Please read the last paraphrase of my original post
What paraphrase?
Why not sum up your main point in a few words? If not then I have lost interest. It's a pity because I would enjoy a conversation about godless morality.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Please read the last paraphrase of my original post
What paraphrase?
Why not sum up your main point in a few words? If not then I have lost interest. It's a pity because I would enjoy a conversation about godless morality.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
All I will say is that a lot of you guys have misunderstood my original post
It's 1,384 words long. Many of the sentences are impossible to decipher due to your grammar.
I'm sure with a bit of effort you could have made your point in 100 words.
Are you saying that atheists have no basis for morality? If not what are you saying?
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
I meant those people can be insanely rational but have no compassion
What pople? Another straw-man that has absolutely nothing to do with your OP.
I am trying hard to understand what your point actually is but everytime I address it your change it.
Do you have any idea what your point is exactly?
If so please express it succinctly in as few simple words as possible.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Some disbelievers are just too rational that they lose or never even had feelings for their common man
Utter bollocks.
Who is this strawman exactly?
Compassion is entirely rational. There are so many canards about atheism in your posts it almost reads like satire.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Thank you Anonymaus1914 and DJS I do appreciate the encouragement.
Rebelfighter I don't need to check my facts because I am correct.
I did not say that ALL christians take those ethical positions. Millions do and they base their intransigent stance on what they think their god commands.
Basing morality on an imaginary "absolute" standard of morality leads to bad ethics.
Objective secular morality is superior to an ethical system based on faith.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Just imagine being in a judicial meeting with cofty. You would be hanged drawn and quartered before even given a chance to open your mouth in defence. - Automat
Are you basing that on the fact that I ask a lot of questions and patiently reason with people I disagree with?
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
The main concept is that a person can trust God and have just as much morality as anyone else.
This is true but it's the opposite of your main point in your OP.
Without god we have to reason on the consequences of our actions and try to make good decisions.
Christians take ethical positions for ideological decisions regardless of the effects on others. Consider three examples.
1 -Christians object to embryonic stem-cell research on ideological grounds even though it has the potential to relieve a lot of human suffering.
2 - Christians object to loving adult monogamous gay relationships for purely ideological reasons.
3 - Christians object to euthanasia to end the suffering of humans who have no possibility of recovery and who are in insufferable pain.
In these and other examples they appeal to an "absolute" moral duty that exists only in their imagination.
Rational people reason on the consequences of these issues and make objective decisions accordingly.
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Looter please ignore Outlaw's childish insults, your topic is more interesting.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Cofty’s challenge doesn’t answer K99 questions about the specifics of my research and how it supports the existence of a deity. - Kate
I have no idea what you mean. What research?
Even though Soai solved the puzzle of homochirality
Well done on FINALLY admitting Soai solved the puzzle. What else is there to say?
this http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar5003208 is not related to this …
It is TOTALLY related. Soai has continued to research homochirality in the years since his breakthrough in 1995. This paper is a very recent example from 2014. He started with a racemic mixture with an 'ee' of 0.00005%. Following the reaction the 'ee' was over 99.5%.
How can this not be germane to a conversation about the naturalistic cause of homochirality?
The probability of these results without guidance is lower than the probability of these results with guidance - Kate
No it isn't.
I have explained over and over why autocatalysis leads to homochirality and normal catalytic reactions don't.
Serious question - would you like me to explain it one more time?
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
Humans can't create life can't even create a red blood cell
I can't write a symphony. I don't even begin to understand how it is possible to do something so complex. That doesn't mean it is magic. It just means I am ignorant.