Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
Same old junk from Brother Thomas, I see. Not worth the effort of a response, IMO. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Quoting me doesn't save your bacon. It just shows you are as foolish and presumptuous as always. 
I don't need saving Tradesecret. You are the person trying to disown your past statements along with over exaggerated qualifications and accolades all over the forum. 

At the time I had the qualifications necessary - but was not a reverend

Which entitled you to be addressed as Reverend.  And anyone that cares to can simply drop a query into their address box simply asking how should a pastor OR a Chaplain be addressed? You were a Reverend the day you qualified.

You were just far too stupid to realise that when you added Pastor and Chaplain to your ever expanding and grossly over exaggerated CV here on this forum and after you gave us all the workings of your profession also as a Criminal Lawyer, Tutor, lecturer, charity worker, anti abortionist, foreign diplomat, translator of ancient languages and farmer etc etc etc.

TRADSECRET WROTE:
"I am a lawyer.  There you go. Now you know.  I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police. I don't care how you read that - no comment is the right thing to do.  When we are in  a contested hearing, I, in the first instance, will counsel my client not to get into the stand to be cross examined. It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case. It is not mine to prove we are innocent. It is our job to make sure the prosecutor does his or her job properly.  If my client insists in getting into the box - despite my advices - I will examine him or her asking open ended questions so that they can answer particular questions. I never ask a question I don't know the answer to. And I am not actually allowed to ask my client - yes or no questions because I would be accused of leading the witness. And then the prosecution will cross - examine my client. The cross-examiner is permitted to ask both open ended questions and leading questions. He would be foolish to ask open ended questions. His job is to ask leading questions.  He wants a yes or a no. Why? Because then he can lead him into traps and inconsistencies.  I counsel my clients - NEVER to answer a question with a yes or no - but always to qualify what you are saying - because the cross examiner never asks a question without a purpose or intention to lead to somewhere. But the first rule of cross - examination is NEVER ask a question you don't know the answer too.  Because when you do - the answer you will get will probably upset the apple cart and throw you off.  But I know that the same advice is being given to witnesses for the prosecution for when I cross examine.  And there will be times when I insist to the judge - that the witness needs to answer the question - with a simple yes or no. But judges do not lightly support this submission. And the reason they don't is because they know that doing so - is leading the witness into unfair or unforeseen traps.  Just because witness X saw Y do something with his left hand 6 months ago and wrote it in his statement does not mean that his evidence today that Y used his right hand and is confident that it was not his left hand - does not automatically mean that Y is innocent.  statements made close to the time of the crime recalled differently 6 months later - are inconsistent and can be used to call into question the reliability of the witness's evidence - but that inconsistency does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case.  

So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid? 
Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students,  I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them. 
Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely. I have no problem with this. Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no. But they are free to ask me whatever the like about the law. I do charge them for that privilege. 

I never talked about counseling session. I said I counsel my clients. Lawyers are called Counsel.  We council our clients. We give advice.

But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. "

Those last two lines in YOUR OWN quote above speak for themselves no matter how many times you attempt to deny them, REVEREND! 

You are delusional Tradesecret. And anyone here that has swallowed you ever expanding tall tales and ripping yarns are as deluded as yourself.

You can't run from your own self-created past Tradesecret like you do many threads on this forum.

Ther hasn't been a time that the Brother D. hasn't be able to crucify you and crush any of your straw-clutching and weak arguments. Simply because in the real world, you are grossly underqualified to  open a book never mind read one.

BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0


.
PGA2.0, that says the Bible CONTRADICTS ITSELF,


PGA2.0, YOU HAVE RETURNED AFTER I HAVE BIBLE SLAPPED YOU SILLY®️ IN YOUR OWN THREAD, PRAISE!

Now, to the order of Jesus and I making you the continued Bible fool within this forum, just like we easily have done with Miss Tradesecret over the years! LOL!

You RAN AWAY in your own thread without addressing this post of mine, shown in the link below, in stating biblically that EVE is the impetus of Original Sin, and that you show us that the Bible contradicts itself when you bring forth passages that contradict mine in your previous posts!!!  LOL!

Let's pick it up from this aforementioned link above, ready?  If need be, because of your outright being a Bible "DUNCE," I will put together my passages, and then your passages that contradict mine, therefore you are showing that the Bible CONTRADICTS ITSELF, do you understands Bible fool? Huh? Yes?

YOU MAY BEGIN: 



BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


.
Stephen,

In addressing your overly truthful post #1592,

I like have told you before, it is not a pretty sight in watching the Bible fool Miss Tradesecret taking her last gasps upon this well esteemed Religion Forum, is it? She has run her course here, where we and other members have made her the continued #1 Bible fool that she truly is at all times.  

As just one of many, and more to obviously come, this is one link showing Miss Tradesecret trying so hard to make points with her OPINIONS ONLY towards me, where once again, she falls short of the mark that is to be expected: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893/post-links/358487  In this aforementioned post of hers, I felt like I had to hand her an oxygen mask to help her breath because she is metaphorically dying upon this forum with posts like was shown!  LOL!

Of course, Jesus gave me the spirit to answer Miss Tradesecret's so sad and wanting post shown above with this post herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893/post-links/358603  We shall see if she has any "breath left" to answer the very revealing facts that I have shown in this posted link to her,  but, we shall see.  


I predict that Miss Tradesecret will go the way that Shila had to leave this forum, in total embarrassment, because lets face it, how much Bible Slapping Silly®️ Miss Tradesecret can she withstand in this Religion Forum?!!!  Poor girl. :(

.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You don't have a clue do you?  Chaplains in the defence force don't all come from denominations that use the term reverend. Some denominations would be offended by the term. So do you think the Defence Force is going to call them something they find offensive? You must have a low view of the Defence force. 

I have read your list of what you say my list is. I can't think of anything that needs to be removed.  I could add a few things. Would you like to read my book/s? 

I honestly don't know what your problem is - that I have such qualifications or that I have been involved in this world in such a wide variety of ways.  

Is it because you haven't? Is this really envy? 

I am not delusional. Really I am not.  But it hurts doesn't it? You hate that there are people who have the ability to show that you are a fraud and liar. Is that why you are so hateful of me?  Yes, I know - you will say "I don't hate you".  LOL@ the lie therein. 

I don't have to justify anything to you.   

I haven't backpedaled. As though you had the ability to make me back peddle - LOL @ you.  You have pushed my buttons at times. It is true that sometimes I find it difficult to believe how stupid you are.   You have frustrated me. This is true too. I have abused you. Sworn at you. Used language that was unacceptable. But backpedaling is another story - because therein lies that I have not been honest.  And although I have many faults - honesty is not one of them.  

But you believe that all people associated with the church, particularly theologians, clergy, pastors etc are dishonest. That is your starting point. And so that is where you always seem to drive.  It's a little weird really. But there you have it.  


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I'm still gasping - la la la la 

Gasping at the sheer stupidity that continually pours out of your mouth.     How you can hold your head in this forum is sheer madness. And yet there you have it. The epitome of madness. 

It's so sad that it has come to this in our discussions. Just tit for tat - rather than discussing anything of merit. Of course, you really don't have a clue about the bible - oh yes, you can quote - but you can't understand,.  

And I suppose that is primary reason you just shout and bluster and NEVER address or engage with me in the discussions of verses. You quote a verse- think that resolves it. I respond with an explanation based on the context. You ether ignore it - or abuse me somehow.  That is your MO. 

Should I expect you to change? No not really.  Only a true Christian would be able to change.  
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret

.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”


WHOOPSIE!  You forgot to address this post in this thread in the following link that you are still RUNNING AWAY from! Whats new? NOTHING! LOL!



YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR FEEBLE POSTS #1596 : "Of course, you really don't have a clue about the bible - oh yes, you can quote - but you can't understand,"

Tell you what, to prove that I have forgotten more about the Bible than you will ever learn, how about we discuss your admittance of being  AN UNGODLY AND DESPICABLE SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS!!!!!?  I will show passages that Jesus says that you are ungodly, will end up in HELL, and will NEVER attain heaven, period! Then you can bring forth your inept OPINIONS ONLY like you did in the link in question above that biblically go nowhere, and that you are still running away from!  LOL!

 Okay Miss Tradesecret, are you game or are you going to run away again from your totally sickening and ungodly SEXUAL DEVIANT actions with your family members, ewwwwwwww! :(

Dear, you keep forgetting that I have all of your ungodly past sins of record, where a few of mention are always posted at the top of my posts to you in showing that you are NOT A CHRISTIAN, understood Bible fool?!

WAITING FOR AN ANSWER.


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN THAT CAN TOP "MISS TRADESECRET" IN BEING A SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH HER FAMILY MEMBERS, WILL BE ...?

.







Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You forgot to address this post in this thread in the following link that you are still RUNNING AWAY from! Whats new? NOTHING! LOL!

Nope, didn't forget. Just didn't see anything in that post worth responding to.  Just the ravings of a poor irrational madman or duck or something like that. 



YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR FEEBLE POSTS #1596 : "Of course, you really don't have a clue about the bible - oh yes, you can quote - but you can't understand,"

Tell you what, to prove that I have forgotten more about the Bible than you will ever learn, how about we discuss your admittance of being  AN UNGODLY AND DESPICABLE SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS!!!!!?  I will show passages that you will end up in HELL, where all women are going anyway, and then you can bring forth your inept OPINIONS ONLY like you did in the link in question above that biblically go nowhere! ,
amazing. you get challenged and immediately your mind goes to the gutter.  

I see you are unable to change. If you want to have a real discussion then let's have one. Stop with the silly links. And ask a proper theological question without any of the adds on of fakery. I simply don't think you are serious. I am not going to waste more time on someone who has no respect for the process, even less so for anyone you want to discuss matters with. 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

TRADSECRET WROTE:
"I am a lawyer.  There you go. Now you know.  I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police. I don't care how you read that - no comment is the right thing to do.  When we are in  a contested hearing, I, in the first instance, will counsel my client not to get into the stand to be cross examined. It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case. It is not mine to prove we are innocent. It is our job to make sure the prosecutor does his or her job properly.  If my client insists in getting into the box - despite my advices - I will examine him or her asking open ended questions so that they can answer particular questions. I never ask a question I don't know the answer to. And I am not actually allowed to ask my client - yes or no questions because I would be accused of leading the witness. And then the prosecution will cross - examine my client. The cross-examiner is permitted to ask both open ended questions and leading questions. He would be foolish to ask open ended questions. His job is to ask leading questions.  He wants a yes or a no. Why? Because then he can lead him into traps and inconsistencies.  I counsel my clients - NEVER to answer a question with a yes or no - but always to qualify what you are saying - because the cross examiner never asks a question without a purpose or intention to lead to somewhere. But the first rule of cross - examination is NEVER ask a question you don't know the answer too.  Because when you do - the answer you will get will probably upset the apple cart and throw you off.  But I know that the same advice is being given to witnesses for the prosecution for when I cross examine.  And there will be times when I insist to the judge - that the witness needs to answer the question - with a simple yes or no. But judges do not lightly support this submission. And the reason they don't is because they know that doing so - is leading the witness into unfair or unforeseen traps.  Just because witness X saw Y do something with his left hand 6 months ago and wrote it in his statement does not mean that his evidence today that Y used his right hand and is confident that it was not his left hand - does not automatically mean that Y is innocent.  statements made close to the time of the crime recalled differently 6 months later - are inconsistent and can be used to call into question the reliability of the witness's evidence - but that inconsistency does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case.  

So, yes, my client's pay me for the work I do for them. Do you have a problem with people being paid? 
Do I charge people to listen to my version of the gospels? No, I don't charge students,  I charge universities when they request me to lecture to them. 
Do I allow students to question me? Absolutely. I have no problem with this. Do I allow clients to question me? Not in a court setting, no. But they are free to ask me whatever the like about the law. I do charge them for that privilege. 

I never talked about counseling session. I said I counsel my clients. Lawyers are called Counsel.  We council our clients. We give advice.

But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. "

Those last two lines in YOUR OWN quote above speak for themselves no matter how many times you attempt to deny them, REVEREND! 

You are delusional Tradesecret. And anyone here that has swallowed you ever expanding tall tales and ripping yarns are as deluded as yourself.

You can't run from your own self-created past Tradesecret like you do many threads on this forum.

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen - honestly you really don't know what you are talking about. 

I am who I am.  I don't resile from my words or my position. 

the fact that this is such a big deal is really on you.  

Just for the record - short of exposing myself in the real world, what evidence would you accept that it is true? 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen -[.........................]

the fact that this is such a big deal is really on you.

 Well you are the one making a big deal of it all, Reverend. 
You claim to be a qualified Pastor and a qualified Chaplain with some serious accreditations on the on hand, but then refuse to accept that your title is REVEREND on the other  and that this is how you should be addressed. !?

Tradesecret wrote:  I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications. "


Both of these qualified and revered positions grant you the title of Reverend .
And any one that cares to can simply google the fact.
  So for all of your backpedaling and attempting to deny what you have claimed in the past is not going away. They are your claims about yourself. They are not my claims about you.

 You above accused me of searching out "some obscure web page from the other side of the world" to prove my point. Ok you don't accept that. So here is the dictionary's definition

 I don't doubt for 1 second that you will refuse this definition too on some made up spurious grounds because spurious is your middle name.. But there you have REVEREND.
 Keep digging. 



BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”



MY QUOTE ADDRESSING YOUR BIBLE IGNORANCE: "You forgot to address this post in this thread in the following link that you are still RUNNING AWAY from! Whats new? NOTHING! LOL!"

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE BECAUSE YOU CAN’T ADDRESS YOUR OPINIONS IN THE LINK ABOVE:  “Nope, didn't forget. Just didn't see anything in that post worth responding to.  Just the ravings of a poor irrational madman or duck or something like that.” 

Barring your child-like banter again with using madman, ducks, and such,  your quote above is another example of you having to RUN AWAY from my posts AGAIN, where your said OPINIONS in the link above in disparaging the Brother D you cannot support!!!  Therefore you have LIED because you can't support your opinions, other than to run away from them, plain and simple!  LOL!


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE “MISS TRADESECRET” THAT REMOVES ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER ALL THE TIME, WILL BE …?


.

BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret

.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”


This unfortunate post is regarding Miss Tradesecret’s post #1598 in her ungodly admittance in being a sexual deviant with her family members as is despicably shown in the scummy link below highlighted in orange, so sad:




YOUR IRONIC QUOTE IN RUNNING AWAY FROM YOUR SEXUAL DEVIANCY “WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS!”:  ”amazing. you get challenged and immediately your mind goes to the gutter.”

HUH? What did you just say? Dear Miss Tradesecret, the only one that has gone into the gutter is YOU, because of your admitted sexual deviancy with your family members, ewwwwwwwwww!  GET IT? HUH?  LOL!

Seriously, let Jesus and I help you out of your nasty and ungodly sexual perversions with your family members, because as the passage below states, I am just trying to help you, okay dear?

Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galations 6:2)



YOUR QUOTE IN RUNNING AWAY AGAIN FROM YOUR ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANCY: “I see you are unable to change. If you want to have a real discussion then let's have one.”

Huh?  I am trying to have a discussion with you upon your admitted sexual deviancy that blatantly goes against Jesus’ doctrine, but you keep coming up with more EXCUSES not to have said discussion upon this topic, why? Again, I am just trying to help you as this passage tells me to do shown below:

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:4)

Listen, let me help you, and the membership can chime in too, with your sickening and despicable sexual amoral sex acts where you cannot even begin to call yourself a Christian, okay?  



YOUR ONCE AGAIN EXCUSE TO RUN FROM DISCUSSING YOUR SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS: “I simply don't think you are serious."

Dear, I am "as serious as a heart attack” as I have shown you in this post alone, understood?  Yet, you come up with a myriad of EXCUSES again to run away from your ungodly actions of being a sexual deviant with your family members! WHY?  The membership and I are here to help you remove your disgusting and ungodly sexual acts as the passages below so states! 

Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” (Hebrew 13:16)


**** Miss Tradesecret, uh, is it too soon to ask you in what “family member” you enjoyed the best in your scummy sexual acts with them? ****



NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT WILL NOT SEEK HELP FOR THEIR CRUDDY SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH FAMILY MEMBERS, WILL BE …?


.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherD.Thomas

Absolute unnecessary filth. And from someone that tells s/he was "chosen by god"!

"Indian"!!!?

 From someone that claims to be a Chaplain to his/her "countries armed forces"! And "a Pastor with a congregation of over 300" including women and children?
Someone that often declares her/his "honesty" and "integrity!
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


.

Stephen,

As it is unfortunately shown in the link in question at your post #1604 in Miss Tradesecret being an admitted and outright sexual deviant, then she is  NOT A CHRISTIAN and the ramifications thereof are shown below!!!  

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality" (1 Corinthians 6:9)

MIss Tradesecret continues to give herself a despicable presence within this notable Religion Forum, and at least Shila knew when to throw in the towel of defeat and embarrassment and ran away from this forum never to be heard from again!

.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,

As it is unfortunately shown in the link in question at your post #1604 in Miss Tradesecret being an admitted and outright sexual deviant, then she is  NOT A CHRISTIAN and the ramifications thereof are shown below!!!  

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality" (1 Corinthians 6:9)

MIss Tradesecret continues to give herself a despicable presence within this notable Religion Forum, and at least Shila knew when to throw in the towel of defeat and embarrassment and ran away from this forum never to be heard from again!

A complete walking talking contradiction then, isn't she, Brother D.

BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


.
Stephen,

YOUR TRUTHFUL AND SORROWFUL QUOTE IN YOUR POST #1606 REGARDING THE BIBLE FOOL MISS TRADESECRET: "A complete walking talking contradiction then, isn't she, Brother D."

Yes, she is a complete walking and talking contradiction in the eyes of Jesus (Hebrews 4:13) and like I said before, we need Miss Tradesecret to remain upon this forum as an example of what a Christian is NOT TO BE OR ACT LIKE!  But, I am truly feeling sorry for her ungodly actions of being an admitted sexual deviant, the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool of this religion forum, in her running away all the time from godly posts to her, and her excuses not to address posts to her, and her grasping for straws that are not even available to her anymore, etc.

Therefore, maybe it is time for me to accept the blatant FACT that she should learn from the equally Bible stupid fool Shila, and just exit stage right to save her from any further embarrassment, in essence, how many times do we have to Bible Slap her Silly®️ again, and again, and again?  

Poor Miss Tradesecret is guilty of the following passages:

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. (Proverbs 12:1)

"Always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)

.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

Absolute unnecessary filth. And from someone that tells s/he was "chosen by god"!

"Indian"!!!?

 From someone that claims to be a Chaplain to his/her "countries armed forces"! And "a Pastor with a congregation of over 300" including women and children?
Someone that often declares her/his "honesty" and "integrity!

Repeating this shows how desperate you are.  

I've explained this. But you don't really want an explanation. So You can just carry on - in this very mature way that you are carrying on in.  Cheers. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Absolute unnecessary filth. And from someone that tells s/he was "chosen by god"!

"Indian"!!!?

 From someone that claims to be a Chaplain to his/her "countries armed forces"! And "a Pastor with a congregation of over 300" including women and children?
Someone that often declares her/his "honesty" and "integrity!

Repeating this shows how desperate you are. 

There is nothing for me to get desperate about, Tradesecret. 

It's a terrible post you made there, Reverend and you should hang you had in shame imo.
Did you actually notice the title of this thread?

PGA2.0 wrote:  This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism? That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate. #1

I am sure with your post concerning your own "morality" has answered the op "in a nutshell".  I also noticed that your comments were a response to Ethang 5 the man that you "aspire to be like". Well, you certainly reached and achieved your aspirations with that post didn't you, Reverend.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret

.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”


YOUR QUOTE IN POST #1608 OF HIDING FROM YOUR OUTRIGHT UNGODLY MODUS OPERANDI: "I've explained this. But you don't really want an explanation. So You can just carry on - in this very mature way that you are carrying on in.  Cheers."

HUH? I don't remember you EVER explaining away your disgusting and ungodly SEXUAL DEVIANCY with your family members!  You said that Stephen didn't want an explanation, BUT I DO! Therefore, for the record, explain away the link in question shown below, or are you going to use another lame EXCUSE not to at least "try" and explain the sickening amoral sex related FACTS as shown in this link, ewwwwwwwwwwww!: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9

Furthermore, you still remain SILENT to my post shown below where I, and possibly the membership, want to help you in discarding your abhorred SEXUAL DEVIANCY, okay? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893/post-links/358990


 Miss Tradesecret, uh, is it too soon to ask you in what “family member” you enjoyed the best in your scummy sexual acts with them? 


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN THAT WON'T SEEK HELP WITH THEIR UNGODLY SEXUAL DEVIANCY, BARRING THE DESPICABLE ACT OF DOING IT WITH FAMILY MEMBERS LIKE MISS TRADESECRET DID, WILL BE ...?


.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen,

It was funny when Miss Tradesecret stated to you "Repeating this shows how desperate you are," where in FACT, it shows how desperate Miss Tradesecret is in trying in vain to run away from her ungodly admitted SEXUAL DEVIANCY with family members, for god sakes!

I am awaiting her umpteenth time in using yet another EXCUSE not to address my post #1610 in showing her explanation relative to her Satanic SEXUAL DEVIANCY!

.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,

It was funny when Miss Tradesecret stated to you "Repeating this shows how desperate you are," where in FACT, it shows how desperate Miss Tradesecret is in trying in vain to run away from her ungodly admitted SEXUAL DEVIANCY with family members, for god sakes!

Well the best part of that is that  in pure desperation she attempted the ploy in trying to change the course of your conversation with her, was that it was she herself that resurrected a very old dispute as to weather or not she  as a Pastor and a Chaplain should be addressed as Reverend. And had the audacity to accuse me of "bringing it up again" and telling me that I was "making a big deal of it"!


Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Notice how the atheist use she is an insult. Notice how they think calling someone a female is a way to make someone feel bad. Kind of like when you call something gay. The misogyny is disgusting.

17 days later

Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
Okay... I hate to tell you this but.... cool story bro, what does that prove? Either we have an inherent purpose or we don't I say [a] there hasn't been one demonstration and that more than likely we don't. [b] You say there is and haven't proven it. Prove it. That's a neat story and everything, maybe it might have inspired some hope in me once upon a time, but now it doesn't as appeals to emotions don't move me unless your my boyfriend, and you don't seem to be him. [ . . . ]
PGA2.0  1165
[a] Again, prophecy is a reasonable demonstration that the words can be trusted in such matters, among other evidence. History confirms names, places, and events as existing and happening, being confirmed by non-biblical sources. The intricate unity of the 66 books is another. Every OT book foreshadows or is symbolic of the Lord Jesus Christ and greater truth. So, the physical history of a nation reveals a greater spiritual truth. Then there are the philosophical questions that delve into worldviews and what makes sense in the origin of things like this thread is trying to do in morality. 

[b] There are plenty of proofs. The questions are, what would you accept? Your worldview bias plays a big part in how you look at the information. Hence the thread. I am looking at one aspect of the proof, morality, as to which is more reasonable to believe.
[a] You are hypocritical. You have accused me a few times of believing that asserting something makes it true, while you are continuously behaving as if you believe that yourself. Stop asserting and start proving !
[b] I was tempted to say that you missed another opportunity to present proof, but deep down we both know that was never a real possibility. What you did miss was the opportunity to explictly admit you cannot prove that we have an inherent purpose. A reason is probably that you fear skeptics are like you. If skeptics make an admission that they don't know or can't prove something, you try to exploit that to bamboozle people into God-belief. So you fear skeptics will exploit your admissions similarly.

[a] No, first, you would have to prove that god exists, [b] second, you would have to prove that god could do that, [c] third, you would have to prove that god did do that, [d] fourth, you would have to prove that bible is accurate. Also, no, [e] you claiming something isn't reasonable, [f] it's you making an assertion, [g] that isn't a logical argument, this is you asserting them and ad hoc declaring them to be the truth.
PGA2.0  1165
[a] Again, what proof would you accept? You accept the BB. No one was around. The Bible confirms the universe began to exist. It agrees with that premise. It differs because it does not chalk that beginning down to chance happenstance but to a necessary mindful being who exits outside the physical reality. So, there is a reasonable explanation for the universe, a reason for its existence. [ . . . ]

[b] Again, it comes to where, to what, and to whom you put your highest authority in, and what is more reasonable to believe - relative, subjective humans in regards to origins or a being that is objective and omniscient that has revealed. Which is more reasonable to your mind? Are you going to reject the latter on the premise that your authority is greater?
[ . . . ]
[e] My assertions deal with philosophical and necessary conditions for ultimate meaning and morality, as well as other offshoots brought up here regarding the origins of the universe and our existence.[690] It is logical to presuppose that morality comes from minds and that a necessary being is necessary for making sense of it as anything more than power politics. Is that reasonable to believe?[691] [ . . . ]

[f] Pot, met kettle.  

[g] It is logical. God has what is necessary for logic.[692] Logic comes from mindful being, something we experientially witness and see no acceptions to.[693]
[ . . . ]
[a] There probably is an explanation for the universe, but you have not provided it. Have you explained God ? No. Have you explained what happened during the Planck epoch ? No. Have you explained the quark-gluon plasma ? No. Have you explained the appearance of matter ? No. Have you explained dark matter ? No. Have you explained the separation of the fundamental forces ? no. Have you explained the theory of everything ? No. Have you solved the horizon problem ? No. Have you explained proton decay ? No. Have you explained the matter-anti-matter disymmetry ?  No. Have you solved the cosmological problem ? No. Have you explained fast radio burst ? No. Have you explained the polarization of the CMB ? No. Have you explained the weakness of gravity ? No. Have you solved the flatness problem ? No. Have you explained the arrow or time ? No. Have you explained the Higgs field ? No.
Have you explained anything ? No.
[b] A fallacious assumption in your argumentation is that there is a competition between external authorities and one's own. An authority is someone that one accepts as a source of knowledge. The self rarely serves that function. If one rejects an authority, it is rarely because one considers oneself to be a greater one. Moreover, in order to evaluate someone’s reliability as an authority one must rely on oneself as an authority to make such evaluation. So one cannot avoid to rely on oneself as an authority to evaluate who qualifies as an authorority.
Another fallacious assumption in your argumentation is that people base their beliefs entirely on a single authority. Skeptics base their beliefs on reason and evidence. Claims of an authority can constitute evidence.
[e, 690] Stop making assertions dealing with these things and start proving them!
[691] No. You merely claimed it without backing it up. Claiming something does not make it reasonable to believe and it certainly does not make it true.
[f ] [g, 692] So you assert without providing a shred of evidence. Honour your burden of proof and support your claims.
[693] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

PGA2.0 937 to Theweakeredge
Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable.[A] Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God.  Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.
[A] Let's see your reasoning for that claim.
PGA2.0 1177
Is it reasonable to believe that thinking beings derive their existence from non-living matter?[694] That is your presuppositional position when the causal tree is examined all the way to the root cause. What you find there is devoid of reason and yet you believe it gives rise to reason. Please explain how. Make sense of it. Make sense of how consciousness is derived from something lacking it. Explain how morality is possible without a fixed final reference point that is best, what is actual and real, not derived from wishful thinking that is subjective and fleeting (for it changes).[695]

On the contrary, is it reasonable to believe that reason is derived from a necessary mindful and reasoning being? Yes, there is a reason with such a being and experientially and internally consistently (two proofs of logic) that is all we witness.[696]
[694] Yes.
[695] You ask a question, you presume your opponent's position and request that he provides evidence for it. What you don't do, is present the reasoning you were asked, the reasoning that supports your claim that disbelief in God is an unreasonable belief. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to guess why.
[696] Another problem with your commentary is that you equivocate 'reason'.
From www.dictonary.com about the noun 'reason' :

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.
the reason for declaring war.
2. statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action
I dare you to give me one good reason for quitting school!

Reason can be (1) a cause or (2) an explanation. You also seem to use it in the sense of motive, an extended meaning of (1) and in the sense of the process (2) happening in a mind. You are using these meanings interchangably, thereby causing confusion (the Christian's friend). So your equivocation is really only a problem for skeptics, not for you.

[a] Yes... because that's the only thing we can demonstrate happening, why is this unreasonable? [b] Were you hoping your crude framing of what reality is would scare me off? [c] Things happen, we don't know exactly what started the first thing, but you claiming "god" isn't proof either, its you asserting something. You are drawing a conclusion from reasoning that doesn't logically follow, Non sequitur. 2 Fallacies.
PGA2.0 1177
The physical is not the only thing we can demonstrate. [ . . . ]
[ . . . ]
[c] Again (and I am getting tired of reminding you) the premise of this thread is which position regarding morality is more reasonable to believe, the atheistic or Christian position. Can you understand that???

[d] It logically follows that the Christian position on morality is more reasonable than one that cannot account for morality as anything other than preference.[697] How does preference make something right?

The question is does it necessarily follow? Does it logically follow? Well, what would be the case for necessity? Morality is derived from mindful beings - it is a mind thing. That is necessary. It is logical to believe (some might say self-evident). We as mindful beings lack what is needed for a fixed, objective, unchanging, absolute reference point [whose human mind(s) would that be] that is the best and that has revealed what is right. There are disputes over what is right in every society. That is seen by our cultures in which the grounds of morality shift and one culture has a contrary view from another. Then in the causal chain, how does mindfulness derive from what is lacking consciousness?[698] How do things happen without intent, agency, or purpose? What was the agency that caused the BB and the chain of events that lead to humanity and reasoning mindful beings? Atheism has a longwinded explanation that has gaping holes in its logic and reason. The Christian system of thought has what is necessary.[699]
You fill another paragraph with claims that you can prove things and how you would be able to do so. Any lunatic can claim to be able to demonstrate the most preposterous nonsense. Do skeptics believe such people ? No.

[c] In stead of reminding people to stay on topic when they fish for your red herrings, you should support your claims.

[697] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[698] That is off topic, but I have already given you a link to an article on the rise of intelligence. Moreover, so far no one has been able to demonstrate that such rise violates the laws of physics, contrary to your god.
Your next two questions are also off topic. Again, read the OP to learn what is on topic.
[699] Those are two more bald assertions added to a long list. Honour your burden of proof and back them up!

120 days later

Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 937
[ . . . ] You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. [ . . . ]
The why doesn't really matter all that much, just that it did happen, you would have to prove that someone caused it... this isn't a point against me, this is another appeal to ignorance, 3 fallacies.
PGA2.0 1177
The "why" does matter. The reason we can do science is that results are repeatable. The reason we can observe the laws of nature is that the same thing is repeatable indefinitely. I liken the uniformity of nature to rolling a dice. First, rolling a dice needs an agent. It does not roll itself. Then to constantly roll six the dice has to be fixed. The same roll, the same landing, the same result indefinitely requires intent. If there is no intent (i.e., perhaps you have weighted the dice) any number can pop up. Without fixing the dice how long can you go experientially, not in theory, before another number is rolled?[700] Not long, yet you surmise or theorize that time fixes the problem, eons and eons of time makes anything possible.[701] The theoretical is not always akin to the practical. I cannot always be lived. Then with the universe, either something came from nothing, and without agency or cause, a logical impossibility, or the universe always existed. Over and over and over again, the atheistic worldview or way of looking at the universe and what is in it is an inconsistent worldview.
Answering the why questions give reason or agency for a thing.[702]

Then you falsely charge me with an appeal to ignorance.[703] I have presented the above argument before in this thread as well as a number of other pieces of evidence for my stated claim. That appeal to ignorance would be the case if I had presented no evidence for God or for the uniformity of nature as not possible from a chance happenstance position, but I have.
[700] You are missing the point. You are only attempting to explain why the uniformity of nature matters, not why the reason for their being uniformity of nature matters.
[701] I doubt he theorizes that.
Next, you switch the subject to why something came from nothing. I have learned from you that such behaviour is called deflection. It is popular among the fans of confusion (the skeptic’s enemy).
[702] Only if one actually justifiably knows the answer. Making stuff up and trying to sell that as valuable knowledge, as some people do, does not.

[703] You are mistaken. You accused Theweakeredge of ignorance. The only relevance I can imagine would be that his ignorance is supposed to constitute evidence for him being wrong, which it is not.

PGA2.0 1202
The god of atheism is the atheist. They declare what is and what should be. The problem is that everyone is right in their own eyes, and yet their beliefs often contradict other atheists and everyone else. That is the problem when there is no absolute, objective measure or final reference point any view can be pushed as right. They are naked, and they don't know it. That is the absurdity of atheism.
Again, atheists have no god and don't believe in one.
Christians are as naked as atheists, but unlike atheists they are under the delusion of wearing clothes. That is the absurdity of Christianity.

Nevets 1199
Certainly an Atheist should feel free to express their opinions on the subject.
PGA2.0 1202
Sure, but I have never found one who can justify their belief. Instead, they continually dodge most questions. I will admit that Amoranemix is more willing to do so, but his posts are very complex that it takes a great effort to respond to. I put them aside for a while since I do not have the time to get into them.
You could reduce your workload by staying on topic. I have had to remind you several times already what this thread's topic is. I understand though that adding different topics to the discussion generates opportunities for confusion (the Christian's friend).
You can also save time by stopping repeating yourself.
You can also save time by not making up beliefs for your debate opponents.
I am confident however that if you decide to take on your backlog, you will keep doing these things.

Double_R  1201
The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.
PGA2.0 1202
And you have made many claims here.
You have made a few orders of magnitude more claims here. You have also made plenty more in the morality thread on debate.org.

Double_R  1201
If an atheist claims there are no gods then the atheist does have the burden, but by that point he had already stepped outside of the definition of atheism.
PGA2.0 1202
Atheism is a claim, a worldview, and a lifestyle. The atheist lives as if no God exists. They deny God by most of the things they believe.[704] And then they get into all kinds of complicated arguments against the existence of God just like you are here. You are pushing your atheistic beliefs while denying you have any—the absurdity of it all.
You claim that atheism is a claim, but can you prove that ?
[704] You are mistaken. Most of the beliefs of most atheists are independent from the existence of God.

Double_R  1201
There are atheist groups out there but the overwhelming majority of atheists do not belong to any such group.
PGA2.0 1202
Big deal, so what? An atheist is a person who is their own god, proclaiming what is and what should be without a clue of why their view is any BETTER than any other, other than the fact that they like it and hold it.[705] Morality, for the atheist, boils down to a preference, nothing more, since they cannot establish anything other than opinion.[706] Thanks for your opinion!
[705] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?
[706] You are mistaken again. As I have told you several times already, morality is an opinion or preference, but it is more than that.

Double_R  1204
I hope you choose choice C; neither, because you can’t possibly extract enough information out of what I just gave you to make a determination. Just as we can’t possibly have enough information to determine what if anything exists beyond that which we have access to.
PGA2.0 1205
Not in the case of God. There is sufficient evidence for His existence [706], and the contrary belief cannot make sense of itself. I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious.
[706] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Double_R  1204
Characterize me all you want, claim that I think I am my own God (as silly as that is) all you want. If you actually care about understanding people who think differently than you, perhaps you should focus on that.
PGA2.0 1205
You seem to think that I don't know the pitfuls of an atheistic worldview. [ . . . ]
The pitfuls of atheism are off topic. Yet again, read the OP to discover what this thread is about.

b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheism is a claim, a worldview, and a lifestyle.
No, it is not. It is a personal statement about belief in a god. That's it. Atheists' lifestyles vary just like theists. Do you believe in unicorns? If not, how does that affect your worldview and lifestyle?
The atheist lives as if no God exists.
Well, yeah. We just go about our lives without that belief. Not a big deal to us.
An atheist is a person who is their own god
Now you are getting way off base. Do you think that if I don't believe in an external god, then I must be claiming to be my own god? That's incorrect. I'm saying I don't believe in any god.
I often point out to the atheist that not believing in God contradicts the way they live. They live as if there are right and wrong and that such a belief really matters, yet how can it ultimately matter in an amoral universe that doesn't care because it is not personal and conscious.
Here's how it works. Humans evolved in societies which work better when people don't lie, cheat, steal and kill. A small percentage of people do those things, but most of us do not. That's because it works better for us. We get along with our neighbors that way. That doesn't require a god-given morality.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@b9_ntt
Stupid people are more likely than eggheads to believe in God, a controversial new study claims.
In a move that is bound to offend millions of churchgoers, a British psychologist says he has found a link between having a high IQ and being an atheist.
The discovery helps explain why university academics are less likely to be religious than almost anyone else, he says.
Platypi
Platypi's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 57
0
0
3
Platypi's avatar
Platypi
0
0
3
-->
@FLRW
I don't think that's the least bit offensive toward anyone that's looked at an IQ test.  It's filled with a bunch of random rationalizations, and the faster you rationalize something without connection to reality the higher score you get.  
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Platypi

Who has a higher IQ, Pastor Jim Bakker or Stephen Hawking?
Platypi
Platypi's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 57
0
0
3
Platypi's avatar
Platypi
0
0
3
-->
@FLRW
I wouldn't know of many famous pastors besides some saints and people recorded in ancient texts.

I also wouldn't know if Stephen Hawking has ever had reason to take an IQ test.  His will to live is inspiring to me.