You could level that charge at Israel and the US as well.
is it not objectively moral to cause as little unnecessary suffering as possible? From any perspective- that which causes suffering unnecessarily should be avoided. It becomes objectively moral to not cause unnecessary suffering. What each person defines as unnecessary is irreverent, same with suffering. The position is objectively true regardless of the subject in question- lest I've misunderstood the concept.
To think I'm one of the few men who get this. lolol
Nope, just reading the chalk on the asphalt.
I was using single books when I used the term Gospel. The book that gives the name of the city gets other events in the same era out of order. So as a source to pin point the city to before the books writing in the late 70's its not one you can use.
Still doesn't mean they aren't born with it.
You are debating a topic you know very little about, and making things up as you go along
Yes misery index, it is the unemployment rate added to the interest rate and it was talked about quite often while Carter was in office, must have been BEFORE your time! 70% of US GDP is consumer driven so allowing people to keep and thus spend MORE of what they EARN INCREASES GDP! Raising taxes as demoRATS do slows GDP growth!
Personally, I have an evolutionary morality hypothesis. To sum it up: Any long-lasting moral system would inevitably develop common traits. The most common of them would be the Golden rule in some shape.
:) The notification of this comment read like this to me: "1.51+2.51+". I wasn't sure what that meant. Now, I know. :)
And was the grabbing justified? How exactly? Because he didn?t kowtow?
Of course the object of the 'faith' you impute to atheists is not God - how could it be? - but the implication is that is not based on reason, and that it is closed-minded. I can only speak for myself, but most atheists I have come across in these forums are the same: we do not claim the absolute certainty which is required for faith that God does not exist, we just don't think He does. Richard Dawkins (PBUH) Himself is on the same page.
I don't buy that, sorry... and I'm a Christian, too.
habitat for humanity, for appliances and fixtures like sinks and such .great deals out there,,
I have seen that too. I understand that there is an adjustment period, though.
1. If you don't define things, you cannot properly discuss them
Hey... I wouldn't be so quick to call out the JWs if I wasn't ready to have someone throw it back in my face.
I have absolute knowledge of them though and they told me that if you don't believe in them, they are going to come to the planet and destroy it. Now it has relevance to your life. See the game yet?
The graphomania wasn't mine. Read carefully.
From the one unable to see a reason to make a distinction and thus keyboards an inanity such as "Humans are as moral or amoral as lions."
That's good to know. In that case, it's sad that it came down to this. I see many people in an uproar over the fact that she touched him, but in my opinion the "no touching" rules should be in the spirit of easily cracking down on an abuser-- not because nonsexual and nonviolent touching (such as in the video) is actually something to get upset about.
How many What If scenarios should we build today?