jmog;1385245 wrote:I am glad to see you finally realize you were wrong.

As a society, yes. However, if this were a universal principle, you would see all animals existing in communities. Natural selection would have dictated it.

BORIStheCrusher;1385184 wrote:I've done plenty of things that god/the church would not approve of and don't "feel" wrong about it. Do you think I'm a bad person because I had sex before I was married?

Heretic;1385238 wrote:To put things simply.

1. Four college students share a house.

2. Logic dictates that for efficiency, the four students share in bills and cleaning, etc. As close to 25% each as possible (ie: if one person has a special diet or something, they might be paying more or less for food because they wouldn't share in the "group-food" and just have their own stuff).

3. Logic dictates that if one person isn't doing their fair share, the other three have to cover. Making their situation worse.

4. Logic also dictates that if one person is killed by the other three because of this, that wouldn't improve their lot in life. First, that isn't getting any of their 25% of the work done or bills paid. Second, there's a real good chance the three would wind up facing jail, which wouldn't help any of their life goals, either.

No belief in god is necessary for any of this logic to be reached. You don't kill your slacker roommate because you're worried about your "lolImmortal Soullol"; you don't kill him because that's a really fucking stupid idea. Some people don't have the mental ability to use this logic. Some of those people are religious people from around the world whose inner voice is saying their deity wants them to do it.

sleeper;1385253 wrote:A lot of them do.

sleeper;1385253 wrote:You rarely see a lion kill another lion, unless you are arguing that the lion should starve to save the antelope; which is of course ridiculous.

sleeper;1385253 wrote:Do lion's have religion? No, they don't need it to be moral and neither do humans.

justincredible;1385180 wrote:Apparently Jesus. You win. I'll go to church on Sunday.

O-Trap;1385246 wrote:What if he's not only not paying any of his expenses, but he's also stealing money from them? By killing him, they eliminate the negative effect he is having on their expenses. They aren't hurting his contribution to the house finances, since he already wasn't doing much there. AND they have eliminated one person for whom they have to provide groceries, utility usage, etc.

Sounds like it might be advantageous to slay him at that point.

sleeper;1385250 wrote:Sin isn't real. Sin is your belief system and it's called a belief because it's never been proven. :laugh:

Heretic;1385270 wrote:Well, it would be until the legal system harshly reminds them that there are limits to how much "self-policing" a person may do as far as weeding out thieving roommates goes.

Killing asshole roommate + 20-to-life getting ass-rammed in the state pen = a regrettable choice.

Con_Alma;1385274 wrote:If you don't think God is real then are you not apart from Him? ...separated from Him? ...not with that which you don't think is real?

Believing that you are not with something that you don't think exists satisfies the definition of sin. If you believe you are not with God because He doesn't exist then you have carried out the definition of sin.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1385260 wrote:logic doesn't dictate any of that.. your agreeance dictates that. if that was logic we wouldnt have any able bodied people on welfare.

sleeper;1385278 wrote:Then get rid of welfare.

You DO see lions fight, from time to time, though.

Con_Alma;1385274 wrote:If you don't think God is real then are you not apart from Him? ...separated from Him? ...not with that which you don't think is real?

Believing that you are not with something that you don't think exists satisfies the definition of sin. If you believe you are not with God because He doesn't exist then you have carried out the definition of sin.

O-Trap;1385280 wrote:I thought the social repercussions would come into effect, and they would become contributing members of society for their own sakes?

sleeper;1385282 wrote:They fight to establish alpha male status so that future offspring are getting the best traits.

sleeper;1385282 wrote:Hardly an analogy worthy of my time but thought it was a good attempt at obfuscation from reality.

sleeper;1385284 wrote:I cannot be a victim of sin if I do not believe in sin. God has never been proven, therefore anything associated with god has not been proven. How can a branch be real if the trunk isn't real?

O-Trap;1385288 wrote:Um ... you know that's not the ONLY reason they fight, right?

They fight over scarcity of food. They fight over territory.

You just pulled one marble out of the bag and used it to describe all the marbles in the bag. Hardly a logical position.

Con_Alma;1385289 wrote:A victim? You don't have to believe it to be carrying out the actions. You have claimed to carry out such actions. The activity itself is the definition.

O-Trap;1385276 wrote:What if we lived in an anarchical society. Fair game, then?

sleeper;1385293 wrote:I don't have sin Con_Alma. Sorry. In fact, I am god. Prove me wrong.

sleeper;1385292 wrote:They fight to provide best for their community. If the lion wants food of another, it's morally justified for the species to survive from generation to generation if the strongest lion gets him and his offspring fed. If lions could somehow magically be instilled with religious belief, they would still do the same thing. Religious belief doesn't trump the ability for species to want to survive and humans are no different. The fact that you argue humans would have an incentive to be evil because they can is absolutely ridiculous.

Con_Alma;1385298 wrote:No need to apologize but thank you for the sentiment.

I don't understand what not having sin means but by stating you don't believe in God is fulfilling the definition of sin.

By stating that you don't believe in God and that you are God are you stating you don't believe in yourself?

Heretic;1385297 wrote:Interesting question. I'd say that it'd pretty much be fair game. But the intelligent, logical person would likely realize potential pitfalls to it. As an example, look to Nazi Germany. You had your leaders like Hitler, Himmler, etc. And you had a bunch of underlings in charge of things like death camps and the like. To them, it was "just following orders" (or in essence, "fair game, then"). And then they lost and all those words got thrown away and replaced with "war crimes".

Anarchical societies don't seem to be the sort of thing that last forever. Even if the whole world was under anarchy, people would rise from the chaos to take power. To maintain power, doing things like making harsh examples out of murderers living under the "fair game, then" mantra in order to show how there will now be order is a very possible outcome, I think.

O-Trap;1385299 wrote:They fight to provide "the best" for their community. I'd agree with that. Here's the thing: If I break into a rich man's house, assault him, steal his money, and I donate his money to people in my community, am I justified? I'm just fighting to provide "the best" for my community.

And if you want to say survival, there are plenty of examples of lion prides having more land than they need for the food they consume, and yet they will protect their territory anyway.

This is, of course, just if we limit all of nature to being described by lions, as well, which is hardly reasonable.