Status of human beings depend on whether you believe in God

[Blackrook]

If God exists, then each of us are eternal beings, with rights endowed by God, amongst these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

Exactly. A much better fate that living in willful ignorance and slavery.

 

[22lcidw]

Each of us is taught or not taught there is an afterlife through religion. And the degree of those teachings may be in part of the test here on earth. Going against those teachings at the level taught can bring a worse living experience by breaking the rules. Most of us being human, do cross the line. Whether it is fair or unfair it is moot point in a world where the physical rules. The temptations are there and the degree of breaking the laws of spiritual living are sent back to each of us. Add surroundings of not having much and/or family with issues and it can be real trials and tribulations. I believe we can be tested as far on one side as to the infractions we cross on the other while living here on earth. And each of us has a pre ordained pattern on what others may respond to by our actions. No matter. To pay for real wrongs committed on earth by man's law or bringing the wrath on oneself by ones actions brings a person closer to eternal life of bliss when life ends and the after life begins. This thread may not be completely right , but it is the right direction.

 

[gunn2010]

God and religion in general has been responsible for most of the slaughter of human beings since time immemorial. This is still prevailing. Hence the status of human life is low. If you believe in God you are at least marginally responsible for this.

 

[G.T.]

If God exists, then each of us are eternal beings, with rights endowed by God, amongst these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

That view is this new category Im gunna try to stipulate...religious nihilism, or something.

Meaning is kinda like when sentient minds place value on something...such as life itself. To imagine that without religion...minds dont do that...is not only ridiculous, but its blatantly incorrect.

 

[ding]

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

Exactly. A much better fate that living in willful ignorance and slavery.

All of us are slaves to something. It's an artifact of compulsion. It is literally hardwired into us.

The only question is what we are slaves to.

 

[ding]

If God exists, then each of us are eternal beings, with rights endowed by God, amongst these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

A less objectionable statement is..

If God exists, then we are creatures with inalienable rights.

If God doesn't exist, then we are creatures with no inalienable rights.​

It is man's behavior which demonstrates his unyielding belief that he has inalienable rights that led me to ponder the origin questions.

 

[G.T.]

If God exists, then each of us are eternal beings, with rights endowed by God, amongst these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If God doesn't exist, we are nothing more than sacks of meat, water and bones.

A less objectionable statement is..

If God exists, then we are creatures with inalienable rights.

If God doesn't exist, then we are creatures with no inalienable rights.​

It is man's behavior which demonstrates his unyielding belief that he has inalienable rights that led me to ponder the origin questions.

That statement is equally objectionable. Rights can be elucidated rationally - and if there's no actual God they in fact have been.

 

[ding]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[G.T.]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

That's super short-sighted and can only pass muster without deliberate cross-examination. Fairness is a function of cause and effect between two humans - expectation of fairness is a product of being sentient pack animals. That explains it right there, not even very challenging at all. It's all SUPER easily explicable without any deity necessary, and that any "thinker" - be it non-theist OR THEIST!!! proclaims to not be able to imagine how - is super scary but also super relevant to the psychology of how easily they're convinced by bad arguments.

 

[ding]

The definition of inalienable is "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. without consent"

If there is no God then rights can be anything man says they are. Which means they can be given and taken away by men without their consent. Which means they are not inalienable.

 

[G.T.]

The definition of inalienable is "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. without consent"

If there is no God then rights can be anything man says they are. Which means they can be given and taken away by men without their consent. Which means they are not inalienable.

Whether they are God given or not, they have been given, taken, violated...and shat upon. That's why "affirming the consequence," as an argument, does not work, Ding.

Rights, from the vantage-point of sentient, compassionate and social animals - are easy to rationally justify with no deity. Have you even fucking tried?

 

[ding]

The Declaration of Independence also speaks about unalienable rights. It says that that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These rights cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime. Governments are instituted to “secure," not grant or create, these rights.

 

[ding]

“All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

[G.T.]

The Declaration of Independence also speaks about unalienable rights. It says that that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These rights cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime. Governments are instituted to “secure," not grant or create, these rights.

That's also affirming the consequence. It's men declaring something as the basis for their rights - it's not an empirical establishment of that thing and so it has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. It's men saying something, news at 11 - type thing. So what? We either agree or do not agree that the rights are immutable and can debate why - that's all easy to do without invoking a deity.

 

[ding]

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER THREE
GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2
Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5
1955 The "divine and natural" law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11
1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

II. THE OLD LAW

1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of Christ. The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason. These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of salvation.

1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.13
1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, "types," and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's charity has been poured into our hearts."18
III. THE NEW LAW OR THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL

1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19

1966 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it:

If anyone should meditate with devotion and perspicacity on the sermon our Lord gave on the mount, as we read in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, he will doubtless find there . . . the perfect way of the Christian life. . . . This sermon contains . . . all the precepts needed to shape one's life.20
1967 The Law of the Gospel "fulfills," refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the "kingdom of heaven." It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith - the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23

1969 The New Law practices the acts of religion: almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the "Father who sees in secret," in contrast with the desire to "be seen by men."24 Its prayer is the Our Father.25

1970 The Law of the Gospel requires us to make the decisive choice between "the two ways" and to put into practice the words of the Lord.26 It is summed up in the Golden Rule, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets."27

The entire Law of the Gospel is contained in the "new commandment" of Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us.28

1971 To the Lord's Sermon on the Mount it is fitting to add the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc. This doctrine hands on the Lord's teaching with the authority of the apostles, particularly in the presentation of the virtues that flow from faith in Christ and are animated by charity, the principal gift of the Holy Spirit. "Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality."29 This catechesis also teaches us to deal with cases of conscience in the light of our relationship to Christ and to the Church.30

1972 The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who "does not know what his master is doing" to that of a friend of Christ - "For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" - or even to the status of son and heir.31

1973 Besides its precepts, the New Law also includes the evangelical counsels. The traditional distinction between God's commandments and the evangelical counsels is drawn in relation to charity, the perfection of Christian life. The precepts are intended to remove whatever is incompatible with charity. The aim of the counsels is to remove whatever might hinder the development of charity, even if it is not contrary to it.32

1974 The evangelical counsels manifest the living fullness of charity, which is never satisfied with not giving more. They attest its vitality and call forth our spiritual readiness. The perfection of the New Law consists essentially in the precepts of love of God and neighbor. The counsels point out the more direct ways, the readier means, and are to be practiced in keeping with the vocation of each:

[God] does not want each person to keep all the counsels, but only those appropriate to the diversity of persons, times, opportunities, and strengths, as charity requires; for it is charity, as queen of all virtues, all commandments, all counsels, and, in short, of all laws and all Christian actions that gives to all of them their rank, order, time, and value.33
IN BRIEF

1975 According to Scripture the Law is a fatherly instruction by God which prescribes for man the ways that lead to the promised beatitude, and proscribes the ways of evil.

1976 "Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 90, 4).

1977 Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God.

1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

1980 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.

1981 The Law of Moses contains many truths naturally accessible to reason. God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.

1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord's Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.

1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.

1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.

1986 Besides its precepts the New Law includes the evangelical counsels. "The Church's holiness is fostered in a special way by the manifold counsels which the Lord proposes to his disciples in the Gospel" (LG 42 § 2).



2 Leo XIII, Libertas præstantissimum: AAS 20 (1887/88),597; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,90,1.
3 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc, 2,4pL 2,288-289.
4 Rom 10:4.
5 Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597.
6 GS 89 § 1.
7 St. Augustine, De Trin. 14,15,21p L 42,1052.
8 St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. præc. I.
9 Cicero, Rep. III,22,33.
10 Cf. GS 10.
11 St. Augustine, Conf. 2,4,9p L 32,678.
12 Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005.
13 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 57,1p L 36,673.
14 Cf. Rom 7:12,14,16.
15 Cf. Gal 3:24.
16 Cf. Rom 7.
17 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,15,1p G 7/1,1012.
18 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,107,1 ad 2; cf. Rom 5:5.
19 Heb 8:8, 10; cf. Jer 31:31-34.
20 St. Augustine, De serm. Dom. 1,1p L 34,1229-1230.
21 Cf. Mt 5:17-19.
22 Cf. Mt 15:18-19.
23 Cf. Mt 5:44,48.
24 Cf. Mt 6:1-6; 16-18.
25 Cf. Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11:2-4.
26 Cf. Mt 7:13-14,21-27.
27 Mt 7:12; cf. Lk 6:31.
28 Cf. Jn 15:12; 13:34.
29 Rom 12:9-13.
30 Cf. Rom 14; 1 Cor 5-10.
31 Jn 15:15; cf. Jas 1:25; 2:12; Gal 4:1-7,21-31; Rom 8:15.
32 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,184,3.
33 St. Francis de Sales, Love of God 8,6.

 

[G.T.]

That gish gallop was awesome because it establishes a talking from two sides of an issue.

For example, "law is declared and established by reason" completely aligns with both theism AND atheism.

The suppositions which follow defy WHY the buck could have stopped there, and makes attempt at explaining why humans have the ability to reason. That's awesome because, apart from being mere assertion, actually boasts of evolution and naturalism without doing so on-purpose.

That's hilarious!

 

[ding]

Only if there is an absolute truth.

 

[G.T.]

Only if there is an absolute truth.

All that that requires, is for reality to be real. voila, absolute truth! Which is actually redundant. Both words aren't needed...but adding them together is something apologists have done to conflate things. When you're wholly incapable at playing devil's advocate and positing an argument from both sides of an issue, you become as loosey goosy a slogan spewing and vacuous thinker as you've become, Ding. I mean, you assert that you know what pre big bang cosmology looks like as though it's an established fact. That's grossly outside of the scope of science and critical thinking. Nobody knows that, ding...honestly plays an important role in knowledge seeking and you don't even have it with yourself. You just like to "have arguments," and "be right."

It's not about that, and that's what makes you insufferable. You gish-gallop long posts FULL of baseless assertions, and call me when anyone has the time to raise another toddler and pick apart dog-shit that's that long but it aint me. I told you, though, I'm always open to doing it verbally. You'd have far less of an ability to be so fucktardedly obtuse over obvious things.

 

[ding]

If you believed your arguments were sufficient then you wouldn’t need to attack me.