methamaniac
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Messages
- 976
Ok ( minus sarcasm for most part)
How do you get the moral authority to judge me as a judger........forget that dont matter.
I apologise because I think you honestly dont understand and not trying to avoid giving theory
( hope im right)
I used the qoute both ways.
But not at same time ( thats the key point you are missing)
I used it in context of God
Because in giving my theory I argue you must postit God. Yes this is true.
Before and after I laid my theory down I knew someone would call foul. So I used quote without the assumption as God as fact.
This is also true.
They dont falsify each other.
I even went as far to substitute ( what I would argue) the only real two choices besides the assumption of big G. ( substitute your own supreme authority that remains objective)
You and nature.
Futheremore, I showed why these two choices fail.
And why I subscribe to immutable moral laws.
Irregardles of whether I obey these moral laws or not.
Which is why I stated makes me guilty.
Gives the moral law giver authority because I agree with objective moral laws.
Then I explainded good and evil in depth and how
they work.
Ok, I hope I have cleared this up.
Im not asking you to agree with my concept of God.
Just asking you to be resonable as to my logic.
And if you dont think it is right, falsify it.
Now, I have patiently answered questions because I think you are now being sincere.
Can you please give your theory.
YOU dont need to give one. If you are just going to give a version of humanism that has already been stated, I see why u wouldnt want to.
Not saying that as a smart ass, just that nature fails as an objective moral law giver-----God
The whole dam point I was trying to make in making this thread.
You dont have to agree
How do you get the moral authority to judge me as a judger........forget that dont matter.
I apologise because I think you honestly dont understand and not trying to avoid giving theory
( hope im right)
I used the qoute both ways.
But not at same time ( thats the key point you are missing)
I used it in context of God
Because in giving my theory I argue you must postit God. Yes this is true.
Before and after I laid my theory down I knew someone would call foul. So I used quote without the assumption as God as fact.
This is also true.
They dont falsify each other.
I even went as far to substitute ( what I would argue) the only real two choices besides the assumption of big G. ( substitute your own supreme authority that remains objective)
You and nature.
Futheremore, I showed why these two choices fail.
And why I subscribe to immutable moral laws.
Irregardles of whether I obey these moral laws or not.
Which is why I stated makes me guilty.
Gives the moral law giver authority because I agree with objective moral laws.
Then I explainded good and evil in depth and how
they work.
Ok, I hope I have cleared this up.
Im not asking you to agree with my concept of God.
Just asking you to be resonable as to my logic.
And if you dont think it is right, falsify it.
Now, I have patiently answered questions because I think you are now being sincere.
Can you please give your theory.
YOU dont need to give one. If you are just going to give a version of humanism that has already been stated, I see why u wouldnt want to.
Not saying that as a smart ass, just that nature fails as an objective moral law giver-----God
The whole dam point I was trying to make in making this thread.
You dont have to agree
Last edited: