3RU7AL

Go to work and don't keep track of the "time" you work. Then ask the person who calculates the amount of "time" you worked  and writes your paycheck if "time" exists. Weather you believe it exists or doesn't is irrelevant. Every single person on earth that ever lived since the beginning of "time" did live and continues to live and bow to its existence. If you don't believe "time" exists, then quit living like it does. Your arguments that "time" doesn't exist mean nothing if you don't live like "time" doesn't exist, You don't believe your own arguments that "time" doesn't exist.

Time is subjective. Near the event horizon of a black hole, you’d be moving slower compared to someone watching you from Earth.

Otherwise the Moon is made from cheese.

Consider the example of two people (Bethany and Daniel) in an open train carriage throwing a ball back and forth. The train is running west at a steady speed of 100 km/h.

When Bethany throws the ball up the carriage towards Daniel, the ball will appear to travel at 110 km/h (100 km/h for the moving train plus 10 km/h for the ball being thrown).

When Daniel throws the ball back, it will still be travelling west, but at a speed of 90 km/h (100 km/h minus 10 km/h).

For an observer watching the ball being thrown from outside the train, the ball is always travelling west. For Bethany and Daniel in the carriage, it appears that the ball is changing direction depending on who throws it.

The result is that the speed of the ball depends on the “relative” position of the observer. [**]

You seemed to suggest a non-GOD believer is incapable of moral action.

And I have absolutely no idea how you might (even hypothetically) validate that claim.

That’s for YOU to validate not me.

Valid-(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

Why? You don’t believe in objective morality.

what’s the third VALID option?

Like a hypothetical third option perhaps there might be someone who is NOT a believer in a GOD who still acts in a morally correct manner(?)

Perhaps not.

we all know what is right and wrong

Please present a list of your "bare-bones morals" that apply to all societies.

stuff like murder and things engraved in your consciousness

God's morality extends to his creatures to create the best world possible

there must exist at least a third option.

But there not valid.

you have a "survival instinct" and "social instinct" 

So what about suicidal antisocial people?

I don’t prefer anything in regards to suicide.

The "suicidal" people are desperate for human attention.

Don’t generalize, you can’t possibly know every single case.

you have a "survival instinct" and "social instinct" 

So what about suicidal antisocial people?

Your fallacy is "refusal to answer a yes or no question."

And please spare me the predictable postmodernist bullshit that there are no absolutes therefore there are no yes or no answers.

Did the general electorate of Minneapolis elect this guy?

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/06/23/police-union-leader-minneapolis-cops-scapegoated-for-incompetent-leadership

George Floyd most likely did not.

Conflation is the worst justification for intellectual laziness.

also take note of the 3 bolded reasons I posted in post 140 that DO NOT APPlY to private unions.

Furthermore, collectively bargained work rules could alter what public servants did day to day in ways not condoned by either elected officials or the voting public.

Stop conflating public unions with private unions.

a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy

The "we" that makes the laws are government union lobbies.

Perfect. Actually I heard something about women and the IDF, that mixing men and women together would result in romance. When people are in combat romance can influence decisions and cause practical problems. People will overvalue the lives of their romantic interest and go bananas if he/she gets shot. I heard that this problem was a factor in a decision to remove women from combat roles, or something. Haven't fact checked what I heard.

It's my understanding that "conservatives" generally supported the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Is it a disability to be born with a high Estrogen or Testosterone count?

They don't generally support legislation that forces business to hire or not fire a certain type of person or to meet strict quotas. They see the freedom for a business to hire and fire aa the boss(es) please as superior in importance to the right of minorities to be protected and businesses to readily give them job opportunities.

The terms husband and wife have nothing to do with sex.

Ted Cruz also wanted to launch a  criminal investigation into Netflix for showing the movie "Cuties" because he didn't like the content. The Prime Minister of Israel tweeted about how along with US conservatives, they have supported U.S. laws that determine action should be taken against those that try to boycott Israel. So the Israeli government and its American lemmings push to criminalize dissent of Israel - even convincing some states to require loyalty oaths to Israel in order to get government contracts. These hypocrites obviously have no problem using government to cancel people and things they disagree with. 

Why don't Republicans push to get rid of the Civil Rights Act entirely? 

Fair enough.

They don't generally support legislation that forces business to hire or not fire a certain type of person or to meet strict quotas.

LBGT are not covered under existing provisions for sexual discrimination?

There's pretty rampant discrimination against ugly people, short people, left handed (not so much in this culture) people, etc. that is all just the same to me as racial discrimination but is legal for the most part.

But you're here pointing out sExUaLiTy Is A cHoIcE bEcAuSe YoU cAn ChOoSe WhOm YoU hAvE sEx WiTh which is like... I don't even care enough to have this pointless conversation. Spare me. If you want me to pat you on the head for how smart you are in making these "accckchually" points, just pretend I have done that and hopefully that fulfills you for the day. 

You must be very proud of yourself for that astute observation using one definition of the term, and you are indeed correct. But I said change your sexuality. You described having sex i.e. sexuality in action, which does not reference anything that you have changed or can change. The definition of sexuality includes a person's identity in relation to the sex or sexes to which they are typically attracted; one's  sexual orientation. Choosing to have sex with someone you are not attracted to doesn't change whom you are attracted to. 

Roman Catholicism =/= Orthodox Catholicism

Does the Rabbi Have a Good Point?

Only one axiom is needed, and in order to claim anything else regarding the universe you would have to accept it - which is - the universe is as we observe it. 

That's it.

this means that you have developed some survival strategy that very likely involves caring about the general welfare of at least one other person

How so? The only conclusion I drew from that is you care about yourself.

Since it is possible to not believe in objective morality and also not be a psychotic nihilist there must exist at least a third option. 

That “option” means nothing if you can’t validate, and you’ve yet to validate whatever it is you believe.

To be honest I wouldn't bother, Tarik likes to talk in circles and repeat things back at you as if he knows what they mean, for example: an appeal to emotion, proof, morality, etc, if it doesn't align with his conclusion it is "not demonstrated" after he ignores your explanation.

Once you realize how depressing and confusing nihilism is maybe then you’ll change your mind.

I don't believe in morality as we are using the term in this discussion. That is what I am trying to tell you. I am not proposing anything new or that you cannot observe for yourself. 

You believe that if some higher authority (as yet undefined) does not sign off on an idea or attitude that it cannot be moral. I am agreeing to that definition but as there is no sufficient reason to believe in any higher power that I have yet presented with there is by necessity no reasonable logical need to believe in morality at all (as defined here).

The universe need not approve or disapprove of my actions for me to care about myself and other humans and as far as I'm aware I don't need a reason to care beyond being a human with a reasonable amount of empathy myself in order to care about myself and other humans. 

We don't even need to discuss what makes the moral pronouncements of a higher power we are discussing objective before the higher power is demonstrated.