Search results

I know FC, a person might as well talk with a brick than talk with Jem. It is disturbing indeed to notice Jem and those like him abuse human reasoning so much, but despite that your persistence brought a lot of good information and detail into the thread, which I'm grateful of benefiting from...

and science can show how years of heavy pollution is bad for the environment and for health. Like science shows CO2 can cool, science shows alcohol can be healthy too. But the science in both cases shows how it's dangerous to have too much CO2 or too much alcohol at which point serious damage...

.... you've mentioned "Racist Member of 'Nation of Islam' " .... but not mentioned ex Marine Sergeant. Why was that. That's ok, it's a rhetorical question.

Look Jem, I realize you've been in so much denial for so long now, no amount of science will have any impression on you, but the simple point I was making is, it's simply reckless to continuously pump into the atmosphere such massive amounts of man made CO2 over such a long period. It's asking...

...but is bad for humans. You only need hold your breath for a few seconds and the nervous system will register a tiny imbalance of CO2 in the blood. A miniscule disproportion of CO2 is enough to cause the overwhelming urge to breathe, to bring the balance of CO2 back down. Increase CO2 in the...

Worth remembering Tea party champions would say they don't support fabricated gravity alarmist nonsense if they could get enough crazies to shout hell yeah.

Jem see "multi culti" Jem type "multi culti" Lol

That's like saying it's ok to drive recklessly because reckless driving may or may not end up with a wreck and anyway, airbags have an impact. :rolleyes: "any time you have some science showing man made co2 isn't warming the earth... just let us know."

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith considers morals to be a matter of emotion. Eminent philosophers of the time successfully argued that was not so, particularly Thomas Reid in his ..Principles of Common Sense., which determines how morals are rather - ascertained. :)

I didn't say it was new. I said it generally isn't read that way. Which it isn't. Earliest beliefs are considered to have been monotheistic. Much later giving way to many Gods, eventually returning to the one God idea again for mainstream contemporary religions, putting the imaginary God...

Except God isn't generally read that way. Your "better" doesn't work either, for once you remove superstition from religion and God, then poof...they've gone anyway. I appreciate by sitting on the fence that way you're trying to slot God in there alongside morality, but it really doesn't work...

Is Actually presupposition. Basing morality on an antecedents like God, not grounded in fact, have proved to invite decisions that are less than moral.

There's literally no good reason why the guy or "we" should presuppose a God. :)

and you leave entitled to your own opinion but not entitled to your own facts.

For goodness sake. That IS what relativistic morality means. The defining of what is right and wrong behavior to affirm morality and what is to be accepted as a moral standard. That's relative NOT absolute.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

It is a far, far better thing, to put out on the seas of reason than hold firm anchor in a bed of religion.

The universe IS a creator. You're saying 'not that creator' which tripped you up head over tits into infinite regress.

what if an all powerful creator is a minuscule detail in the context of the larger schemes of an even more all powerful creator than you imagine? Would such thought make you feel the unsatisfactory discomfort of infinite regress?