Sidewalker

i want to know what is right and what is wrong

By projecting so much your basically claiming to already know.

you're the one claiming morality is "objective"

but still won't bother to define it beyond that

That being said, she's been made into this superhuman caricature that goes beyond her actual shortcomings. When she tweeted an admittedly dumb thing about lasers from the air supposedly causing a wildfire (and to be fair, the technology isn't as farfetched today as it used to be), the media spun it into "Jewish space lasers" out of whole cloth despite no mention whatsoever of Jews. Seeing as they lied about that detail, I can only imagine how many journalistic "embellishments" inform the left's assessment of her.

Gay Parrot has a warped relationship with women. Probably because he has never kissed one and he lives in his mother’s basement.

Nah, Trump don't want no scrub.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrLequ6dUdM

Melanie Trump is not divorcing Trump.

So why is Marjorie Taylor Greene getting divorced after 27 years of marriage? Trump isn’t  available.

Yeah, and that bothers you?

Yes, because it makes your argument appear inconsistent.

So Christians who act immorally aren't Christians?

That question makes no sense, you can’t be something that your not.

How about Muslims, they believe in God, if a Muslim acts morally, are they moral?

I’m no religion expert but some believe that God only acknowledges one religion as correct so there’s that.

Yet, you judge all Atheists as immoral?

That’s because I believe they’re going to hell, I love how you only want to quote The Bible whenever it suits your narrative.

Can you show me where in the Bible you get the idea that morality is a matter of belief?

Psalms 14 and 53, and Rom 3:10–12.

Do you think a Christian is moral because of his faith, no matter what his actions are?

Your actions are a part of what makes a Christian.

I see on your profile that you are a Christian, the Bible says not to judge others others over 40 times, why do you suppose that is?

Because we don’t know what it’s like to be others.

how can we do that if we don't recognize that his belief is to him, what your belief is to you?   

But it’s not, if your referring to the discussion between Double_R and I then I recognize my belief as objective fact and he recognizes his as subjective opinion, we are not the same.

I don't know, but accordoing to the Bible it's not for me to decide.

Although you have no problem deciding that those who reject God are moral

Morality is about behavior and conduct, not about metaphysical beliefs

Can those who don’t believe go to heaven?

If only God can define goodness, how do you account for the fact that most atheists tend to be ethical people of high moral character.

There’s nothing moral about the rejection of God.

Just as I could choose to define goodness differently.

But you can’t, the concept of goodness existed long before you but it started with God hence why only He can define it.

The expanding universe was discovered by Hubble.

Did Hubble discover the expanding universe?

In one of the most famous classic papers in the annals of science, Edwin Hubble's 1929 PNAS article on the observed relation between distance and recession velocity of galaxies—the Hubble Law—unveiled the expanding universe and forever changed our understanding of the cosmos

So the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.

Evidence that the Universe was expanding was observed by Edwin Hubble, the Hubble Telescope was launched 60 years later.

So the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.

The expanding universe was discovered by Hubble.

Did Hubble discover the expanding universe?

In one of the most famous classic papers in the annals of science, Edwin Hubble's 1929 PNAS article on the observed relation between distance and recession velocity of galaxies—the Hubble Law—unveiled the expanding universe and forever changed our understanding of the cosmos

So the expansion was visibly observed by the Hubble Telescope.

Your lexographer buddies told you their dictionary definitions are just suggestions, the actual definition of a word is arbitrarily up to the person using the word.  

Monitoring trends in the way people speak and write is a major part of this job. Lexicographers are often required to pay attention to the use of specific words, phrases, and jargon. 

The use of a word or phrase may change over time. When the general population recognizes and accepts this change, a lexicographer may update a dictionary entry to reflect the new use of the word.

For example, the word “awful” was originally used to describe something worthy of awe, such as an inspiring moment. Over the years, the word “awful” took on a negative meaning. [**]

The idea that space is expanding is based on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and backed by Hubble’s observation of Redshift.  The General Theory of Relativity says space has a shape, if it has a shape then it isn’t infinite.   The Standard Model of Cosmology presupposes a Big Bang universe expanding from a point in time and space, because you can’t traverse and infinite either spatially or temporally, both the Standard Model of Cosmology and the General Theory of Relativity explicitly deny the proposition that the universe is infinite. If it was infinite, it couldn’t be expanding, it’s also logically and cognitively inconceivable that an actual infinity could exist.  If an actual infinity did exist we could not confirm it through observation because there would be no way to measure it.  If I did exist, there is no way for us to know it.

For something to have shape it must have dimensions. As such, even a flat surface has shape - by virtue of it having at least one dimension.

There is no contradiction nor shared consensus on whether the universe is infinite or not.

We don't know if there is an issue with infinity. I would wager there isn't as it isn't contradictory to imagine something being infinite. It is perfectly logical to imagine a flat plain going on forever. 0 x 0 also always equals 0. Would you claim there is an issue with that and that we cannot find 0 of something in the real world?

Was it these lexographers that told you a person can only use the definition of a word if the word describes them? 

they did manage to explain

that dictionaries are not "authoritative"

and in order to understand how someone is using a word

you need to ask the speaker

well, i think its best to remember that nothing outside of the universe exists. The universe is everything so nothing exists outside of itself. The expansion of the universe can simply be viewed as the stretching of space. since space is everything, it doesn't stretch into anything but itself, this highlights two propositions (1) the universe is infinite

or (2) laps back on itself. In case 1, it could be described as Somewhat like if we bounce on a trampoline it spreads out and closes back in depending on the force put  upon the trampoline, but the amount of material on the trampoline never increases or decreases. All that increases and decreases is how stretched out whatever is already there is. In this same sense the universe is never stretching or going into anything new, but stretching what is already there, like the trampoline. It may be that space simply is literally bending into itself. 

If the universe is indeed infinite, then the simple answer is that the universe doesn't have anything to expand into. A good analogy can be made with math. Imagine you have a list of numbers, 1,2,3,etc all the way up to infinity. Then you multiply every number in this list by 2, so that you now have 2,4,6 etc all the way up to infinity. The distance between the numbers in your list has "stretched" (it is now 2 instead of 1), but can you really say that the total extent of all your numbers has expanded? probably not, because in the end it all leads to infinity again anyways.  So there is still stretching but you still end up with the same total.

You really don't get the whole definition of words thing?

i know a few lexicographers

and they tell me that 

when compiling a dictionary

they survey editors of prominent magazines and newspapers

in order to convey

"current usage"

do you consider yourself an atheist ?

No.

if you're not an atheist, how do you know what atheists believe ?

It could be said to be expanding into itself. 

do you consider yourself an atheist ?

the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods

OK, and that has something to do with epistemology.

being unconvinced does not demand any epistemological explanation

in the same exact way, you do not feel compelled to explain why you don't happen to believe in grondrakmorph the immortal

Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions

The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes",  "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".  

anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"

the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods

being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology

epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you know

with emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know

Which God are you Deist about, be specific.

NOUMENON

Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions".   You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.  

You’re confusing atheism with skepticism.

Skepticism is the ground on which most atheists deal with questions of ontology and epistemology, atheism is merely the result of this exercise.

i'm not "preaching atheism"

i'm a gnostic deist

The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes",  "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".  

anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"

the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods

being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology

epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you know

with emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know

Um, does anyone else think the OP is nuts?

In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?

I suppose you could see trying to keep a pedophile from acting on his impulse as  trying to keep him free, and I have no idea why that's a problem for you, but then again, I don't really understand your alternative logic.

If he/she thought it was legal then he/she would just walk up to someone and ask. If he/she was informed that it was illegal he/she would create a secret plot. Got it?

Nope, I see him trying to justify an illegal action and perhaps he needs to be reminded that his argument in favor of it just doesn't matter, it is still illegal,  and he needs to understand that there are consequences. 

You thought you needed to explain that he/she would be sent to prison when he/she claimed to have been sent to prison? I don't believe that.

In fact, if you want him/her to be prevented from pedophilic acts and genuinely believed he/she was unaware of the danger of prison why would you warn him/her? Why are you trying to keep pedophiles free?

No shit, of course this is a non-sequitor, my point was that engaging in pedophilia is illegal and it will land him on prison again if he does it. 

Trying to justify it on a debate board does not change that fact.. 

Forgive me for thinking you were trying to make a point.

Yes, he says "legally  unable" is not an argument, it is in fact a valid argument under the law

Yet not an argument. You cannot justify a law by saying it is law. You cannot establish truth by saying it has been written in a law. If you aren't justifying a law or inferring a fact about that is not a valid defense in a court of law.you're acting as an unsolicited legal librarian.

It's unlikely you were simply compelled to start pointing out the blindingly obvious and uncontested fact that adult/child sex is illegal almost everywhere. It's far more likely you were angry and gave into the temptation to make threats by proxy.

This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.

I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.

There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.

No, I'm saying the crime of pedophilaa  is morally wrong,  the connection be that by acting on that impulse that he's trying to justify, is what puts you in prison.

What lands you in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. What gets you tortured in prison or not has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. That was appeal to force, nothing more.

Before I posted this you made it even more explicit:

"Legally unable" is not an argument.

If you want to stay out of prison, you better accept that as a valid argument.

Prison is supposed to be a deterrent, he had a very bad experience in prison, but nevertheless, he's still here justifying the crime, saying it should be OK.  But it's not OK, he needs to understand that or suffer the consequences.

When people who advertise their willingness to be rational by signing up to a debate site fling logic out the window and openly use well known fallacies in fits of anger and disgust it sends one message: You're right, we haven't a clue why it is wrong.

If you want to know why he/she might be able to look in the mirror and feel justified look no further than your own lack of control over your emotions, at your own shallow contemplation.

If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.

please explain

Oh pulease, just get a dictionary,  look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.

i know the definitions

please explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED 

Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.

It should also be the same with Taoism which is what he follows

First, I am not committing anything. I dont know where you got that from.

Do you just assume that everyone who says "children can consent" is a rapist?

"Legally unable" is not an argument.

If you claim children are not physically ready, then explain why.

If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.

If it applies to Atheists it also applies to Christians.

If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.

please explain

This is you confusing your unnatural desire with logic and morality, if you think you can justify it here and then act on it, then you weren't treated badly enough in prison.

I think you're confusing torture with logic and morality.

There is no connection between being raped in prison and being morally wrong.

I know that, there are plenty of people who don't know what the words "ONTOLOGICAL" and "EPISTEMOLOGICAL" mean, but you don't usually see people like that using them in a sentence.   

what is your specific claim ?

"I think I have already made this point ... children can be easily manipulated therefore they lack the capacity to consent. But you don’t want to hear that."

Your point was already refuted. Child is the only one who can make decisions about own body.

You cant decide about childs own body. You cannot decide instead of a child.

Even if a child doesnt know everything, you are still not allowed to decide for them against their will.

Child is the only one who can decide.

 

"Children are naive and need to be protected"

Children need to be educated.

"would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies"

This is you confusing education with force.

First, the force is only allowed if it uphelds personal control over own body.

Forbidding child to have sex does not do this. In such case, you are using force to forbid child to decide about own body.