Pleasing the Crowds

[slingblade]

I borrowed it? assumes fact without evidence.

Been on my computer awhile, i have a folder called 'Avatar'. I could take a screenshot with how long it has been there, but you'll get say i edited it.

Sigh.

Do you really have this much trouble with language? Really?


Brattus has been using that avatar here for quite some time. It's familiar, but not when attached to your screen name.

Now, since Brattus doesn't own that avatar, I can't say you "stole" it from him. You're just coincidentally using an avatar that someone else has been using since before you joined. "Borrowed" was just a turn of phrase.

My question was more about who had been using it before you, because I couldn't remember the name...just the image.

Look up Brattus in the Member's List. You'll see.

 

[Lamuella]

Isn't that why we have a rating system for TV shows and movies and ban things people deem to be too offensive for our children. "Oh think of the children!"

Yes iam suggesting that, if a world had not 1 kill registered, why would anyone do it?

The religion you claim to believe had a situation in which the world had "not 1 kill registered" and then someone killed someone else. What made Cain do it?

Since you said he has done wrong, he can go to the 'evil' world and still help people who 'evil' beats and save people, while still beating on his kids and cheating on his wife.

so his kids and his wife go with him? Why?

Plus, why should the good world lose out on the good he would do? Why condemn all the people he would have saved to death?

 

[Lamuella]

you seem to have a very binary view of morality. The problem is that the world is painted in shades of grey. Mostly admirable people do horrible things. Largely unpleasant people are capable of acts of exceptional kindness.

 

[Dancing David]

No, try again.

The bad man is the good man's charge.

 

[Novest]

Sigh.

Do you really have this much trouble with language? Really?


Brattus has been using that avatar here for quite some time. It's familiar, but not when attached to your screen name.

Now, since Brattus doesn't own that avatar, I can't say you "stole" it from him. You're just coincidentally using an avatar that someone else has been using since before you joined. "Borrowed" was just a turn of phrase.

My question was more about who had been using it before you, because I couldn't remember the name...just the image.

Look up Brattus in the Member's List. You'll see.

Just like you borrowed the Gregorian calendar after someone was using it before you lol you have the line of thinking in you alone to support my BC/AD thread. Caught ya again!!! =]

 

[Novest]

The religion you claim to believe had a situation in which the world had "not 1 kill registered" and then someone killed someone else. What made Cain do it?

Dude, stop trying. This has no relation to that.. we have already established that. We are in the MIXED world. This thread is about separating the MIXED world, before it got MIXED.

so his kids and his wife go with him? Why?

Oh back to no relation.
He probably wouldn't have had the kids to start with, or wife once after we knew what he would do to them. Unless in the 'Evil' world, it was as claim to stage a wedding.

Plus, why should the good world lose out on the good he would do? Why condemn all the people he would have saved to death?

Because the good world, wouldn't need the bad he did, i mean the wife and kids wouldn't need the bad he did. Im sure someone else in the 'good' world, could easily help others who need it aswell.

 

[Lamuella]

Dude, stop trying. This has no relation to that.. we have already established that. We are in the MIXED world. This thread is about separating the MIXED world, before it got MIXED.

So basically you're making up rules for what would happen in an imaginary world, and ignoring everyone who points out that they don't make sense.

That's fine, I guess, but why get us involved in your little pretend games?

Because the good world, wouldn't need the bad he did, i mean the wife and kids wouldn't need the bad he did. Im sure someone else in the 'good' world, could easily help others who need it aswell.

my point is that almost all people are a mix of good and bad, and without changing the people entirely you can't easily separate the two. This means you're either condemning people who are generally good because of one bad habit, or fundamentally altering people. If you're fundamentally altering people, why have "bad people" in the first place?

 

[bencg]

I posted this in another thread and thought it could be worthily of discussion as the concept would indeed please many people.

Everyone throws around here very loosely, that God is omniscient. Could he have not just created 2 separate universes. One for them who is knows does good and one for them who is knows does evil - for debating reasons over the whole expand of ones life.

To create 2 universes requires not an omniscient (all knowing) god but an omnipotent (all powerful) god. I assume this is what you meant.

The idea that god is omnipotent (and/or omniscient and/or omnipresent) is not a debating tactic invented by athiests. It is a central premise of many god beliefs, in other words invented by believers. I am confused; do YOU think god is omnipotent? Are you implying you dont think its true?

Imagine earth full of people who we would convict and right next to them, another earth full of people who would never be convicted. Let them who like to stab each other do it to their own kind, while them to like to not stab each other do it to their own kind.

Any technology both earth's/universe invent, they keep, any information about our each world's society passed down, aswell as history just like its done now with both parties in the one universe.

Could you see any downsides to this, apart from the fact noone would like to make the choice to visit an evil earth?

Your premise is weird and flawed.

People are not intrinsically good or evil. 'Good people' do bad things and 'bad people' do good things. I doubt you can even post a definition of what makes a person good or evil as the christian notion of evil is vague and illogical. Therefore your premise requires humans who are not like humans at all.

I suppose for a certain type of un-intellectual true believer it would fit with a simplistic (medieval) world view that people are either good or evil, but almost no-one (on this forum... hopefully also in the world at large) thinks like this. It simply makes no sense to suppose a 'good' person who is literally incalpable of evil or vice-versa. I'm curious, are you a good person? Have you ever done anything at all that is bad?


So your idea is stupid. It cannot work with real people because there is no such thing as a person who is only good or evil.

I will try and answer your question seriously anyway. If for the sake of discussion we suppose a reality where an omnipotent god creates your scenario you ask what are the downsides? Well first we have 2 populations of non humans, humanis-good and humanis-bad. The bad ones only do evil, their world will not last long presumably. This seems like a downside but as they are all evil through and through (even the children) should we really care? The thing is we are normal humans and I think we would care anyway, its the way we are programmed; so this is a big downer in my book. The good ones are incalpable of evil so everything is kittens and rainbows right? As a normal human the good world sounds like a real nice place but I doubt they would let us in, as normal humans there would be a real risk we would only inadvertantly introduce evil. Also philosophically of what value would 'good' be if people were literally incalpable of evil? This is also a downer, so to our human sensibilities your premise is a double bummer.

 

[slingblade]

Just like you borrowed the Gregorian calendar after someone was using it before you lol you have the line of thinking in you alone to support my BC/AD thread. Caught ya again!!! =]

Sweetie, I know you're very young. But you didn't "catch me."

I have known since I was a child how the current Gregorian calendar was conceived. I have known how the months and days were named. They are simply points of information regarding a method of keeping track of time, and nothing more.

I use the Gregorian calendar because everyone else around me uses it, and for uniformity and consistency's sake, everything is easier when everyone around you is using the same system.

If somehow the current common calendar changes, and a new system is instituted that everyone around me begins to use, I will use it as well, for uniformity and consistency's sake.

It will not matter to me what this new calendar gets based upon, or what it's called, or how it changes from the old one. I will use whatever time-keeping method the people around me use, regardless.

This has not one thing to do with the fact that I do not believe in imaginary beings. God is an imaginary being. I do not believe in it.

The calendar doesn't have anything to do with my atheism.

The fact that American money has "in god we trust" printed on it has not one thing to do with my atheism. I still use it.

The fact that people say "god bless you" to me when I sneeze has not one thing to do with my atheism. I will even say it back to them, if I like them, respect them, and realize it's important to them to hear it said.

You are going to have to deal with the fact that I don't believe what you believe. In fact, I don't think anyone believes exactly what you believe. It seems to be unique to you.

I don't want you to change what you believe. If you want to change it, then do so. If you don't, that's fine with me. I will never ask you to change your beliefs.

Why are you insisting I have to change mine?

 

[Novest]

So basically you're making up rules for what would happen in an imaginary world, and ignoring everyone who points out that they don't make sense.

That's fine, I guess, but why get us involved in your little pretend games?



my point is that almost all people are a mix of good and bad, and without changing the people entirely you can't easily separate the two. This means you're either condemning people who are generally good because of one bad habit, or fundamentally altering people. If you're fundamentally altering people, why have "bad people" in the first place?

This is just weird, that awful Gabriel fantasy post got nominated and my fantasy is taken literally.. you guys just want to debate anything a believer says, with the view, he is a believer.. whether or not i asked in a fantasy story hypothesis, idea, concept lalalalalala.

why i didn't make a post telling if i was a believer or not for awhile when i signed up. everyone pretty much left the 'logic freak' comment alone, till you knew i was a believer.

And if God started women first, would he have been sexist? although with your lack of belief, God being gay makes perfect logic right?

 

[Novest]

Sweetie, I know you're very young. But you didn't "catch me."

Sweetheart, i did.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sigh.

Do you really have this much trouble with language? Really?


Brattus has been using that avatar here for quite some time. It's familiar, but not when attached to your screen name.

Now, since Brattus doesn't own that avatar, I can't say you "stole" it from him. You're just coincidentally using an avatar that someone else has been using since before you joined. "Borrowed" was just a turn of phrase.

My question was more about who had been using it before you, because I couldn't remember the name...just the image.

Look up Brattus in the Member's List. You'll see.

Possibly someone has a guilty conscience?

 

[Dancing David]

And now we shall never know, what the op was intended to convey...