99 pts ยท November 11, 2015
Animals aren't moral. The idea that they are is downright strange.
There are many invisible forces like gravity and the higgs field that are not particularly phisical except in their origins.
All are considered equal.
Apart from of foreigners, but like I said Jewdaism was only a stepping stone towards Christianity where slavery cannot rightly exist because
Slavery was not tolerated. Indentured servitude was.
Just like when all the doctors scoffed at the idea of germs and stopped washing their hands
No it's not. Science must remain totally neutral. That's the point. Open hostility poisons science.
From what I've seen the most religious people seem to be very happy for a big mix of worldviews and opinions, even contrary ones.
What part of what I said is the strawman? I am honestly trying to understand your position.
You'll have to show me a study backing that up.
The dog thing seemed pretty conclusive to me. You could do it again yourself if you can find claimants with dogs.
Except the 'scrutiny' is not scientific.
But that's not what is going on here. He has been openly attacked, scoffed at, and ignored. Not critiqued.
These are primary sources cited in the book. Do you really want me to try and type them into here? It would be 2-3 posts for each one!
Actually they did replicate the dog experiment, got the same result, and then called it random chance.
I may have added that one by mistake, but I have heard atheists say that almost none of the places in the Bible are real.
In what way? I find that people occasionally fail to understand his full arguments and fall short.
I think the anthropic principal supplies pretty good evidence, personally, but I'm already in that debate with the other guy.
That sounds a lot like Christian Humanism to me.
Let me rephrase it: we have no reason to suppose that random creation happens inside universes that are already created.
Stop asserting that it hasn't when it is the most logical and reasonable option.
Eh? https://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html
No, it's not physical. That's not the same thing.
In any case, ritual purity laws were put in place to set Israel apart from other nations and hold them to strict standards.
But owning a human being is not. Exodus 21:16, Deut 24:7
I think it's a pretty important part, actually. God sets examples, and then leaves us to it.
I find this repeated everywhere.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/07/how-do-we-measure-the-speed-of-light/#4931cb1121d2
Ok, I found the context - it was a large cloud of subatomic particles spread by the big bang. Which is what the literature says.
I didn't know you had sent one. I don't bother with the message system usually because it's full of sex bots.
Animals aren't moral. The idea that they are is downright strange.
There are many invisible forces like gravity and the higgs field that are not particularly phisical except in their origins.
All are considered equal.
Apart from of foreigners, but like I said Jewdaism was only a stepping stone towards Christianity where slavery cannot rightly exist because
Slavery was not tolerated. Indentured servitude was.
Just like when all the doctors scoffed at the idea of germs and stopped washing their hands
No it's not. Science must remain totally neutral. That's the point. Open hostility poisons science.
From what I've seen the most religious people seem to be very happy for a big mix of worldviews and opinions, even contrary ones.
What part of what I said is the strawman? I am honestly trying to understand your position.
You'll have to show me a study backing that up.
The dog thing seemed pretty conclusive to me. You could do it again yourself if you can find claimants with dogs.
Except the 'scrutiny' is not scientific.
But that's not what is going on here. He has been openly attacked, scoffed at, and ignored. Not critiqued.
These are primary sources cited in the book. Do you really want me to try and type them into here? It would be 2-3 posts for each one!
Actually they did replicate the dog experiment, got the same result, and then called it random chance.
I may have added that one by mistake, but I have heard atheists say that almost none of the places in the Bible are real.
In what way? I find that people occasionally fail to understand his full arguments and fall short.
I think the anthropic principal supplies pretty good evidence, personally, but I'm already in that debate with the other guy.
That sounds a lot like Christian Humanism to me.
Let me rephrase it: we have no reason to suppose that random creation happens inside universes that are already created.
Stop asserting that it hasn't when it is the most logical and reasonable option.
Eh? https://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html
No, it's not physical. That's not the same thing.
In any case, ritual purity laws were put in place to set Israel apart from other nations and hold them to strict standards.
But owning a human being is not. Exodus 21:16, Deut 24:7
I think it's a pretty important part, actually. God sets examples, and then leaves us to it.
I find this repeated everywhere.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/11/07/how-do-we-measure-the-speed-of-light/#4931cb1121d2
Ok, I found the context - it was a large cloud of subatomic particles spread by the big bang. Which is what the literature says.
I didn't know you had sent one. I don't bother with the message system usually because it's full of sex bots.