Search results

How do you mean related....in that it uses words? The article doesn't directly address the point made.

Changing the subject makes no difference. Established morality contradicted by the sort of threats a terrorist would come up with is not morality, nor is it a "greater" morality just because the contradiction is a religious narrative.

Good, in that case it will be clear to any one with half a wit.

Establishing fundamental clear moral standards, is the morality. To then merely excuse the very same moral standards, and only because of arbitrary religious contradictions as Ricter suggests, where an imaginary God concept is allowed to trivially ignore them to present a narrative in the...

Moral standards stand distinct from suffering pain and death. That's the point of them, it’s how things like that can be deemed immoral, and the threat of those three things in the name of morality is more aligned to terrorism, not a "greater" morality.

Which is veering toward another at least inferior form of morality, if not another wholly immoral one. Morality because of a threat is hardly morality at all.

You did didn't you.

I didn't invite you to give a crap. I wasn't addressing you and quite frankly I don't give a crap you don't give a crap. One sec. No, I just checked, nor do I give a crap about what you're not really sure about.

Which is basically, an immoral idea.

Your argument, if it could be called that, is miserably self defeating. If the "human brain gets stuff wrong", then the human brain that asserts... "God, or whatever is the ultimate reality, doesn't get stuff wrong." ... can get that wrong too. It took well over 20 years for Susskind and...

There'll be as much truth in that as there was in this.. "Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you." ...that is to say, none.

Proof of your status.:p That and being untruthful about the things you say.

So you find find statements of fact abusive. That's of no surprise.

Fourth case of unprovoked name calling by you, proving the lie yet again, "Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you." Just as long as you keep on saying things I don't say and keep saying Hawking and Penrose are saying things they don't say, you'll remain...

1. I saw the video, you post it whenever your argument is confused or lost, which is all the time. You're still wrong and I’ve already said why. 2. I saw the paper. You present it whenever your argument gets befuddled and ignorant , which is all the time. You're still wrong and I’ve said...

Won't matter how many time you repeat the vid it won't change the fact that you are wrong. But as I day it does show how wrong you must be...so be my guest, post it again.:p

Thank you kindly fc. I suppose it's a way of giving. Talking to Jem is like joining a care in the community program.

..and again... proves the lie... "Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you." That's twice on the run now and still amazingly, you seem oblivious to what you've proved yourself to be. I already did many times..... you seem oblivious of that too. How do you...

...proving the lie.... "Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you. No, you hold the hope that they hold that hope. They don't. Those values have no more turned out to be fine tuned than the earth has turned out to be flat. They are scientists, they will...

Be my guest, keep posting the video. There is nothing funnier than you providing the evidence yourself that shows how your argument is discredited and ignorant.