The true living God

[alang1216]

I challenge you to come up with a list of objective standards. You might think prohibiting murder would be one example but every culture defines murder differently. Even our own culture doesn't agree on what is murder and what is not in every case.

You only need one. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You are still confusing man's subjectivity for the standard being subjective. That just isn't the case. It can be solved through inspection.

You live in a fantasy world.

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

 

[james bond]

If that's all you have as empirical proof for god then you have NOTHING. better luck next time.

Satan has scrambled whatever limited brain you have. Did a snake talk with you? Did that thing you thought was a stick on the road started to crawl and it went up your rear end?

It is evolution that has nothing when people claim there are mountains of evidence. None of it is observable nor pass the scientific method. Those people believe in BS. Its the creation scientists and the Bible theory that has the mountains of evidence. If you do not accept this, then you need to read my first sentence again or watch my new video..

 

[Taz]

If that's all you have as empirical proof for god then you have NOTHING. better luck next time.

Satan has scrambled whatever limited brain you have. Did a snake talk with you? Did that thing you thought was a stick on the road started to crawl and it went up your rear end?

It is evolution that has nothing when people claim there are mountains of evidence. None of it is observable nor pass the scientific method. Those people believe in BS. Its the creation scientists and the Bible theory that has the mountains of evidence. If you do not accept this, then you need to read my first sentence again or watch my new video..

I bet you talk to snakes until they spit in your face. Seriously, a half hour of retards talking? Got a real science site?

 

[ding]

I challenge you to come up with a list of objective standards. You might think prohibiting murder would be one example but every culture defines murder differently. Even our own culture doesn't agree on what is murder and what is not in every case.

You only need one. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You are still confusing man's subjectivity for the standard being subjective. That just isn't the case. It can be solved through inspection.

You live in a fantasy world.

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

 

[Taz]

^ standards are not relative or

I challenge you to come up with a list of objective standards. You might think prohibiting murder would be one example but every culture defines murder differently. Even our own culture doesn't agree on what is murder and what is not in every case.

You only need one. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You are still confusing man's subjectivity for the standard being subjective. That just isn't the case. It can be solved through inspection.

You live in a fantasy world.

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Because morality is subjective. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[ding]

^ standards are not relative or

I challenge you to come up with a list of objective standards. You might think prohibiting murder would be one example but every culture defines murder differently. Even our own culture doesn't agree on what is murder and what is not in every case.

You only need one. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You are still confusing man's subjectivity for the standard being subjective. That just isn't the case. It can be solved through inspection.

You live in a fantasy world.

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Because morality is subjective. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nope. Humans are subjective.

 

[alang1216]

If that's all you have as empirical proof for god then you have NOTHING. better luck next time.

Satan has scrambled whatever limited brain you have. Did a snake talk with you? Did that thing you thought was a stick on the road started to crawl and it went up your rear end?

It is evolution that has nothing when people claim there are mountains of evidence. None of it is observable nor pass the scientific method. Those people believe in BS. Its the creation scientists and the Bible theory that has the mountains of evidence. If you do not accept this, then you need to read my first sentence again or watch my new video..

Of the mountains of evidence for creation science and Bible theory, which one do you think is the most solid and convincing? Just one will do.

 

[alang1216]

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Let's say someone is trying to kill you. You can let them kill you or you can kill them. What is the moral action that won't require rationalizing?

 

[james bond]

If that's all you have as empirical proof for god then you have NOTHING. better luck next time.

Satan has scrambled whatever limited brain you have. Did a snake talk with you? Did that thing you thought was a stick on the road started to crawl and it went up your rear end?

It is evolution that has nothing when people claim there are mountains of evidence. None of it is observable nor pass the scientific method. Those people believe in BS. Its the creation scientists and the Bible theory that has the mountains of evidence. If you do not accept this, then you need to read my first sentence again or watch my new video..

Of the mountains of evidence for creation science and Bible theory, which one do you think is the most solid and convincing? Just one will do.

DNA.

 

[alang1216]

Of the mountains of evidence for creation science and Bible theory, which one do you think is the most solid and convincing? Just one will do.

DNA.

Didn't see that one coming! Would you please explain.

 

[ding]

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Let's say someone is trying to kill you. You can let them kill you or you can kill them. What is the moral action that won't require rationalizing?

I told you already. You just didn’t understand it.

Why do you need to justify everything you do as moral?

 

[alang1216]

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Let's say someone is trying to kill you. You can let them kill you or you can kill them. What is the moral action that won't require rationalizing?

I told you already. You just didn’t understand it.

Why do you need to justify everything you do as moral?

You are the one who claims there is a hard-wired standard of right and wrong yet when I ask you to put your standard into practice you give some vague, non-answer. And then you try and roll it back to me like I didn't understand you.

If you can't even answer a simple question it is hard to take you seriously.

 

[ding]

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Let's say someone is trying to kill you. You can let them kill you or you can kill them. What is the moral action that won't require rationalizing?

I told you already. You just didn’t understand it.

Why do you need to justify everything you do as moral?

You are the one who claims there is a hard-wired standard of right and wrong yet when I ask you to put your standard into practice you give some vague, non-answer. And then you try and roll it back to me like I didn't understand you.

If you can't even answer a simple question it is hard to take you seriously.

Yes, but we have a choice in following it or not.

You can know it is hardwired into us by our rationalizations. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[ding]

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Let's say someone is trying to kill you. You can let them kill you or you can kill them. What is the moral action that won't require rationalizing?

I told you already. You just didn’t understand it.

Why do you need to justify everything you do as moral?

You are the one who claims there is a hard-wired standard of right and wrong yet when I ask you to put your standard into practice you give some vague, non-answer. And then you try and roll it back to me like I didn't understand you.

If you can't even answer a simple question it is hard to take you seriously.

Let’s say someone is trying to harm you and you defend yourself and end up killing him. Is it better to say killing is wrong or that killing is right?

I say it is the lesser of two evils and I should feel bad for doing it. Evil does not occur overnight. It is a gradual erosion of a standard until one day putting Jews in oven is seen as moral.

 

[ding]

There has never been an evil act committed that wasn’t rationalized as being the right thing to do.

 

[alang1216]

If someone is trying to kill me what is the standard? I don't want him to kill me so your standard says I shouldn't kill him. Where does that leave me?

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Let's say someone is trying to kill you. You can let them kill you or you can kill them. What is the moral action that won't require rationalizing?

I told you already. You just didn’t understand it.

Why do you need to justify everything you do as moral?

You are the one who claims there is a hard-wired standard of right and wrong yet when I ask you to put your standard into practice you give some vague, non-answer. And then you try and roll it back to me like I didn't understand you.

If you can't even answer a simple question it is hard to take you seriously.

Yes, but we have a choice in following it or not.

You can know it is hardwired into us by our rationalizations. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I understand it, I just don't believe it.

 

[ding]

It leaves you with doing what you will do and rationalizing what you do is moral.

Whereas it leaves me with doing what I will do and not rationalizing it is moral.

Let's say someone is trying to kill you. You can let them kill you or you can kill them. What is the moral action that won't require rationalizing?

I told you already. You just didn’t understand it.

Why do you need to justify everything you do as moral?

You are the one who claims there is a hard-wired standard of right and wrong yet when I ask you to put your standard into practice you give some vague, non-answer. And then you try and roll it back to me like I didn't understand you.

If you can't even answer a simple question it is hard to take you seriously.

Yes, but we have a choice in following it or not.

You can know it is hardwired into us by our rationalizations. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I understand it, I just don't believe it.

Then you must believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

 

[alang1216]

Let’s say someone is trying to harm you and you defend yourself and end up killing him. Is it better to say killing is wrong or that killing is right?

I say it is the lesser of two evils and I should feel bad for doing it. Evil does not occur overnight. It is a gradual erosion of a standard until one day putting Jews in oven is seen as moral.

So you claim there is a hard-wired moral standard for right and wrong but in this case there is no right OR wrong. Whatever your choice, you are neither right nor wrong. Seems like your fantasy of right and wrong just crashed into reality.

It is hard to practice the Golden Rule if others do not.

 

[ding]

Let’s say someone is trying to harm you and you defend yourself and end up killing him. Is it better to say killing is wrong or that killing is right?

I say it is the lesser of two evils and I should feel bad for doing it. Evil does not occur overnight. It is a gradual erosion of a standard until one day putting Jews in oven is seen as moral.

So you claim there is a hard-wired moral standard for right and wrong but in this case there is no right OR wrong. Whatever your choice, you are neither right nor wrong. Seems like your fantasy of right and wrong just crashed into reality.

It is hard to practice the Golden Rule if others do not.

Im sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. It is morally wrong.

 

[alang1216]

Then you must believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

It's not that, I just don't believe that all behaviors can be categorized as either right or wrong. And I think I just proved it.