TreeBeard

“Convince me I’m wrong” is the opposite of “I will convince you I’m right”. Your words were in perfect context. You want “those people” to disprove your god, which is a reversal of the burden of proof when you’re the one claiming God exists.

If I claim Bigfoot exists, do I have the burden of proof? Or is the burden of proof on those who don’t believe me to prove he doesn’t exist?

Sorry to hear about your health issues. With the doctors’ help, I hope you’ll be around for decades to come!

Bad evidence. You wouldn’t believe anything else of any importance on evidence like that. Your evidence is also evidence for “universe-creating Unicorn” just by substituting it for God. Do you have empirical evidence?

Seemed like a stupid thing to say given current events. One of the few politicians I’ve seen actually resign after a political blunder.

Why would I want to do that? My goal is honest conversation. I’m not a preacher who needs conversions to appease his god. You’re mistaking this for a conversation where we all discuss each other’s ideas. It’s much easier for @Yakuda to just tell you to look up Aquinas and disprove the “5 proofs” than it is for them to discuss.

Asserting that God has no cause is simply that an assertion without evidence. Vacuous. I don’t need “proofs” of an ancient philosopher who justified slavery and assumed God then made up some justifications. Empirical evidence is all I will accept for the existence of an object or being. Without empirical evidence, you’re not justified in believing it exists, whatever “it” may be. I am more moral just by acknowledging that it is always immoral to own another human being as property. Aquinas couldn’t do that. I can. Moral superiority is achieved.

You’ve said yourself that never made it moral. Aquinas’ thinking on slavery makes perfect sense if he was just a guy with some opinions that were formed by the age in which he was living. I have higher standards for those who are supposedly be inspired by an all-loving god. If I can be more moral as an afterthought than he could through decades of prayer, bible study and inspiration from God, then I don’t think his words carry much weight any longer. They can be dismissed as easily as you brought them up.

I find Aquinas’ arguments on God’s existence about as convincing as his arguments for slavery. If I can be that much moral and wise than Saint Aquinas, why would I bother with his arguments?

Why should Aquinas be believed? Because he is a saint?

Actual journalists don’t spread Putin’s message for him.

A syllogism: Premise 1: Actual journalists are arrested in Russia. Premise 2: Tucker can move about freely in Russia. Conclusion: Therefor, Tucker is not an actual journalist.

Are you summarizing what I said? Or your own opinion?

Caucasian hookers only or @blackbird would get upset!

You think people of Chinese descent wear burqas and hijabs? lol Considering they’re women, not much worry there. Sounds like they passed your values test!

What values, or lack of, would make them less Canadian?

Moral relativism might be an interesting branch to take the discussion…. I hope more people will chime in. “Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles.” - source:Google @Yakuda says he doesn’t know if the killing was moral or immoral. I know the killings were immoral, because killing someone for those reasons is clearly always immoral. Who is the moral relativist? Based on the definition above, the answer is obvious. If @Yakuda thinks the killings done today are immoral, but doesn’t know if they were back in “the day”, they are a moral relativist, or at least until they can determine that it was also wrong back then.

Nope. My question is strictly about man’s behaviour and whether it was moral in that particular situation. That’s irrelevant as to whether it was moral for those people to stone people as a punishment God prescribed in the bible. You don’t know if the killing was moral or immoral. I’ve never heard anyone so unable to take a moral stance on an example of killing. Who is the moral relativist here? (That’s rhetorical…. I will leave this conversation here as we are repeating ourselves. The last word is all yours)

I usually put those terms in quotes as I don’t know what they mean. They’re poorly defined by the people who use them. Depends. Is that a social conservative value? Absolutely not. They clearly want a society that conforms to their values, and individual liberty takes a back seat, or liberty is redefined as being allowed to be a bigot. E.g. “businesses should be allowed to serve who they want without government interference “. That’s bigotry couched as liberty.

You said you don’t know. Which is how I paraphrased you.

Fair enough…. You don’t know if killing them was wrong. Sad. How come I know it’s wrong despite not getting morals from the bible?

From your previous post. …God can do as he wills. That has no bearing on what's moral or immoral for me. This was my question that you didn’t answer: So when God listed those punishments in the bible for certain sinful acts, it was immoral for people to carry them out? Irrelevant to God’s commands prior in the OT. I am asking what was moral prior to Jesus. You know this. But you won’t answer.

I don’t find labels important. The label is just how we use a word. Call them womyn, call them woomen, call them men with dicks. So this whole premise is a made up bogeyman. Isn’t “the left” wanting social acceptance of people who are transgender? Wouldn’t that be a more fair way of phrasing it? Your comfort with the labels is really unimportant and only designed to rile up opposition.

So where do you get your morals from if it isn’t from God? I’m pretty sure you’ve said the bible contains the basis for morality, did you not? So when God listed those punishments in the bible for certain sinful acts, it was immoral for people to carry them out?

What does “the left” want changed based on a lie?