would you like to explain what deism is for those who dont know?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Angus the peasant saw the necromancer raising the rotting remains and ran away. Since then he told the tale of how he narrowly escaped the necromancer he called "juicy bones".
Google and wiki is your friend, you know. No one asked, so I thought everybody new/went to find out.
Deists are people who believe in God, in the Supreme Being, in the Creator, whatever, they generaly believe in something that is called God and that has created the mankind. Be it Buddha or anyone, deists don't care.
Deists believe in only one God.
Deists believe in God by means of reason, not faith. E.g., it's logical for God to exist.
Deists reject anything supersticious - they don't believe in miracles, they think Jesus existed, but he was a mortal, but a very wise man; therefore, they do not believe in any church, be it Catholic or Orthodox or any other.
Deists believe that God intends humans to be moral, for whatever reason, and they also believe that the fate of the immoral and moral is different, though there aren't any direct suggestions of "hell" or the like.
Deists don't believe in "original sin" or other stuff. To be a religious deist, all you have to do is behave moraly.
There is more to it, but that is what I personaly side with...
Deism is confusing, I understand. You started this debate, not me.
And for the last time I will ask to quote me where have I mentioned that religion is good or bad.
Thats the problem, you seem to not want to debate me on the subject I brought up even though you say you have a religion. Debate me, I get a kick out of it. In any case its your turn to come up with a subject.
Well if you are not going to get angry over it, I can sit here forever, I get the same kick out of it.
Anyway, I was debating against this:
Quote from "Murderface" »
many of us today might have been pagan if clovus had lost his war.
I have gotten the impression that you meant that our society today has certain morals and ideas of humanism (which are the results of religion) due to Clovus. Or perhaps you have meant something else?
Also, deism is not about good or bad, it's about morality, and that is different.
Im only saying the pagan leaders led their followers to christianity because of the millitary advantage of having a god of warfare on their side. The Anglo Saxons, Goths, and Franks all converted to christianity because of some kind of war; Anglo Saxons vs Vikings/Welsh, Goths vs Huns, Franks vs Germanic tribes. Goths=Spain, Franks=Fance, Anglo Saxons=Great Britain all important to the colonisation of the western world, all preiously germanic pagans. So its not such a stretch to say "many of us today might have been pagan if clovus had lost his war."(keeping in mind that Clovus was a Frank and the most influential leader of Western Europe before the spread of Christianity)
On a side note, you cant have "morality" w/o the concept of "good" and "evil" "acceptable" or "unacceptable" Is punching a baby moral? Why or why not?
Well, what I was saying is that the belief of some Pagans in God did not leed to our society being religious today. If pagans believed in God as a military help, they would doubtfully be moral, simply because God and violence don't mix. There were crusades and a lot of other crap - that is not what God intended at all. I'm just trying to say that I don't think that people that believe in God today and follow his moral principles came from the pagans that believed into Gods as a source of power. I think they came from the pagans that believed in God more or less truthfully, while the violent pagans simply brought the idea to the people. Maybe I'm even agreeing with you here.
Morality is different from good, morality is something like siding with the unsaid laws of this particular society. A society can be built on immoral principles as well.
Punch a baby? Perhaps you should be more exact. And define "baby", too. For one thing, there is no reason to do that. Unless you are a sadist. For another, you may get in jail for attacking a baby. Yet again, if you hit a baby, you can kill him or pain him, which means that: a) babies should fear that they can be hurt/punched to death on a regular basis; there would be less potential good people out there because there are less babies and sadists are more provoked; c) this will all rebound back at you, so you will be dealing with worser people, and hitting babies and killing them will be considered normal, your babies included.
OK, the last statement is exxagerated, but that is pretty much what reason is based on when it comes to egoism and why egoism is a problem.
I'm saying that I don't go by the general feeling of "punching a baby is wrong because he's a cute little innocent thing", because that statement is n't exactly practical. Well, to some degree, it is, because it is unnatural for a human to wish to punch a baby. Anyway, when I go by good and bad I go by what will be bad for the society in general and what will not be bad for society in general. If one guy goes punching babies and gets away from it, it's bearable. If 300 guys go punch 300 babies, punching babies can become something people do on a regular basis, and I don't think anyone would want their baby punched, and while you may not have one, many do or will have.
I hope I didn't write it too confusing because I slid of the topic...
I guess this is just a matter of the ends defeating the means. Opinion changes over time, and in that time it might have been socialy acceptable and moral to pick a god that could protect you in battle(I know I would).
I think the reason why most people would'nt punch a baby is cause there so darn cute. I'm just asking if your morality would consider it good or bad to punch a baby, not that you would will it to be so.
look at me Im talking about punching babies on my birthday.
I guess this is just a matter of the ends defeating the means. Opinion changes over time, and in that time it might have been socialy acceptable and moral to pick a god that could protect you in battle(I know I would).
I think the reason why most people would'nt punch a baby is cause there so darn cute. I'm just asking if your morality would consider it good or bad to punch a baby.
Look at me Im talking about punching babies on my birthday.
Just in case your wondering my opinion is, that there are no "evil people" just disgusting idividuals, there are no "good people" just selfricheous fools, and that if you truly belive that you are better than anyone else you are the closest thing to evil that could ever exist.
A baby is the the closest thing to goodness that could ever exist. The second closest thing goodness is an open mind which I belive you and I share(sounds faggoty).
Well, actually, I said "this particular society", and that is exactly what I meant. There can be an immoral society, a dark society, that is not barbaric. Even 1984 will do. They have destroyed the whole concept of man in there.
Yes, but that is a feeling, feelings aren't practical, and if you are speaking generaly, in terms of practicism, people don't punch babies because there is no reason to.
My morality would consider it bad because it will rebound back, as I have told you.
Happy Birthday, then! A late one, though, I suppose.
For me there are people wishing to satisfy only themselves, people that wish to satisfy the society, and people that are too foolish to comprehend either and that follow the flow of the society...
Before you use parameters "good" and "evil", define them. My definition of evil is: "Harmful to this society, unnatural to man, pointless." For good - the opposite. What's yours? When you say "the closest thing to evil that exists", to what "evil"? Not exactly clear here...
"Im" "using" "good" and "evil" as "terms" that "refer" to "helpfulness" and "detrementality" to "a" "society" [is "detrementality" "a" "word"?"]...oh yea, "better" means greater than, I think.
PS The "subconsience" of an organic matrix is what rules the morality of individuals~~~~~~MAN~~~~~~I could punch a baby right in the face Im the Lord of mutha fuckin Murder~~~~~~MAN~~~~~~300 was a kick ass movie~~~~~~MAN~~~~~~Im still crunk from my bday<<<<<<MAN>>>>>>
wow yea sry i havnt been on lately, this nice weather has got me away from the cpu for quite sum time now. um, interesting topic u guys but really could we get back on topic, i mean this is way off from the original question, even if this topic dies because its done with the first question. But nice ideas on the women police officers and same with the whole religion side topic lol.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
And for the last time I will ask to quote me where have I mentioned that religion is good or bad.
Deists are people who believe in God, in the Supreme Being, in the Creator, whatever, they generaly believe in something that is called God and that has created the mankind. Be it Buddha or anyone, deists don't care.
Deists believe in only one God.
Deists believe in God by means of reason, not faith. E.g., it's logical for God to exist.
Deists reject anything supersticious - they don't believe in miracles, they think Jesus existed, but he was a mortal, but a very wise man; therefore, they do not believe in any church, be it Catholic or Orthodox or any other.
Deists believe that God intends humans to be moral, for whatever reason, and they also believe that the fate of the immoral and moral is different, though there aren't any direct suggestions of "hell" or the like.
Deists don't believe in "original sin" or other stuff. To be a religious deist, all you have to do is behave moraly.
There is more to it, but that is what I personaly side with...
Thats the problem, you seem to not want to debate me on the subject I brought up even though you say you have a religion. Debate me, I get a kick out of it. In any case its your turn to come up with a subject.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Anyway, I was debating against this:
I have gotten the impression that you meant that our society today has certain morals and ideas of humanism (which are the results of religion) due to Clovus. Or perhaps you have meant something else?
Also, deism is not about good or bad, it's about morality, and that is different.
"many of us today might have been pagan if clovus had lost his war."(keeping in mind that Clovus was a Frank and the most influential leader of Western Europe before the spread of Christianity)
On a side note, you cant have "morality" w/o the concept of "good" and "evil" "acceptable" or "unacceptable"
Is punching a baby moral? Why or why not?
I hope that spread some light on what I meant.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Morality is different from good, morality is something like siding with the unsaid laws of this particular society. A society can be built on immoral principles as well.
Punch a baby? Perhaps you should be more exact. And define "baby", too. For one thing, there is no reason to do that. Unless you are a sadist. For another, you may get in jail for attacking a baby. Yet again, if you hit a baby, you can kill him or pain him, which means that: a) babies should fear that they can be hurt/punched to death on a regular basis; there would be less potential good people out there because there are less babies and sadists are more provoked; c) this will all rebound back at you, so you will be dealing with worser people, and hitting babies and killing them will be considered normal, your babies included.
OK, the last statement is exxagerated, but that is pretty much what reason is based on when it comes to egoism and why egoism is a problem.
I'm saying that I don't go by the general feeling of "punching a baby is wrong because he's a cute little innocent thing", because that statement is n't exactly practical. Well, to some degree, it is, because it is unnatural for a human to wish to punch a baby. Anyway, when I go by good and bad I go by what will be bad for the society in general and what will not be bad for society in general. If one guy goes punching babies and gets away from it, it's bearable. If 300 guys go punch 300 babies, punching babies can become something people do on a regular basis, and I don't think anyone would want their baby punched, and while you may not have one, many do or will have.
I hope I didn't write it too confusing because I slid of the topic...
I think the reason why most people would'nt punch a baby is cause there so darn cute. I'm just asking if your morality would consider it good or bad to punch a baby, not that you would will it to be so.
look at me Im talking about punching babies on my birthday.
Just
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
I think the reason why most people would'nt punch a baby is cause there so darn cute. I'm just asking if your morality would consider it good or bad to punch a baby.
Look at me Im talking about punching babies on my birthday.
Just in case your wondering my opinion is, that there are no "evil people" just disgusting idividuals, there are no "good people" just selfricheous fools, and that if you truly belive that you are better than anyone else you are the closest thing to evil that could ever exist.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Yes, but that is a feeling, feelings aren't practical, and if you are speaking generaly, in terms of practicism, people don't punch babies because there is no reason to.
My morality would consider it bad because it will rebound back, as I have told you.
Happy Birthday, then! A late one, though, I suppose.
For me there are people wishing to satisfy only themselves, people that wish to satisfy the society, and people that are too foolish to comprehend either and that follow the flow of the society...
Before you use parameters "good" and "evil", define them. My definition of evil is: "Harmful to this society, unnatural to man, pointless." For good - the opposite. What's yours? When you say "the closest thing to evil that exists", to what "evil"? Not exactly clear here...
Again, the unclear parameter of "goodness"...
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep