Bolshevik

At least let him answer the evolution question. Then you two can put the block thingy on easy enough and conclude whatever it is.

Longhunter, it's kind of like if someone denied evolution. They can do that. We'll still use it a as a tool to explain the world. BSvic : Are we more moral than a screwdriver?

It does. Please answer the evolution question? (at its base the thread is a denial of understanding evolution)

You've jumped to other gods, too. It was a dead thread. Be honest.

Did the ring leaders M&A them back? Cause, that would show them.

You'll need to explain how I'm conflating the 'isms. I'm interested to hear that. Human beings evolve via natural selection, more importantly sexual selection. The different god concepts play a role in the sexual selection and is a driving force for human evolution. We a quite literally created in the image of God, you could say. Are you arguing against human evolution? If not, please explain how it happened.

A book is only as good as the reader. We can't agree there was abstract thinking involved in writing it.

Last I checked taxonomy is quite difficult at times. Because organisms are not robots and don't fit into neat categories. You're really forcing absolutes. Something does exist. Someone refuting claims only eliminates infinite possibilities of what it is not, doesn't change the fact that it is there to be dealt with.

If I look at this cup in front of me and someone refutes my claim that it exists, I'm still getting a cup of coffee.

A liger is genetically part tiger. You would need more description to say it is not a full tiger, whatever that is. I think I already posted about the problems with Laws. The I, Robot example? You are insisting in absolutes that I will not agree to because I know alternatives exist. God is an abstraction of many ideals over many generations. That exists. To insist God does not exist is to voluntarily put blinders on.

Like a Liger is not a Tiger?

Let's go with sense in the non-contradiction. The god that is being insisted i s nonsensical and is a red-herring.

Not being a robot? One option is partly true and the other option is partly true? By definition there's more options.

Interesting. I used to see it that way as a Wayfer and as Atheist. I disagree with the lack of middle ground. Do you agree at least God served a role in building our present society?

False. Think of those definitions as absolutes on a non-linear spectrum, if you are able at this time.

I am neither theist nor am I atheist nor am I agnostic. I made my claims based on scientific research. God is real like numbers are real and serve a function in reality.

Pffft You get to characterize my view with "evolving God", than you set the precedent. "be honest" "be honest" "be honest" after repeated "evolving God" mis-characterizations

(by oral I assume you mean immoral) Good another player lol (Raf put me on ignore) What is your definition for gods? Raf takes a fundy viewpoint.

So can you so can I. The worst thing is we won't notice if it does happen.

To live in a society we each have to give up some values in exchange of the benefits of being in a society. Not so much right and wrong, as sacrifice and exchange. We have to sacrifice parts of ourselves for the sake of others. What that might be may change with context. Much like most of us are unaware of they physical challenges we do not face in the modern world, I think there's a lot of moral dilemmas we are not faced with that past societies had to make decisions on. They did not have the resources to ignore what we can afford to ignore. Are we more moral because our decisions are easier?

I'd rather say I'm thankful I don't have to make choices some people in history and today have had to make. The premise alters definitions from the get go by comparing your own immediate reactions to a god. Removing gods from the equation does not equal more peace and morality. Someone else posted a great article with some famous researchers on the topic.

Responsibility. I wanna learn to be responsible. I wanna look like I work hard and take the bull by the horns. That might come with risk and decisions and disappointment. That sounds uncomfortable. What to do???? Got it! I'll join a cult!!

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/15928/do-sea-otters-rape-baby-seals-to-death (I assumed this was common knowledge) Was reading this morning about Dawkins and others getting booted off of patreon, for absurd reasons really. Tangent. Someone else made a similar point, in the context of religion, that I was making using a cheetah eating a baby antelope. What's the morality? How does morality develop? How do gods play a role? The opening post question is leading, like we're aiming higher. I don't see a grounding in reality. That's a leap of faith, under "questioning faith" forum.

Might have been called "gear shifting" . . . there was a term, I believe that, think that was likely it. Leadership seemed to think it was a sign of great control. A superior understanding of of multiple complex situations. But really they're always over-simplifying by reducing meaning of words, emotions, situations almost to single meanings. That way they can squash a spider by burning the house down and calling that a victory.

Ha Ha T-Bone! Think I was trying to remember that earlier Gear shifting . . . I think leadership used that term when they yelled at someone one second and spoke with a soft loving voice the next . . . Good clean toilet humor there.