means that that you have chosen to see dissension when there is none. Hence I was right in implying that you come across as confused.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Dec 22, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
This is severely problematic. Reading through the Bible, it's quite clear that your neighbor would be another Hebrew man of fatherly age.

It is not clear that at all. In fact the opposite is true of the Law which has lots of laws regarding the care and treatment of foreigners, children and women. To apply this only to Hebrew males was wrong by Torah standards and as you pointed out Jesus made this quite clear to Christians (and you were asking for Christian definition of sin) so I'd suggest you reread Torah and take the blinkers off while you do it.

Nihilist Virus said:
Jesus would not have had to say this if "Love your neighbor" meant "Love everyone." It absolutely does not mean that.

Jesus said it precisely because the meaning of love your neighbour had changed from it's original meaning by the first century (and it was not the only law that had been altered as he berates the Pharisees for their behaviour).

Far from being problematic, the statement is actually very liberating, precisely because you don't have to sit and ask the question, 'is this person my neighbour?' before attempting to love them. It goes back to the point that if you are making lists, then you have missed the point of the freedom that such a phrase actually provides.

As soon as you are asking who is your neighbour, you have missed the point of the commandment. And Jesus' parable highlights that in a radical way.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 22, 2017

Thanks for going back over the thread. Just let me know when you're done cherry picking my quotes and we can get back at it.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Dec 22, 2017

Nihilist Virus said:
Thanks for going back over the thread. Just let me know when you're done cherry picking my quotes and we can get back at it.

I'm not cherry-picking, I'm answering the central question that is the reason for this thread: a definition of sin. You, on the other hand, seem intent in avoiding the fact that a) clear definitions have been provided and are broadly in agreement with each other; and b) they don't mention specific sins... which you continuously bring the posts back to.

The definition of sin

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

The good guys lost

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

The good guys lost

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Member

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Similar threads