Is it sin?

[Sheldon]

Yes all in darkness. 99% of all religions claiming to be christian reside in darkness. They do not listen to Jesus. They are these-2Corinthians 11:12-15)-- The ones telling all they are saved.

I think you're missing Polymath 257's point, citing the bible as an authority is pretty meaningless to those who don't share that belief. You'd need to appeal to them in a different way if you want to champion the idea they should refrain from any behaviour that you think is sinful, as sin is also a concept an atheist would find meaningless. So endlessly asserting something is sinful or that there are biblical prohibitions against it are meaningless to those who don't share your belief. Given the bible endorses thinks like ethnic cleansing, infanticide, sex trafficking virginal female prisoners, and slavery to name a few, I'm not sure why anyone finds it authoritative.

 

[Samael_Khan]

They often do present those concepts in this way, but I don't believe that, rather concepts like good or evil are subjective nd relative.

They are subjective and relative, which is why different religions have different views of what is right and wrong. It even changes over time in the religions themselves.

Oh I'm not sure that is often true, it certainly hasn't been my experience of most of the atheists I've encountered. Religions evolve alongside evolving societies and cultural influences go in both directions it seems to me.

Not sure I follow, and thinking of concepts like morality in terms of east and west is perhaps a little too facile for such a complex topic as morality, but certainly cultures are influenced by religions and religions by cultures they exist in.

It might seem facile at first glance but something that we would think obvious, such as good and evil, doesn't actually translate to Daoism, Hinduism and Confucianism which is mind blowing. Apparently dualistic morality is a western and Middle Eastern thing because of the Abrahamic religions. (Also some in the east because of muslims being present there.) But that is a complex topic, as is the concept of morality.

I see nothing to disagree with there, the basis for one's morality is subjective, I don't think it can be otherwise, but once we agree broadly we can agree on how best to serve that morality. many theists I encounter though, as we see here in some cases, seem to care less about the physical and emotional well being of other humans than they do about adherence to archaic dogma and doctrine, some of which is demonstrably pernicious.

They think like that because of the dualistic morality present in their religions. And in those cases, it is morally good to be obedient to their god and morally evil to not follow their god. Dualistic thinking creates an us versus them mindset which doesn't actually consider how reality actually works and how people actually behave, because to see that reality calls the religion into question. It is a no nuance mindset. They are to an extent blind.

Well thank you, it's not an accident obviously, despite what some theists often claim about atheists, we are at least as moral as they are. I'm not sure I'm as optimistic as your first sentence though, but there are plenty of decent people, who strive for high ideals.

Since morality is subjective, I would say that everybody is as moral as everybody else as long as they live by their moral convictions.

I don't think I thought that latter point through... The majority of us strive for harmony and well being in our own lives.... Whether that means being in harmony with everybody else or being unchallenged at the top of the proverbial food chain differs between individuals.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes it is a battle between the flesh and the spirit. Yes all sin, some practice them. That makes one a worker of iniquity and will hear these words from Jesus as judgement-Matthew 7:21-23--He assures all there in 21--Those living now( in this satan ruled system) to do his Fathers will get to enter his kingdom.
At 1 Cor 6_9-11 says--This is what some of you were= past tense. They do not do the sins in those 2 lists.( Gal 5:19-21)
One of the reasons Jesus taught--Few will find the road leading off into life. Few can beat their flesh.

Nobody beats their flesh, which is why Jesus comes in handy, according to the bible. That is why people die.

So we are all affected, and often times it is the most outwardly holy and vocal who end up hypocrites, pointing out the splinter in another's eye while not taking the splinter out of their own.

 

[Sheldon]

They are subjective and relative, which is why different religions have different views of what is right and wrong. It even changes over time in the religions themselves.

To me this would seem to be at odds with the claim these ideas have a divine origin, how can a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message, and limitless power to communicate that message, ever make any errors in that message? Of course one could argue, as I have seen some religious apologists do, that the message was corrupted by the human authors. Two problems leap out at me here, the first being how incongruous that idea is against a deity having limitless power to communicate that message, the second being that if we assume for the sake of argument this were true, the message again loses all credibility of divine origin anyway, like divine lite.

 

[kjw47]

You don't get to decide that for others who don't share your beliefs on those issues, and that seems like another no true Scotsman fallacy again. The claim it is unwise not to listen to a deity, is meaningless to an atheist for a start.[/QUOTE

So no matter what i say, you will say the opposite. So there is 0 sense speaking to you.

 

[kjw47]

I think you're missing Polymath 257's point, citing the bible as an authority is pretty meaningless to those who don't share that belief. You'd need to appeal to them in a different way if you want to champion the idea they should refrain from any behaviour that you think is sinful, as sin is also a concept an atheist would find meaningless. So endlessly asserting something is sinful or that there are biblical prohibitions against it are meaningless to those who don't share your belief. Given the bible endorses thinks like ethnic cleansing, infanticide, sex trafficking virginal female prisoners, and slavery to name a few, I'm not sure why anyone finds it authoritative.

Asserting anything to one like you would be senseless. You should get a life while you can. Have a good one.

 

[kjw47]

Nobody beats their flesh, which is why Jesus comes in handy, according to the bible. That is why people die.

So we are all affected, and often times it is the most outwardly holy and vocal who end up hypocrites, pointing out the splinter in another's eye while not taking the splinter out of their own.

I have taken the splinter out.

 

[Sheldon]

They think like that because of the dualistic morality present in their religions. And in those cases, it is morally good to be obedient to their god and morally evil to not follow their god.

Well at the risk of fulfilling Godwin's law, blindly following rules, even divine diktat, is something even a "good" Nazi mastered. I may be too dim-witted to grasp these concepts, but it occurs to me that either humans can or cannot recognise what is moral. If they can't then they are indeed just blindly following divine dikatat (their belief, not mine). However if as religious apologists often claim, humans can't be moral without a divine diktat, then how can they ever know that divine diktat is moral? They are simply resorting to a circular reasoning fallacy.

These arguments usually follow this type of rationale: We know what is moral because god has told us, we know it is moral because god cannot be immoral, we know god cannot be immoral because god has told us he cannot be immoral, and so on and so forth....they sometimes cite other believers making unevidenced claims in the bible.

 

[Sheldon]

Asserting anything to one like you would be senseless. You should get a life while you can. Have a good one.

Wow, you weren't kidding you really are useless at debate, though good at ignoring facts and argument. Well I will bow to your obvious expertise in asserting what is senseless, and of course I already have a life, I cannot realistically do otherwise. You however should make the most of yours, as this unevidenced fantasy of yours that it is just a stepping stone to an eternity of bliss, just might cause you to waste it, or worse try and enforce your archaic and barbaric notions of morality on others.

Have a good one yourself.

 

[DNB]

I didnt make the claim that porn produces a poison in the brain.

Perhaps you can provide evidence of said claim because the OP certainly can't.

My point was, why do I need to - can you not tell the difference yourself that you need some academic attestation to prove otherwise?
Pornography is disgusting, lewd, and disrespectful for all parties involved. How much is too much? The actors are insatiable, they're lascivious and depraved. They are gluttonous and hedonistic.
Why am I explaining this?

 

[DNB]

Spoken like a true expert on opinion and no knowledge of really

It's mind boggling the lack of perception on your part. Shame on those who cannot formulate an opinion on their own. At what point do you remain incapacitated until an 'expert' offers you enlightenment on a subject matter?
Not only that, but are you unaware of the controversy at hand, do you really believe that one or two scholarly papers will settle the issue?

 

[Mock Turtle]

There are some things you have to rely on parental guidance for, as I can't see how else to police what children do in their own homes. maybe internet providers could add mandatory security checks for accessing material deemed inappropriate for children, but of course if parents don't used those safeguards then it's hard to see what else we can do. this is less about pornography than about protecting children in an online environment, and that extends way beyond that.

Again this is separate from the earlier claims made about pornography. Since I doubt anyone thinks it is appropriate for children to be viewing such material.

Parental guidance/control is mostly ineffective when out of their sight - like when their children mix with other children or have access to what others have access to. So probably more about the ease of access to (free) pornography - and the changes over the last few decades - where such was allowed to blossom without the merest hint of control. In the news:

Warn children about porn earlier, teens say

Parents should to talk to children about online pornography and sexting as early as the age of eight or nine, young people say. The Children's Commissioner for England worked with a group of older teenagers to create a guide on how parents could best deal with sex-related issues. Studies suggest half of under-11s have seen pornography, so parents need to be ready to talk earlier, the panel said. Such tricky conversations need to start before children get phones, they said.

Where many feel the need to defend the freedoms for pornography they might like to consider this, where children are virtually forced to confront such things even when they are not really mature enough to understand all that this involves and/or how such might affect them - especially as to their being exploited and/or abused.

One young person said: "I feel like the best time for parents to have a conversation about porn is a bit earlier for boys than girls. "From my experience of male friends, they definitely see porn earlier than my female friends. I mean like early - Year 4, Year 5, Year 6." Another said: "At that young age you don't really know what's right and wrong and you just follow whatever you see on porn sites." Many children stumble across pornography online accidentally, the report added. Under the current law, it is illegal for shops to sell DVDs, videos and magazines to under‑18s, but there is a gap in the law around online pornography, which is freely available.

This is perhaps one of the worst aspects - that so much porn is freely available - and if it wasn't then many fewer would likely be viewing it.

On sexting - the sharing of nude or sexually explicit images - the panel said young people shared these pictures and videos for a number of reasons, such as peer pressure, for validation and as a relationship milestone, as well as a result of coercion or manipulation.

Girls also told Dame Rachel about being sent porn by older boys at school.

And thus acting effectively like paedophiles.

 

[Samael_Khan]

To me this would seem to be at odds with the claim these ideas have a divine origin, how can a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message, and limitless power to communicate that message, ever make any errors in that message? Of course one could argue, as I have seen some religious apologists do, that the message was corrupted by the human authors. Two problems leap out at me here, the first being how incongruous that idea is against a deity having limitless power to communicate that message, the second being that if we assume for the sake of argument this were true, the message again loses all credibility of divine origin anyway, like divine lite.

I would say that it depends on the intent of the deity, because the guy could be a liar and confuse people his own amusement. The problem is that writing is a rather inefficient means of conveying a message, especially the less matter of fact it is written. Depending on people's understanding of language and their perspective a sentence can be read in various ways. Another problem is proof texting, taking a sentence on its own and not reading the whole book to get the context.

If God had limitless power to convey his message, written word would certainly not be the most efficient way of doing so, as nothing in writing can prove that a God was behind its origins.

 

[Samael_Khan]

However if as religious apologists often claim, humans can't be moral without a divine diktat, then how can they ever know that divine diktat is moral? They are simply resorting to a circular reasoning fallacy.

Excellent conclusion which I have come to as well. If humans cannot know what is moral without God then there is no way of recognising if god is moral or not. They hand over all sense of morality to their God. So, if their god says that killing people is good, then they cannot object, because god defines what is good and evil.

What is also dangerous about this is that they offload their morality to whomever they are convinced of represents god. Whether that be Jesus Christ or Jim Jones, they cannot object to their human leader on moral grounds because they cannot determine morality. So believers are at the whims of their human masters.

These arguments usually follow this type of rationale: We know what is moral because god has told us, we know it is moral because god cannot be immoral, we know god cannot be immoral because god has told us he cannot be immoral, and so on and so forth....they sometimes cite other believers making unevidenced claims in the bible.

So basically they are just accepting claims because someone said do. No thought whatsoever.

This line of thinking is actually contrary to the book of Romans in the NT. There Paul lays out the idea that since we are made in the image of God, we innately have a sense of right and wrong. We have an innate conscience as humans. Therefore non believers who obey the law without having been told the law are evidence that the law is written on the heart. Those who are sinful are following their uncontrollable desires.

So christians who say that humans can't be moral without divine diktat are contradicting their own scripture.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Pornography is disgusting, lewd, and disrespectful for all parties involved. How much is too much? The actors are insatiable, their lascivious and depraved. They are gluttonous and hedonistic.

All this is a matter of opinion based on a certain world view. Many believe the opposite is true in many cases because they do not have the same world view as you.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I have taken the splinter out.

How certain are you?

 

[ChristineM]

My point was, why do I need to - can you not tell the difference yourself that you need some academic attestation to prove otherwise?

Because the unsubstantiated claim was made.

Pornography is disgusting, lewd, and disrespectful for all parties involved. How much is too much? The actors are insatiable, their lascivious and depraved. They are gluttonous and hedonistic.

Considering the vast majority of the population watches porn, you are accusing a high percentage of the population of not adhering to your opinion. And you do seem to have formed an opinion, either by eatching it yourself or through ignorance.

Why am I explaining

Because you like to ensures others are of your opinion maybe? Never works particularly when you hold such intrangegent opinions on a popular subject

 

[ChristineM]

It's mind boggling the lack of perception on your part. Shame on those who cannot formulate an opinion on their own. At what point do you remain incapacitated until an 'expert' offers you enlightenment on a subject matter?
Not only that, but are you unaware of the controversy at hand, do you really believe that one or two scholarly papers will settle the issue?

Hmmm, people have formed an opinion that does not gel with yours and so you protest loudly that they have not formed an opinion that you agree with... or so it seems

You have no idea of my life ao why make assumptions that only make you look ignorant on the subject?

i am not talking one or two scholarly papers but hundreds and hundreds of psychological works, and you know it but try and diminish the quantity because they do not support your opinion

 

[kjw47]

How certain are you?

All fall short of the glory of God. One must live righteous now--these are the ones the bible promises will reside on Gods earth forever. --At 1John 3:6 says-- EVERYONE remaining in union with him, does NOT practice sin, no one that practices sin has either seen him or come to know him. And the opposite is true as well as Jesus testifies to at Matthew 7:21-23-- To every worker of iniquity( practicer of sin) Jesus will tell them as judgement--GET AWAY FROM ME, i must confess i never even knew you.
Now concerning the 2 lists mentioned at 1Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galations 5:19-21-- one whole heartedly trys with their very best effort to NEVER do 1 of these. That doesnt even mention other grave sins like false god worship, lying, etc.

 

[kjw47]

Because the unsubstantiated claim was made.



Considering the vast majority of the population watches porn, you are accusing a high percentage of the population of not adhering to your opinion. And you do seem to have formed an opinion, either by eatching it yourself or through ignorance.




Because you like to ensures others are of your opinion maybe? Never works particularly when you hold such intrangegent opinions on a popular subject

It is very popular by satans will. God warned all at 2Timothy 3 what this world is..Instead of loving God they seek $$$ and pleasures for their flesh. Satan is the god of this system of things. For the majority.