And he?s a fine, young man!
You missed the whole discussion.
You've gone from promotion to approval. I'll keep working on that. The government did not place religion in the schools.
Right on the cheeks
good sounds... good time. I am glad you had fun.
Keep your religious paws off my vagina. You can spout what you want, but your religion doesn't and shouldn't infringe on my consent to have something feed off my nutrients and inhabit my body. It's my body, and I don't want you to take away my consent of it.
All I know of your beliefs is that they are different from mine (based on the way you try to insult my beliefs) and because you try to insult my beliefs I can assume you think they are inferior to your own because only an idiot would insult beliefs they share.
Atheism or political ideologies that the majority of atheists adhere to (which political ideologies are those?) have played a role in Europe's global domination? - No they did not. Religion and monarchies did. The international slave trade? No. Supported by and maintained by Christians and Muslims.
Aspects are not, is emotion physical you feel it so yes. Are thought physical yes but they are also energetic, physical implies form or an evolving form, and anything that can grow can decay.
Only as far as their collections are used for church business and charity? I agree they should not be allowed to particpate in politics.
Great. You can take my word for it, or you can wait till I dig up the source, but Reliance of the Traveller says that Islam's obligatory charity tax, zakat, can be spent on Muslims only, but not on Kafirs. And that's the main problem with Islamic ethics: it prescribes different treatment to Muslims and non-Muslims. OK, it is not prohibited to help a Kafir who is not at war with Islam, but zakat is for Muslims only.
Wow, atheists really are smarter than everyone else... Enlighten us with your genius!
If that happened I would be cool
And therefore no one has been killed in the name of atheism. Now, theism is a different story.
I knew there was a reason why I liked you! I love Dr. Pepper too! #TWINSIE
Nope, you messed up the timeline in your post. Sounded like you were a child nun. Which we both know to be false. I simply pointed it out. No trolling involved.
If someone passes many safe countries, all illegally, to reach the one with bigger welfare, what is your explanation?
Do you consider parents that punish their children when rules
"Reign" is quite appropriate in this context.
Unfortunately, I have to do another fly by...lol..but, over the week end I won't...lol
And all of these passages, of course, are isolated from their respective contexts. This would be like if I quoted from a Richard Dawkin's book and, say, isolated something from page 99, paragraph 3, sentence 5...while ignoring context.
Because blind people having driver's licenses imposes a HUGE danger to literally everyone on and off the road.
It wasn't nonsense. The Harper government was ripping the veterans off on benefits. The Liberals had fixed some of it but have not gone far enough in my opinion. But they've certainly been a hell of a lot better than the conservatives were
Nope. Non-sequitur. As usual.
Sure, that?s so. So take exodus as an example. The archaeologists followed the places and names and came up with nothing. So what then is more reasonable. That god tidied up after 2000000 Hebrews for 40 years or that the tale is a myth?
Its not a felony to shoot someone in a drive by? Because it is sounding like the teen and the other runner were indeed involved in that drive by.
No Problem MOD !
You are full of hate it seems. I hope you can get past it sometime. The question is malformed, because it all depends on how you apply Christianity - it's not some inherent thing. Look at people, who are responsible for their actions - they don't get to blame something external, like an approach to ego transcendence. They fail a lot.
That whole post made my morning. I remember when my Lu used to stand guard while I showered lol
I never said it was. I would have no problem with a week-ten days. Longer than that & yeah, it?s definitely very problematic & not knowing where each kid is & how to find them is also problematic.
The question seems to center on the issue of what "most" people think are objective moral standards. "Most" being a category that excludes sociopaths, who by definition do not have a conscience as the term normally connotes - so they don't count. For the rest of us, as others have already said, the question could be framed as: "Name one instance where the violent rape and/or outright premeditated murder of a child is not immoral". Since we've excluded sociopaths, among them "Satanist" and drug cults, etc., I think every non-sociopath would reply, "Of course there is no way in which such a violation/murder is not immoral". Would this not indicate that, among the non-sociopathic population, that there is an objective moral standard, whether or not it comes from simple human empathy or divine mandate?