Psalm 14: Who was Jesus' grandpa?

[DemonKaiser93]

So.. the point you want to reach is... that humans are superior to animals... and that we cannot be clasified as animals, because ,we are more inteligent and/or have more reasoning... right?

[Kodos]

Superior is a value judgment. I'd say that humans are superior to other animals though, yes. But that's not my point. My point is that humans are demonstrably different from other animals and that to pretend otherwise is silly. I never said we were not animals, you'd have to be a idiot to think that, I simply said that we are different from other animals and to talk about humans in the same way as other animals is silly.

Hell, other animals even behave and act differently. You would not talk of an amoeba, a cow, and a orangutan in the same terms.

[Bacon_Barbarian]

No it is not. It's a massive fucking difference. Can you really not see how the literal definition of a term and what things can be described by that term are different? It's like saying whether or not "red" means "a color" or "food made with chicken" and whether or not my hair is red are the same thing.

"Evil is subjective" and "What you consider evil is subjective" are very similar. What I said means what's considered evil is subjective. What you said specifies WHO. The difference is who you're adressing.

[Kodos]

Then your initial point makes even less sense since, like I said, my logical argument works for any definition of evil. As long as you accept that such a thing as evil exists - as well as the other premises - then you must accept the conclusions. The only "out" is to deny one of the premises or more - which invariably leads to a rejection of Christianity.

[Bacon_Barbarian]

Then your initial point makes even less sense since, like I said, my logical argument works for any definition of evil. As long as you accept that such a thing as evil exists - as well as the other premises - then you must accept the conclusions. The only "out" is to deny one of the premises or more - which invariably leads to a rejection of Christianity.

My initial point that people have a differing opinion of what's evil. That makes no sense? I'm tired, maybe this will make more sense Monday.

[Kodos]

It makes no sense because that is entirely irrelevant to my argument. For the umpteenth time: the argument works with any definition of evil. Period. As long as you accept that there is such a thing as evil and that it exists in the world then the argument holds true. Period. Whether you define evil as "hurting people" or "not hurting people" is totally unimportant to the argument.

[Fenn]

Evil is by definition not a good thing. It's a logical contradiction like "married bachelor" or "justified murder". If you accept that evil exists then you accept that it is bad. That is what it means for something to be evil.


See above.

Thank you. That wasn't so hard, now, was it?

We live in a world owned and run by massive and evil corporations. Living a happy life without a fair deal of money is extremely difficult.

One must work long and hard to sustain a reasonable lifestyle. That limits the time one can spend enjoying the arts and leisure time. Money does not equal happiness, but it does provide one with the time in which to seek happiness.

True. But, if the only REQUIREMENT one has for enjoyment is time, far less work is required relative to the person who must always have material possesions to enjoy the free time they have. Don't get me wrong; life requires tons of effort, time, and hard work. But throwing additional requirements onto the neccesities of life (food, protection, non-disposible income) makes enjoying life even more challenging.

Don't forget that work IS a part of life as well. It is plausible in some cases, with the right attitude, to enjoy a job even if it isn't your dream job. Not always, but sometimes.

I didn't.

My comprehension fail. Not that verbal insults hold any objective weight whatsoever.

[Delphinus]

But, if the only REQUIREMENT one has for enjoyment is time, far less work is required relative to the person who must always have material possesions to enjoy the free time they have. Don't get me wrong; life requires tons of effort, time, and hard work. But throwing additional requirements onto the neccesities of life (food, protection, non-disposible income) makes enjoying life even more challenging.

Have you ever tried living in a house with ragged wallpaper where the heating is all provided by a small stove in the kitchen, and where you don't have enough money to run a television or even, occasionally, provide enough light to read by, unless you want to starve for a week? Arguably all basic needs are provided for - food, shelter, protection from the outside world - but you'd be an idiot to claim that's an enjoyable lifestyle. It's all about money in this land of milk and honey.

Don't forget that work IS a part of life as well. It is plausible in some cases, with the right attitude, to enjoy a job even if it isn't your dream job. Not always, but sometimes.

Work does not need to be a part of life, but it is. Most people either don't enjoy their jobs or have to teach themselves to enjoy them over a period of time - arguably, that's just a form of self-conditioning and not how they actually feel. Why should people work? It's not a psychological necessity.

[Bacon_Barbarian]

Have you ever tried living in a house with ragged wallpaper where the heating is all provided by a small stove in the kitchen, and where you don't have enough money to run a television or even, occasionally, provide enough light to read by, unless you want to starve for a week? Arguably all basic needs are provided for - food, shelter, protection from the outside world - but you'd be an idiot to claim that's an enjoyable lifestyle. It's all about money in this land of milk and honey.

Bhutan is considerably less wealthy then America or the UK, and is the 8th happiest country in the world (and the happiest in Asia). So no, not really.

[Fenn]

Have you ever tried living in a house with ragged wallpaper where the heating is all provided by a small stove in the kitchen, and where you don't have enough money to run a television or even, occasionally, provide enough light to read by, unless you want to starve for a week? Arguably all basic needs are provided for - food, shelter, protection from the outside world - but you'd be an idiot to claim that's an enjoyable lifestyle. It's all about money in this land of milk and honey.

Never tried it myself, but call me an idiot for saying I'd claim its possible. People I know who have visited some of the poorest countries in the world return marveling at how "happy" some of those impoverished people are (depending on the place and circumstances).

Also:
http://bostonherald.com/news/regiona...794&position=1

I'm trying to figure out what to make of this article. Her life seems like it absolutely sucked, but at her present stage, she appears...content. I'm sure there's more to this I'm missing, but if this person can find some sort of redeeming quality to life, shouldn't many more people be able to? (granted there is a high probability she has a mental disorder)

Work does not need to be a part of life, but it is. Most people either don't enjoy their jobs or have to teach themselves to enjoy them over a period of time - arguably, that's just a form of self-conditioning and not how they actually feel. Why should people work? It's not a psychological necessity.

The first sentence there is important. Work, at this point, is unavoidable, and probably will be mandatory for me for all my life. Regardless, work CAN be a form of enjoyment. You would be very ignorant to claim there is no one who enjoys their job. Sure, adjusting ones attitude is a form of adaptation, but is it negative? We could argue ideals all day, but in the real world, being able to adapt and find enjoyment from unexpected sources is a useful trait.