Search results

They don't and they're not. They do and they can be. And pretending otherwise can't protect you. The only thing you can do is acknowledge that danger and be on guard for it.

Yes, yes, might makes right. It's not deep or clever. It's two six year old kids and one toy.

Yeah, but he didn't try to lobby for any laws stifling freedom of speech or making competing with him illegal.

Quite honestly, I don't understand why people are disturbed by the idea of the universe not having a purpose. The idea that it could have a purpose seems bizarre to me.

It depends on assorted metaphysical stuff like the nature/existence of free will and this contingent/necessary business. Blame could lay entirely one way or entirely the other, depending.

No. First show some evidence your claim is true. Finding some nothing would be a good start.

Well, a successful sports team does boost revenues from other businesses. People are motivated to blow money on stuff when the game is on. Not even just stuff related to the game. But I think the difference who controls the money and what they use it for. It's not even really wealthy...

You're not being entirely clear. Are you switching your argument to "The death of a human is no significant loss" or "Might makes right"? Both are totally different arguments than "authors are not responsible for the actions of their characters." They're all nonsense, and no one gives either...

You could argue that. You could say science is, itself, a philosophy and so by coming up with science philosophy has moved forward because science does a better job of describing the world than the ideas that preceded it. ...but that's given that describing the world accurately is the goal (or...

Hardly surprising.

Ah, yes, all those troublesome human rights. They've driven all the companies to countries where they don't hold sway. ...must be nice to live in one of those relative paradises, huh?

But the questions Science can't answer are things like questions about morality. Even then, philosophy needs to be informed by science. A discussion about what is or isn't moral needs to be informed by an accurate understanding of what the consequences of any given action is. Problem is...

Your problem isn't that you worded things poorly. Someone better at playing word games might have tried to make their contradiction a little less obvious, but I think it's too glaring for any amount of clever rephrasing to have hidden it. 1)You said that atheists are complaining about nothing...

Try to think through what followed: So no one is forcing anyone to do anything. No one wants to force Christianity on the atheists, they're just mean, picking fights, stirring up trouble for no reason. And then you immediately go on to complain that Christians have lost their "right" to...

Sure there is. You might want to wallow in prejudice and hatred and tell yourself it's righteousness, but the rest of us have an obvious interest in not allowing that thinking to perpetuate unchallenged.

Oh boo hoo. Whenever you post something totally insane and paranoid all those nasty atheists call you out on you paranoia. Also, Christians call you out on your paranoia. You're the only sane one left, yeah? Hey, you don't want people thinking you're nutty, don't tell 'em about how we...

Oh wow, I'm reading backwards.

Check out a fan-forum for some popular work of fiction in which a fan-favorite character is murdered. Who do the fans rail against? Theology may teach you to believe all sorts of things, but in the real world people consider authors responsible for the actions of their characters. Alright...

That's not an advance made by pure philosophy, divorced from science. That's an advance made by science.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, man? Did you copy and paste someone else's gibberish, or did you actually personally write that under the mistaken impression that there was some kind of message contained in it?