Search results

But of course, anyone can define anything in anyway they want , but it doesn't mean a thing. You can define a dog as a duck but it wont make it a duck same as defining God as the universe won't make it the universe. Why should an atheist even need define God when you say everyone is entitled to...

Oh, no beef really but now that you mention it , the laws of physics already support your metaphorical thread title so just not sure what Penrose's CCC / Ligo might do in that regard which isn't already done.

The universe is everything that exists anywhere so no, its wrong to say God is the universe. Adding to or supplanting the word universe with the word God is not right. "Father God and I is One".... very Trumpian. Jesus just doesn't rate as a historical person and Bible Jesus is depicted as a...

Reading Roger Penrose always reminds me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Two very clever people gradually going doolally. Doyle wrote brilliant literature and then in a state of batshitness decided to claim fairies actually existed in reality . In a way, from writing so much fiction, he might be...

...while all the time remembering science doesn't point to a creator and if the universe seems so improbable and so special and so ordered then quite obviously a creator would have to be even more improbable and more special and more ordered so designed explains nothing at all.

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged :finger:

I agree, think we must be talking past each other as I can't believe I've read some of the stuff you've posted on this subject recently. And there's the thing AAA. Tony Stark didn't say sure that's stupid but "there are two sides" or the American right acts just as badly, so giving the...

Yeah nice dodge to you too. Who said that any group I (or you) oppose has no moral standing? I didn't. I was talking about white supremacist neo-Nazi racists having no moral standing, no moral equivalency to those who stand against them. Shouting out 'free speech' doesn't give them one. Blaming...

What exquisite irony .

There you go again, more Whataboutism. Can you not help yourself? You cannot form any moral basis or give any kind of justification to white supremacist neo-Nazi racists, which is apparently what you are still trying to do. Everyone knows what they stand for, what their agenda is. They are only...

Obviously you are generalizing as well as being over simplistic as personally I've done none of those things and you have no clue which if any political side I support. Fair's fair though you can be sure it isn't the extreme alt-right you appear to favor. But what I have done as have others, is...

Had Biblical Jesus been a real life character I think it fair to say there would be at least some proper evidence of it and indeed a great deal too, particularly if he had actually existed and been in the mold of Trump. I would suggest writers and co-authors following up on a theme can be...

No they can't. The racist hate and violence which is white supremacy does not get that equivalence. The violence is wrong but not equally justifiable.

So are you saying you do above all firstly, reject and condemn unequivocally the racial bigotry, anti-semitism and hatred in the form of those who support KKK's white supremacist Nazi fascist ideology who turned out at Charlottesville . Or not?

The point remains. You can't give any moral standing to Nazi white supremacist fascists by lumping all violence together or by expanding the rhetoric to condemn lefties, or anyone else. There exists no moral equivalence at that fundamental level. That's why Trump is wrong and why you are...

Everything else being equal, bottom line White supremacist Nazi fascists by definition have no moral standing. Anti-white supremacist, anti-Nazi anti-fascists by definition do. No moral equivalence.

:rolleyes:

1930 Nazi Supremacists then, so far a minority 2017 Nazi Supremacists now, so far a minority So a fair comparison. Should I be surprised or concerned you can't see it?

It can be said too many Germans did that in 1932.