(June 26, 2017 at 11:57 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(June 26, 2017 at 11:48 pm)Astonished Wrote: You gave me YOUR definition. I rejected it because of a fundamental conflict I pointed out that you failed to resolve (you're welcome to keep trying but if you want to keep spewing the same shit, we're in no better a position than that of a theist and skeptic).Isn't that like......just your opinion, man?
(can you see now why that objection is pointless, lol?)
Quote:I went elsewhere to see if I could resolve this via someone who does this for a living and, I was unpleasantly surprised to find out, nope, no solutions out there.Then look harder. Search for William Lane Craig, for example, debating a secular objective moral theorist. Maybe it'll appeal to you since the secular objectivist is shitting on a christer like it was his job.
Quote:If you can find one, please, I invite you, cite and post, and I'll give it due consideration. I no longer trust your capability to do this on your own so forgive the eye-rolling if you want to keep jabbering on. Ironic how you used the Dude (shittiest movie ever, BTW, you have SUCH great taste, big surprise) to illustrate what you're incapable of understanding.Oh, now you;ve got a problem with the dude -and- secular objective morality? Pistols at 5 paces.
Dude, an infant could shit on WLC. And there wasn't a single likeable character in that entire fucking movie. I have to give a shit about at least one person to care about anything that happens in the fucking thing. Also the thing with the woman using him as a sperm donor to become a single parent intentionally is something that bothers the fuck out of me because of personal experience. But that's, like, my opinion, man. Sure, I could point out how I think growing up without a two-parent home or a parent or at least surrogate parental figure (uncle, aunt, depending) so that both sexes are represented is not beneficial to the child, but if my subjective experience in that regard is an outlier to all other empirical data, well, fuck-a-doodle-doo, that does me no good deferring to objectivity.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.