This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[ding]

it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work.

However work can still be done as long as MOTION exists to be exploited. Thus no heat death of the universe ending the universe

it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work.

And still has nothing to do with the universe beginning.

 

[ding]

Actually there are only 3 kinds of energy, kinetic, potential, and heat, dummy.

Actually all are simply potential. Mass too. Kinetic energy is farce and heat is simply energy having a frequency in the IR range. Dipoles of endless variety abound, but each ultimately boils down to singular stresses in combination or series.

So... no links for your theories?

Common sense. One need only think harder than the average bear. Don't even try. You'll just have another cow.

So it's all just in your head then. How come you have never published it before?

 

[ding]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

 

[ding]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

I'm always happy to have conversations. I'd much rather converse with you than these other two.

 

[ding]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

Maybe but I think it would be more like a rationalization or possibly compartmentalization. But I don't see how anyone could justify it as morally good. I think it was more likely dismissed as a guy being a guy which is a rationalization that it's ok for a guy to be a guy even when he behaves like a pig. It's definitely not a good look.

To me moral relativism would have been justifying that there's nothing wrong with all men doing that. I doubt they would have approved of someone they hated doing that. It's certainly hypocritical for sure.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

"Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property" ...

Can someone explain how the two bolded pieces are not contradictory?

 

[ding]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

I doubt all people of faith looked away. But certainly some people of faith did. It makes one question the level of faith for those that did.

 

[ding]

"Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property" ...

Can someone explain how the two bolded pieces are not contradictory?

Good question. The short answer is equality in socialism is predicated on uniformity. Uniformity is achieved by the "fair" distribution of resources. Which is achieved through state distribution or allocation of resources. Which is achieved by state control of resources.

The Socialist Phenomenon

robertlstephens.com

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

Maybe but I think it would be more like a rationalization or possibly compartmentalization. But I don't see how anyone could justify it as morally good. I think it was more likely dismissed as a guy being a guy which is a rationalization that it's ok for a guy to be a guy even when he behaves like a pig. It's definitely not a good look.

To me moral relativism would have been justifying that there's nothing wrong with all men doing that. I doubt they would have approved of someone they hated doing that. It's certainly hypocritical for sure.

I appreciate your effort, but were not moral values ignored to reach an end (the election of Donald Trump?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

I doubt all people of faith looked away. But certainly some people of faith did. It makes one question the level of faith for those that did.

Fair enough.

Can I take that to mean that you did not vote for Trump.

 

[ding]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

Maybe but I think it would be more like a rationalization or possibly compartmentalization. But I don't see how anyone could justify it as morally good. I think it was more likely dismissed as a guy being a guy which is a rationalization that it's ok for a guy to be a guy even when he behaves like a pig. It's definitely not a good look.

To me moral relativism would have been justifying that there's nothing wrong with all men doing that. I doubt they would have approved of someone they hated doing that. It's certainly hypocritical for sure.

I appreciate your effort, but were not moral values ignored to reach an end (the election of Donald Trump?

Yes. Approving of improper morals OF SOME PEOPLE and not others is not moral relativity. It is hypocrisy and an improper rationalization.

 

[ding]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

I doubt all people of faith looked away. But certainly some people of faith did. It makes one question the level of faith for those that did.

Fair enough.

Can I take that to mean that you did not vote for Trump.

Because you think I can only choose to do good? I'm not really a saint. Are you?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

"Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property" ...

Can someone explain how the two bolded pieces are not contradictory?

Good question. The short answer is equality in socialism is predicated on uniformity. Uniformity is achieved by the "fair" distribution of resources. Which is achieved through state distribution or allocation of resources. Which is achieved by state control of resources.

The Socialist Phenomenon

robertlstephens.com

Your piece states very near the start that "There is no formal defined dogma of socialism."

I agree with that, but if true, then isn't your explanation of uniformity and fair distribution a bit of a push?

Isn't it possible that certain elements of social fairness could be fused with a reward system in pursuit of a better world?

 

[ding]

"Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property" ...

Can someone explain how the two bolded pieces are not contradictory?

Good question. The short answer is equality in socialism is predicated on uniformity. Uniformity is achieved by the "fair" distribution of resources. Which is achieved through state distribution or allocation of resources. Which is achieved by state control of resources.

The Socialist Phenomenon

robertlstephens.com

Your piece states very near the start that "There is no formal defined dogma of socialism."

I agree with that, but if true, then isn't your explanation of uniformity and fair distribution a bit of a push?

Isn't it possible that certain elements of social fairness could be fused with a reward system in pursuit of a better world?

Not sure what you mean by a bit of a push. I put the word fair in quotes because my expectation is that it really wouldn't be fair.

Sure, in a perfect world, yes. But the book I linked to you talks about that. There's really no such thing as chiliastic socialism. Only a vague, rosy notion of something good that never materializes in the harsh light of reality. It is far better to take one's chances with markets than an all controlling government with the power to do whatever it wants. It's all fine and dandy until the money runs out.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

I doubt all people of faith looked away. But certainly some people of faith did. It makes one question the level of faith for those that did.

Fair enough.

Can I take that to mean that you did not vote for Trump.

Because you think I can only choose to do good? I'm not really a saint. Are you?

No I'm not a Saint, not even close.

Neither am I a fool.

 

[ding]

Isn't it possible that certain elements of social fairness could be fused with a reward system in pursuit of a better world?

A thought just hit me. Mankind spent centuries toiling under and trying to get out of feudal systems and now they are willing to go back to a feudal system to be taken care of.

 

[ding]

Am I making any sense?

Yes. More than ding, but that's a very low bar.

If you could actually argue against my content you would because we know how crazy the universe beginning makes you.

Look, If I've overstayed my welcome here I'll bow out & say thanks for the convo.

It's gone downhill anyway.

I have a question regarding the quoted dynamic of "moral relativism".

Trump boasted about grabbing women and people of faith looked the other way (likely in hopes of loading the court). Doesn't that qualify as moral relativism?

I doubt all people of faith looked away. But certainly some people of faith did. It makes one question the level of faith for those that did.

Fair enough.

Can I take that to mean that you did not vote for Trump.

Because you think I can only choose to do good? I'm not really a saint. Are you?

No I'm not a Saint, not even close.

Neither am I a fool.

That's good because if someone thinks they are a saint they most likely aren't but if they think they aren't a saint then they just might be. Cause I don't think a saint is what we think a saint is. But I don't take you for a fool. You are a thinker. I like that.

So to answer your question... yes the first time and no the second time.

 

[Dadoalex]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

You mean as opposed to an old guy with a long beard sitting on a cloud?

What is it with you people and you absolute fixation on what others may or may not believe?
If you are confident in your beliefs you've no need to criticize or question the beliefs of others.
After all, in the end you'll be sipping tea with Jeebers up in heaven while they're waist deep in crap standing on their heads, right?

God may well be a verb meaning seeding life among the universe. So when we go to mars we are practicing God as we will seed life there.

It's all perspective

That would be a terrible thing.
If there is life there our presence may bring disease that destroys all of it.

SCI-Fi buff. Lots of story lines follow the "earth was seeded" line.

 

[K9Buck]

Right....

So what have you seen? Because I haven't see it.

You refuse to see. So be it.