Tradesecret

 "Is there a spiritual element to the forces of nature - or is it just basic science? And if the latter, why does it create such emotional responses?" 

The only emotional response you should have, is the sadness of your complete biblical ignorance upon who is the cause of said forces of nature! Unfortunately, your Bible ignorance has once again NO BOUNDS as shown below in just a few of many examples, where it is our serial killer Jesus that controls all of nature, and not science as you portend, you biblical Satanic fool!

How is your minimal government going to know if someone has an abortion?

Does Everyyyyyyyyyy animal come from the two of each Noah rounded up ?

Big talk coming from someone who couldn't defend their bible. 

I have always maintained that the Bible and God do not need defending,  LOLL!

Are you like 50 because only boomers capitalise their lol's. Also, where did the extra L come from, is it the one you took when you couldn't rebut my argument? 

What evidence?  Pascal Wagers argument for God? Kalam cosmological argument? The fine tuning argument? The ontological argument? Those are all extremely poor arguments in favour for Gods exitance, all of which have been debunked in a neat little YouTube series.

Only a dimwit would suggest that any of these airy fairy tales are needed to provide evidence. Christians don't live in ivory towers like atheists. 

Well actually, it's religious people who use things such as the Kalam cosmological argument, not atheists. So yes your right, only dimwit's use these terrible arguments which poor atheists have to endure.  

We have the unmistakable proof and evidence of a life changed.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this but please provide this evidence to me. Tell me, in short, why is God real?

The God of the Gaps argument is a red herring argument.

You never see any specific facts in the bible, have you realised? Where're the testable numbers? Where're the chemical compounds? Where're are the dates? It's all just "God did this and God did that". How do we know that the bible doesn't prove exists? Consider the following 8 verses. 

1 In the beginning Allah created the heavens and the earth. 

2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of Allah was hovering over the surface of the waters.

3 Then Allah said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 

4 And Allah saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.

5 Allah called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

6 Then Allah said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” 

7 And that is what happened. Allah made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 

8 Allah called the space “sky.”

The bible is literally a bunch of stories of which anyone's name can be slotted in. The bible does not exclusively prove that your God is real. 

- that everything else is metaphor - but the one who sits above the circle - is not a metaphor?

How do you know when the bible is speaking metaphorically and when it is speaking literally? It seems this is your own interpretation. Why did the bible say above the circle of the earth and not above the curvature, or above the sphere? Why circle? What idiot calls the globe a circle. Coincidently, people use to believe the world was flat. HMMM VERY SUS. 

Also, can you tell the difference between the two sentences. 

He floated across the ocean like a swan. 

The swan floated across the ocean. 

you - are the duck.  Quack Quack. 

Are you okay? I recommend you do a prayer for  your sanity. 

Big talk coming from someone who couldn't defend their bible. 

Christians continually put up all sorts of evidence.  Evidence which is credible and plausible. 

What evidence?  Pascal Wagers argument for God? Kalam cosmological argument? The fine tuning argument? The ontological argument? Those are all extremely poor arguments in favour for Gods exitance, all of which have been debunked in a neat little YouTube series.

What a ridiculous argument.

It's not an argument. 

Nevertheless, Christianity seems very like the cargo ship religion. Consider the following. 

The cargo religion explains who the cargos fill up with goodies. 

Christianity explains humanity, things such as right and wrong and the beginning of the universe. 

The cargo religion only makes a thing logical, but doesn't provide facts. E.g the religion makes it so that people can understand how cargos fill up. It doesn't consist actual evidence, say, a photograph of this God.

Christianity only makes a thing logical, but doesn't provide facts. E.g the religion makes it so that people understand the shape of the globe. You'll never find an atomic structure or mathematical formula in the bible. 

The writer is not suggesting the world is a circle or a globe or even flat.  It is a metaphor - just like the rest of the sentence - inhabitants like grasshoppers.  And the heavens being stretched out like curtains

Notice how the rest of the sentence states inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in. Clearly, you are the one with poor grammatical skills if you are being bamboozled by this simple poetic line. 

Of course, when describing the shape of the earth, there is no "it's curvature bent like a circle", it is simply above the circle of the earth. An assertion. A fact. 

Atheists, why is it you feel that Theism as a proposition to be something you perceive as absurd or ridiculous?

Because theists not only believe with lack of evidence, they believe it irrespective to evidence. 

or the results of mental issues (that's my fav lol)...

I would disagree. Throughout history, it isn't rare to see people who pin unexplainable things on a God. Take the cargo cult as an example. 

It is common knowledge that settlers often sailed and conquered land, despite their being islanders living on "empty" land. When the islanders arrived, they usually brought technology and food, things that the islanders had never seen. When clothing and items needed repairing, they were shipped away and new items kept arriving as "cargo" in ships and planes. The islanders had never seen the settlers repair anything themselves, only they pack away their broken items into a cargo and magically, days later, they came back polished and repaired. 

Evidently, then, the cargo must be of supernatural origin. As if in corroboration of this, the settlers did do certain things that could only have been ritual ceremonies 

They build tall masts with wires attached to them; they sit listening to small boxes that glow with light and emit curious noises and strangled voices; they persuade the local people to dress up in identical clothes and march them up and down - and it would hardly be possible to devise a more useless occupation than that. And then the native realizes that he has stumbled on the answer to the mystery. It is these incomprehensible action that are rituals employed by the settlers to persuade the Gods to send the cargo. The the native wants cargo, then he too must do these things.  

Curiously, the exact same thing happened independently on islands that were widely separated both geographically and culturally, as is noted by David Attenborough. Other islands started this "cargo cult" to explain these mysterious boxes which also seemed to contain goodies. 

So no, I would not call religious people "mentally ill", though I will say that they are terribly misled. 

I'd like to know what is so superior about interpreting the universe as a product of matter rather than a product of intelligent work,

To put simply, the prior has been tested by scientists around the globe, while contradicts almost all scientific facts that  we know. Consider the following

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
Isaiah 40:22 

Would you really call the earth a circle? Would you call a basketball a circle? The only people who would seriously call a ball a circle are little children who do not know the term sphere. Funnily enough, people used to believe the earth is flat. 

In short, I treat Christians like how I would treat the "cargo cult". At the end of the day, you only live one life so if you want to waste your days praying for a cargo ship of goodies to come or for a man to rid you of your sins, you have all the freedom in the world to do as you wish. Personally though, I wouldn't want to. 

because I don't think it is my responsibility personally to provide this healthcare for individuals.

Do you realize that your tax dollars are used to pay for emergency room care for homeless people?

Didn't Adam and Eve's children inbreed?

Allocating it for something else - is simply mirrors and shadows. 

Ok, so why did you suggest you didn't think "your tax dollars" should help pay for feminine healthcare?

Do you believe that people who support medical privacy (for every human being on the planet earth) ARE "indirectly killing people"?

I honestly still do not know what you are talking about? Please explain.  

Medical Privacy.

Privacy of medical records.

Doctor to patient confidentiality.

Do you support Medical Privacy (philosophically) in principle?

But if you are asking whether I take the view that paying taxes is tantamount to paying for people to be killed

The argument is basically, (iff) you give money to a charity (or a government), (and) that charity gives money to poor people in a poor country (and) those poor people in a poor country give aid to people with guns who don't like foreigners with guns telling them what to do ("terrorists"), (then) you're a de facto terrorist.

So no more taxes then - at all. 

Perhaps the amount of your tax could stay the same no matter what, but you could check off a list of things you DON'T want "your money" to be used for.

For example, if you don't want to pay for prisons, then perhaps more of "your money" would be allocated for education or something else.

I don't think that public monies ought to be ever used for things I disagree with, like WAR.

And why would a health fund be killing people directly or indirectly? 

A health fund indirectly kills anyone they "could have" helped but didn't help.

Do you believe that people who support medical privacy (for every human being on the planet earth) ARE "indirectly killing people"?

--> @oromagi

This is important.  Republicans are committing acts of terrorism upon my nation  in real time and threatening more and you are buying those terrorists' lies. 

I think you should lay out your evidence and why you find it so convincing.  Here, or a new forum topic or a debate.

I will tell you what I think is important.  Free speech. 

Free Speech does not imply that every allegation must be given weight or every lie given due consideration.  The First Amendment prevents the US Federal Govt from infringing on individual's speech.  The First Amendment does not empower the President of the United States to muster a militia and order it to stop Congress from electing a successor.  Quite the opposite, the First Amendment expressly forbids the chief executive from any infringement on any expression.  When it comes to the results of this election or any other the POTUS is constitutionally required to shut the fuck up- certainly not launch lynch mobs to reverse the vote.

And when a multi-national private corporation can shut down and silence the President of America, then I wonder what about the rest of us who do not have power, money or influence? 

Republicans are suddenly finding religion on anti-trust regulation- about 30 years too late.

This is one of the biggest coups in history

Yes, Trump attempted a coup.

 and most of the Left and the Democrats cannot see the precedent.

Alexander Lukashenko?

Or are so busy congratulating themselves and patting themselves on the back

Democrats practice social distancing.  Republicans are doing all the patting.

that they have lost sight of reality. 

The QAnon party wants us to believe it knows what's real. 

If all of the towns and cities had the same laws (based on the holy scriptures) why was it such a difficult task to compile them into a uniform code?

Did each town and city perhaps have their own unique interpretation of what was generally considered appropriate?

Please explain how you decide who should live and who should die.

Sure, you don't kill people with your own hands.

Please explain how you decide who SHOULD live and who SHOULD die.

For example,

You could probably save the lives of many starving children if you devoted your energy and resources to feeding some starving children.

Are you indirectly killing those children by not devoting your energy and resources to feeding some starving children?

Please explain what you think "the law" is and where do you think it comes from?

Common Law is the basis of Civil Law.

Common Law is a compilation of social norms and traditions from various towns and cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England

Isn't "the law" simply "codified mob rule"?

My answer is no. 

Please explain what you think "the law" is and where do you think it comes from?

Yet, I take the view that there ought to be rules of war and that our entry as a nation to a war ought to be justified.  

Is this a view that is supported by and or based on the teachings of the holy scriptures?

So, I'm guessing you're a staunch anti-war advocate as well?

So just for the record - are you really suggesting that war and aborting babies are comparable? 

You seemed to suggest that "killing people" is some sort of "universal evil".

Please explain how you decide who should live and who should die.

In the last 10 years 30 million children in the World have died from starvation. Is God happy that they weren't aborted?

You prove my point.  the case was not a joke.  After all, if it was just a joke, the Supreme Court would not have even entertained it being listed.  The fact that it was listed demonstrates the court itself did not consider it a joke.  

The Supreme Court could not simply ignore a case brought into being at the President of the United States' command and publicized by that President to the maximum degree.  To infer any validity to Texas' claim would be delusion.  The only delay was receipt of the States response: Republican and Democratic Governors alike urged that the justices to "send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated".  Pennsylvania called the claim, "seditious abuse of the judicial process"  The 6-3 majority Republican Supreme Court found Texas's complaint "not judicially cognizable," found it did not meet the basic criteria of viability.  Nothing burger.    What the Supreme Court did not say to Texas is Idiot!  Texas benefits from some of the most corrupt election laws in the country.  Do you really want to open a legal precedent where states can sue other states over elections?  Texas would probably go blue overnight if Texas had to play fair.

Let's note that Clarence Thomas' wife tweeted support for the Save America rally on the morning of but later

Yet it like the other cases never got to giving evidence.  No evidence was ever tested in court. This does not mean there no evidence - because we know there was evidence - every affidavit is evidence.

You can't have a court case without sufficient evidence or probable cause.  The Trump campaign had to show evidence in many of the complaints they filed and in most cases failed to produce anything.  Waving around blank paper is not evidence that was never tested in court.  Anonymous affidavits are not evidence that was never tested in court.  All the evidence that was tested in court failed to move a single judge to hear more, even judges who owed their jobs to Trump.

This is important.  Republicans are committing acts of terrorism upon my nation  in real time and threatening more and you are buying those terrorists' lies. 

I think you should lay out your evidence and why you find it so convincing.  Here, or a new forum topic or a debate.

The Trump campaign clearly had sworn affidavits.  This by definition is evidence.

I said, "Trumpists have nothing- no evidence except what they have doctored, no testimony beyond the lies they tell one another."  All of the sworn affidavits I've seen qualify as both.

• Anonymous affidavits do not count as sworn testimony.
  
• Hearsay does not count as sworn testimony.
  
• Affidavits evaluated as meritless by an official charged with making such a determination do not count as sworn testimony.
  
• Affidavits immaterial to voter fraud do not count as sworn testimony.
  

I'm pretty sure that eliminates everything you can bring to bear.

At their news conference Thursday, President Trump’s lawyers implored reporters to take their thus-far-baseless allegations of massive voter fraud more seriously. And in the course of doing so, they repeatedly referred to the hundreds of affidavits they had assembled as genuine evidence of fraud.

“It’s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there’s no evidence,” said Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer.

“We have evidence that we will present to the court,” Trump campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis said.

“These people are under penalty of perjury,” Giuliani assured again about the affidavits. “Their names are on an affidavit.”

But how much weight do these affidavits carry? And what is their true reliability?

The Trump campaign has repeatedly cited the hundreds of sworn affidavits it has assembled. It has even shown stacks of them to illustrate the supposed heft of its legal case. Many of them are not available because they haven’t been filed in actual lawsuits or made available publicly. (Giuliani cited the alleged targeting of their authors for keeping them obscured.)

But among the witnesses who have had their allegations aired in court, many have been dismissed by judges as inadmissible or not credible. One particularly high-profile one alleged many precincts in Michigan had more votes than actual voters, but shortly after Giuliani et al. raised the issue Thursday — alongside their pleas to take the affidavits seriously — it fell apart.

As the Trump campaign will remind you, these are sworn statements. But according to legal experts, the jeopardy faced by those behind them is relatively minimal.

“There is a remote chance that sworn statements (if they are actually sworn statements — most documents that appear to be ‘sworn’ don’t count within the meaning of the statute) could subject the declarant to some exposure under the perjury statutes,” said Lisa Kern Griffin, an expert on evidence at Duke University, in an email. “But perjury prosecutions are rare and almost never arise from statements outside of the context of proceedings in which oaths are formally administered — such as depositions, congressional testimony, grand jury proceedings, or trial testimony.”

A key issue is whether the affidavit is filed in court, as most filed by the Trump team haven’t been. Beyond that, any false statements would need to be deemed to be “material” to the proceedings — i.e. relevant to the actual claims. And from there, any legal jeopardy would require that the statements made were knowingly false.

In the case of affidavits from election observers, for example, it would be difficult to prove that what they were saying was false, especially in instances in which they alleged other people involved in the ballot-counting process said something to them. In addition, statements from those like the Texas security consultant who mistook data from Minnesota to be from Michigan could be understood as an honest mistake or resulting from a lack of expertise in the subject matter — rather than an outright lie.

The Trump campaign’s affidavits also have a checkered history, to put it kindly. When they have been used in court, they’ve often been cast aside.

One Michigan judge noted that the evidence wasn’t direct evidence, despite the Trump campaign’s contention that it was:

TRUMP LAWYER: Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge —

JUDGE: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now.

TRUMP LAWYER: Well it’s a firsthand statement of her physical –

JUDGE: It’s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is asserted, right?

The judge later dismissed the complaint as “inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.”

Other witnesses signed affidavits that said, “I believe my vote for Donald J. Trump and Michael Pence was not counted.” But when pressed by judges, they admitted they didn’t have any actual evidence to support that.

A similar thing happened in Chatham County, Ga., where the GOP called two witnesses as part of its allegation that 53 ballots received after Election Day were predated to make them appear valid. But under questioning, the witnesses acknowledged they didn’t know whether the ballots were actually received after the deadline, while witnesses for the local elections board testified under oath that they were received on time.

I never said mass fraud did happen.  I said the Left lied about there being no evidence.  These are two separate things.  Do you even know what "evidence" is? 

Yes I do. And if there were evidence, why would every single one of trumps lawsuits have been tossed out? If there were evidence, then why did the FBI and trump's Justice department confirm they had investigated and could find no evidence. Why did the elections officials in the contested states confirm they investigated every claim of fraud and could find no evidence. 

Do you know what evidence is?

To be perfectly honest, unless the Trump campaign were able to find a smoking gun - such as an email from Biden or some member of the democrats saying they okayed the fraud, then the Left would never agree there was any evidence. And if they Trump party did find such an email - then the Left would accuse the Trump campaign of planting it.

Again, i'm not sure you know what evidence is. An email saying fraud is good is not evidence fraud happened. Evidence fraud happened would be actual evidence fraud happened. You know, tampered ballots etc. But all those claims got investigated and no evidence for them could be found. 

But just for the record, did court even hear the evidence or as you fabricate throw it out - or did they hear legal arguments and decide that there was not sufficient reason to look at any of the so called evidence? 

If they threw the case out before examining it thoroughly it is because they didn't have sufficient evidence or even a real case to investigate. The trump lawyers started every case they could think of, some of them didn't even make sense and got tossed out because they obviously didn't make sense. 

If you think valid cases got thrown out, please specify precisely which cases those were. 

At least one major case was thrown out before any evidence was produced - because the Supreme Court decided the party bringing the application DID Not have standing.  This is legal argument - not throwing evidence out.

that case was a complete joke. Literally everyone knew the supreme court couldn't possibly have agreed with it. Here is a video breaking down all the ways the case was ridiculous made by a lawyer. 

But i will break it down to 2 main points as to why bringing up this case is silly:

1) everything the state of texas was alleging, either already had been tested in court and thrown out, or could easily be tested by a suit in that state. There was no reason for texas to sue at all. 

2) Texas has absolutely no standing to bring a suit against another state's election. Even if Texas' case had merit (which it didn't) the supreme court still couldn't hear it. Each state essentially runs their own elections. One state cannot sue another state over their election. They don't have standing. If someone thinks something was done wrong they need to sue in the state the issue happened in. Another state can't sue over it. 

Basically, Texas' lawsuit was a political stunt that literally no one who knows anything about the law or elections thought was going to go anywhere. That includes Texas' attorney general. 

If they had not lied about the fact that there was evidence about a mass fraud then those who knew that such evidence was real would not have felt so threatened. 

This is an anti-American lie.  American institutions great and small, Republican and Democrat, partisan and independent have unanimously determined that there was no mass fraud in the 2020 election.  Continued belief in mass fraud is exclusively willful self-delusion.  There is no rational ground for the continuation of that belief.  At least Flat Earthers can point to the horizon and say that there is an appearance of a straight line.  Trumpists have nothing- no evidence except what they have doctored, no testimony beyond the lies they tell one another.  The Senate Majority leader and the House Minority leader- indeed all senior leadership in the Republican party except Trump agree that MAGA and Trump attacked the United States Capitol and that Republicans alone bear 100% of the culpability for that terrorism.

All this hedging and redirection and  desperate attempts at justification is  not just increasingly pathetic but also increasingly intolerable.

 If they had not lied about the fact that there was evidence about a mass fraud then those who knew that such evidence was real would not have felt so threatened. 

lol, so "the left" says fraud didn't happen. Which is backed up by everyone who has actually looked into it. so clearly "the left" is to blame for psychotic people attacking democracy for daring to describe a reality they don't want to hear.

When the Left and the media denied the reality of the evidence - then it meant that unless good people did something about it - then evil would win. 

what else can "the left" possibly do? there is no evidence. Court case after court case has been thrown out because trump's lawyers couldn't find any evidence. Trump's own justice department as well as the FBI have confirmed they can't find any evidence either. Should the left go along with obvious lies to protect the feelings of delusional people?

I think Trump being impeached is a last effort ditch by Pelosi to try and destroy the man who continues to make her look like a fool. 

no. It is an attempt to prove that actions, even Trump's, have consequences. You can't incite an attack on the US government and get away scot-free. He attempted to overthrow the results of a democratic election in order to cling to power. His followers attacked the US capitol and murdered a police officer to try to help him do it. Trump needs to be punished for that. 

Utilitarianism

"the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority."

"the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct."

 "a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences"

Nothing wrong about this concept! this is a universally acceptable principle...

Evidence comes in various forms.  It is normally defined as "any statement, record, testimony, or other things, apart from legal submissions, which tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue". 

I like eyewitness testimony.  

So, I guess you believe in big-foot, the loch-ness monster, and space-aliens?

Since they're all confirmed by eyewitness testimony?

et, I do not believe in taking the law into my own hands. I am not a vigilante and do not support vigilantes. I think those that work outside of the law - demonstrate that they are a law unto themselves and whatever their intentions are supposed to be - for good or bad - they believe they are above the law.  This goes against my view that all people are equal beneath the law.  IT is an elitist position - and should be condemned. 

Isn't "the law" simply "codified mob rule"?

- the needless murder of millions of humans every year.

So, I'm guessing you're a staunch anti-war advocate as well?

- the needless murder of millions of humans every year.

So, I'm guessing you're a staunch anti-war advocate as well?

"No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can [for me] change anything about this."

I don't particularly care how some people translate it.

I thank you for your concession. 

The fact is - it refer to murder - to breaking covenant.

You know why it refers to murder? Because you are using your own morality to infer this. People wanted it to be murder because it was nicer than kill.  In biblical Hebrew,  killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words. Guess what's in the bible? Kill not murder. 

In relation to Hitler, my viewpoint has not changed by your scenario.

Hear this folks? If TS would not kill Hitler knowing his background and knowing that he was about to escape and evade justice forever. Wicked.