Your personal religious beliefs and/or superstitions are irrelevant.
Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper.
What ultimately is the moral foundation for the law?... Obey the law, or be prepared to pay the piper yes but what is the standard I can use to judge the law itself? ... What do you mean "get it wrong"? ... it is voted on and eventually passed. ... The moral foundation is based on our collective determination ... Good, new laws are passed. Bad laws are dropped. I cut out the extraneous to highlight the core of your argument. Your problem is you reject a moral authority higher than mankind. This leads you to the erroneous belief that the collective cannot by definition get it “wrong” they are the collective your ultimate arbiter of truth and value. You deny the existence of a moral standard that would allow you to reject a new and legitimately passed law as evil or immoral. Thus your dismissal of religion and interest in secular law. You should take a moment to reread the Declaration of Independence. The people who set up the foundations of the law we live under had far more wisdom. Their views were deeply grounded in the personal religious beliefs you find so irrelevant. The video essay of CS Lewis I shared earlier comes to mind. You are the gentleman asking “will it increase the happiness of the majority?” Man or Rabbit? by CS LewisMorals in the bible are bad, this is easily shown because even the people that follow the bible don't actually follow all the rules written there, for instance most religious people know slavery is wrong, rape is wrong, etc even though they are allowed in the bible and there are specific rules for each of them. We also don't kill people for working in the sabbath which is also something explicitly indicated in the bible, god himself commanded people to kill other people. |
|
|
|
Me my personal opinion about this is I do not believe in flat earth theory. My basis in choosing are those people who are making such an effort to take pictures outside our planet and to let us know what really world looks like.
 Learn to distinguish between fantasy and reality. How did you distinguish between Prunier and the other fools you support? You still didn't answer, how do you know they are real and their experiments were real? |
|
|
|
''We have the eye witness reports'' How do you know they are real? We cannot go back in time to verify them, can we?
But you can prove them out by using the scientific method on them, and then by: 1. Placing the correct interpretation on the results shown by the scientific method; 2. And proving them by the pleasure or pain that follows.  How exactly? You can't measure or experiment with eye witnesses, where do you even start, are you just gonna ask someone if he knows someone that knows someone, etc until god? How can you test the bible for authenticity? You can't. In this case you can. How? By checking out this active nation that is miraculously doing what no other nation has ever done... nationally coming back from the dead after 2,000 years of silence. When you check out the importance of tradition in this nation, scientifically, you will find that scientifically, their stuff has to be accurate. And this is only the start. There are things like fulfillment of prophesies, the facts that science is indirectly proving the creation story by nullifying its own Big Bang, no proof for evolution, and all kinds of other things that have been shown to be accurate in the Bible. Often its the hidden discoveries - hidden because when they are discovered, science wants to hide them - that are showing the bible to be true more and more. Nations all around the world have records of a worldwide flood. Standard science wants to ignore them. ''this active nation that is miraculously doing what no other nation has ever done'' What is this even supposed to mean? ''When you check out the importance of tradition in this nation, scientifically, you will find that scientifically, their stuff has to be accurate. '' What exactly can you test scientifically? Are we testing how important tradition is? What are we testing, give specifics, your talk is useless blabber. ''the facts that science is indirectly proving the creation story by nullifying its own Big Bang'' Even if the Big Bang was proven to be inaccurate that won't prove creation, that's a fallacy, thinking that disproving one option automatically makes the other the truth. ''shown to be accurate in the Bible'' Like what? Talking snakes? People coming back from the dead? What has ever been proven to be accurate in the Bible? ''Nations all around the world have records of a worldwide flood'' Exactly the opposite, no other race has records of that flood, history books never talk about a flood. |
|
|
|
True, you are probably one of the few people who keep claiming science did or say that but never actually provide any links or studies and you are shown how wrong you are every single time, then you say something like, ahh but we don't know if those studies are right, bla bla.
Thank you. You are just like many scientists who want to hide aspects of the truth. You only show the stuff you want, but just can't seem to find the stuff you don't like. Well at least I show something, you keep making outrageous claims and never show anything. You keep saying idiotic shit like science is proving creationism and other stupid shit when scientists are the group with most atheists, are you actually insane? Of course you show something. You show that you can't even do research. This shows that most of your talk is meaningless. But if it has meaning, it is just by accident. Well it might show that however since you don't actually come up with any studies, it shows you are just a lying person who doesn't even try to use research. |
|
|
|
2. Old books and their expertise is useless. There are thousand of old books talking about all kind of idiotic things that have been shown to be false, magic, witches, etc. I don't see how old books are better than the scientific method in anything.
Tell that to the court system of any modern countries. Tell that to the medical system that keeps records of all the experiments that they can. Tell that to any scientist so that he can throw out his journals. You entirely contradict yourself. ''experiments and science'' is different than fictional books like the bible, has any court system used the bible to apply any law today? Yeah, I thought so buddy. Everybody knows that "experiments and science" are not the same thing as books. So, what you say is useless. The point is that experiments and science used on the Bible, how it came about, the people who wrote it, the prophesies that are fulfilled in it, the continual archaeological excavations, and much more, are all showing that the Bible is the truth. But here is the most important thing of all. Are atheists human? Are Christians human? Are Muslims human? There are way more people believing in God than those who do not believe in God in some form. This shows that science that is against the Bible is just another religion. Btw, the whole legal and law system in the USA is based on the British one, which is based on the Bible. Research it. It's the atheists who are the false religion, and science is proving it all over the place. Atheism is a made-up lie that is against God and against people in general. ''how it came about, the people who wrote it,'' what about them? ''the prophesies that are fulfilled in it,'' None ''the continual archaeological excavations'' Which ones? |
|
|
|
True, you are probably one of the few people who keep claiming science did or say that but never actually provide any links or studies and you are shown how wrong you are every single time, then you say something like, ahh but we don't know if those studies are right, bla bla.
Thank you. You are just like many scientists who want to hide aspects of the truth. You only show the stuff you want, but just can't seem to find the stuff you don't like. Well at least I show something, you keep making outrageous claims and never show anything. You keep saying idiotic shit like science is proving creationism and other stupid shit when scientists are the group with most atheists, are you actually insane? |
|
|
|
2. Old books and their expertise is useless. There are thousand of old books talking about all kind of idiotic things that have been shown to be false, magic, witches, etc. I don't see how old books are better than the scientific method in anything.
Tell that to the court system of any modern countries. Tell that to the medical system that keeps records of all the experiments that they can. Tell that to any scientist so that he can throw out his journals. You entirely contradict yourself. ''experiments and science'' is different than fictional books like the bible, has any court system used the bible to apply any law today? Yeah, I thought so buddy. |
|
|
|
''We have the eye witness reports'' How do you know they are real? We cannot go back in time to verify them, can we?
But you can prove them out by using the scientific method on them, and then by: 1. Placing the correct interpretation on the results shown by the scientific method; 2. And proving them by the pleasure or pain that follows. How exactly? You can't measure or experiment with eye witnesses, where do you even start, are you just gonna ask someone if he knows someone that knows someone, etc until god? How can you test the bible for authenticity? You can't. |
|
|
|
^^^ Your expressed view is quite unscientific. After all, science is starting to suggest that there is such a thing as a spirit in each one of us. Right... when exactly has science done that? I would like to know, perhaps you can show us. Science suggests that death is, well, death, nothingness, there is nothing right now that suggests there is something else after death, not that it can't be possible since we don't know everything but if we are talking about what science suggests, that's what it suggests. So, you've been to the library, eh? But do you know how to use an Internet search engine?  Yes and it says that science does not suggest there is a soul/spirit in each human. Good cover. After all, many people don't want to embarrass themselves by admitting straight out that they don't know how to use an Internet search engine. True, you are probably one of the few people who keep claiming science did or say that but never actually provide any links or studies and you are shown how wrong you are every single time, then you say something like, ahh but we don't know if those studies are right, bla bla. |
|
|
|
Science does not have all the answers, there are mysteries in this world that may be difficult to unravel using just science, Religion does not a hold all the answers also, there are many "supernatural" assumptions that are easily explained by science.I guess science and religion complement each other.
Answering something and explaining something is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Religion might answer things, however answering things doesn't make them true. If you ask me what or who made the universe and I ''answer'' that the spaghetti god did it, you wouldn't trust me, would you? Well that's an answer, it's not an explanation. Even explanations can be wrong, of course, we need a method to determine whether or not they are wrong, the best we have is the scientific method which by the way, clearly works. Then after the scientific method does its work, we have scientists expressing their beliefs about what the scientific method found, rather than what the scientific method DID find. Maybe, however it's still the best system, what else is there, trusting old books blindly doesn't seem like a very good alternative to me. Actually, two better methods are: 1. Placing the correct interpretation on the results shown by the scientific method; 2. Letting the experience of others guide you (old books), and proving them by the pleasure or pain that follows. 2. Old books and their expertise is useless. There are thousand of old books talking about all kind of idiotic things that have been shown to be false, magic, witches, etc. I don't see how old books are better than the scientific method in anything. |
|
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, Paris Is Burning.
Well, how do you know, though? Perhaps it's a hoax, I mean we are being lied to about everything, can't trust those guys man. By the way, how do you know ''Dufour & Prunier'' are not fake, though? You didn't answer, I'm guessing you can't? I bet you didn't even read their full papers. |
|
|
|
^^^ Your expressed view is quite unscientific. After all, science is starting to suggest that there is such a thing as a spirit in each one of us. Right... when exactly has science done that? I would like to know, perhaps you can show us. Science suggests that death is, well, death, nothingness, there is nothing right now that suggests there is something else after death, not that it can't be possible since we don't know everything but if we are talking about what science suggests, that's what it suggests. So, you've been to the library, eh? But do you know how to use an Internet search engine? Yes and it says that science does not suggest there is a soul/spirit in each human. |
|
|
|
Well, thanks for proving me wrong. I thought that I was wrong. But since you have proven me wrong, I am right. Two major reason why Evolution has not been proven true are: 1. Nobody can track the DNA of plants or animals over the many thousands of years it would take to see if even one of them changed into another, and probably, nobody will ever be able to; 2. We can date pottery back to between 4500 and 5000 years. But back beyond that we don't know for a fact that the methods we use are the methods that will work on things back then. Math, itself, might have been different back beyond 5000 years, as might have been the physics of the universe. Everything we use as proof might have acted differently back then. We simply don't know. When we don't know, and know that we don't know, yet say that we do know, that's when the hoax comes into being. Evolution is a hoax. You forgot to add: 3. Nobody can time travel therefore anything that happened in the past cannot be proven ever (unless it's the claim that god existed and performed miracles in which case, yes, it can somehow be proven) 2. How would math be different 20.000 years ago, you are just talking nonsense, if that's your argument, then everything could have been different at any given time, then we might as well just give up. Well, well, well. You are starting to get the picture a little. Since we don't know how math and physics might be different a little, or the same for that matter, we obviously don't know that the earth or universe are billions of years old, or that they are even 20,000 years old. Since we know that we don't know these things, yet we proclaim that we know these things that we know we don't know... Evolution is a hoax... and you agreed. So we don't know those things but somehow we know a supernatural amazing being existed and performed miracles and not only that but he created the entire universe. Good one. We have the eye witness reports of God being faithful to His Word. So, since God said it, it's true. On the other hand, we have scientists NOT being faithful to their word. They prove that they don't know, but then they say that they do. Evolution is a hoax. How do you know they are real? We cannot go back in time to verify them, can we? |
|
|
|
Science does not have all the answers, there are mysteries in this world that may be difficult to unravel using just science, Religion does not a hold all the answers also, there are many "supernatural" assumptions that are easily explained by science.I guess science and religion complement each other.
Answering something and explaining something is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Religion might answer things, however answering things doesn't make them true. If you ask me what or who made the universe and I ''answer'' that the spaghetti god did it, you wouldn't trust me, would you? Well that's an answer, it's not an explanation. Even explanations can be wrong, of course, we need a method to determine whether or not they are wrong, the best we have is the scientific method which by the way, clearly works. Then after the scientific method does its work, we have scientists expressing their beliefs about what the scientific method found, rather than what the scientific method DID find. Maybe, however it's still the best system, what else is there, trusting old books blindly doesn't seem like a very good alternative to me. |
|
|
|
Science does not have all the answers, there are mysteries in this world that may be difficult to unravel using just science, Religion does not a hold all the answers also, there are many "supernatural" assumptions that are easily explained by science.I guess science and religion complement each other.
Answering something and explaining something is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Religion might answer things, however answering things doesn't make them true. If you ask me what or who made the universe and I ''answer'' that the spaghetti god did it, you wouldn't trust me, would you? Well that's an answer, it's not an explanation. Even explanations can be wrong, of course, we need a method to determine whether or not they are wrong, the best we have is the scientific method which by the way, clearly works. |
|
|
|
Well, thanks for proving me wrong. I thought that I was wrong. But since you have proven me wrong, I am right. Two major reason why Evolution has not been proven true are: 1. Nobody can track the DNA of plants or animals over the many thousands of years it would take to see if even one of them changed into another, and probably, nobody will ever be able to; 2. We can date pottery back to between 4500 and 5000 years. But back beyond that we don't know for a fact that the methods we use are the methods that will work on things back then. Math, itself, might have been different back beyond 5000 years, as might have been the physics of the universe. Everything we use as proof might have acted differently back then. We simply don't know. When we don't know, and know that we don't know, yet say that we do know, that's when the hoax comes into being. Evolution is a hoax. You forgot to add: 3. Nobody can time travel therefore anything that happened in the past cannot be proven ever (unless it's the claim that god existed and performed miracles in which case, yes, it can somehow be proven) 2. How would math be different 20.000 years ago, you are just talking nonsense, if that's your argument, then everything could have been different at any given time, then we might as well just give up. Well, well, well. You are starting to get the picture a little. Since we don't know how math and physics might be different a little, or the same for that matter, we obviously don't know that the earth or universe are billions of years old, or that they are even 20,000 years old. Since we know that we don't know these things, yet we proclaim that we know these things that we know we don't know... Evolution is a hoax... and you agreed. So we don't know those things but somehow we know a supernatural amazing being existed and performed miracles and not only that but he created the entire universe. Good one. |
|
|
|
^^^ Your expressed view is quite unscientific. After all, science is starting to suggest that there is such a thing as a spirit in each one of us. Right... when exactly has science done that? I would like to know, perhaps you can show us. Science suggests that death is, well, death, nothingness, there is nothing right now that suggests there is something else after death, not that it can't be possible since we don't know everything but if we are talking about what science suggests, that's what it suggests. |
|
|
|
^^^ They had you in mind when the term kook was coined.  Space is fake and the globe is a tri-city criminal conspiracy (The New World Order) between Jews (City of London | financial center), Jesuits (The Vatican | religious center) and Freemasons (Washington DC | military center). Maybe if we ask them nicely they'll stop being criminals? How do you know ''Dufour & Prunier'' are not fake, though? Have you met them personally? If you believe the government is able to fake such a huge thing, why would you trust anything? What makes you so sure they even existed? How difficult would it be to fake their existence? Seems rather easy, no? |
|
|
|
I wouldn't call it a "Positive Sign", it's rather an obvious Pump (if it's really the whales)!
Why? Whales accumulates funds via OTC trading when needed, there's no reason for them to BUY from the open market other than a P&D attempt.
But the Dumping always has been done via OTC trading too, the problem are the traders that blindly follow their moves.
That's what News and FUD are for.
And the crash was an obvious dump? There is nothing obvious in this market, you just have to follow the price, never try to get too ahead of it. You have to follow them, we don't have the power to move the market, this forum probably owns 1% of the market at best, at most. |
|
|
|
I agree on that "incest porn", who the f+ck gets really excited about a video of a woman dressed like a 12 year old saying "oh daddy, mom is not here, we shouldn't be doing nasty things"... too twisted, it is not only incetuos, it is closing to pedophilia.
A lot of people do, it's really not that crazy. I'm sure you get off thinking of the idea of cumming on your girlfriend's face or perhaps in her mouth, perhaps you even like it when she swallows it, isn't that actually disgusting? Well yea it is and guess what, 80% of men like it. Yeah, and I'm ok with adding fantasies and roleplay to sex... but the idea of dressing your girlfriend (or a hooker) as your daughter, looks like a very twisted one. Who decides what's twisted and what's not? As long as it's not real, I don't see the problem. Do you not play videogames? There are literally hundreds of videogames where you can, again, literally kill people in them, murder them, murder hookers, have sex with hookers, assassinate people, etc etc. A lot of children are playing those videogames and you think that porn is twisted, lol. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
