If you define morality to be dependent on God, you are deliberately precluding any conception of a godless moral world.
I don’t understand why murder needs to be bad, in a meaning different from ‘bad for self/society’. I also don’t understand how God or any entity saying anything will make murder ‘bad’ in a nonutilitarian meaning.
The only way I can connect ‘theism’ to morality, is that God is supposed to provide perks in the afterlife (or in the present world). I don’t see how the existence or nonexistence of any entity can create a non-perk justification for niceness.
I agree. Since I have been using mask, I have rarely caught cold.
I tilt towards rapid timeline—but I promise, my brain is not turning into mush. I have no terminal disease
While I would tilt towards the ‘natural’ option, this question is worthy of some research.
I don’t hold Bitcoin, friends.
Agreed. I am pretty sure practise can increase IQ scores, but people don’t do it.
Investing some money in Bitcoin would not be a bad idea. Bitcoin is both high-risk and high-potential.
Indian death counts are substantially dubious with regional and local authorities frequently giving contradictory figures. However, the general feeling is that the government figures heavily underrepresent the actual mortality. This is due to substantial increase of traffic at crematoriums and graveyards.
Can you provide sources for the first statement? I couldn’t follow the reasoning. How would the existence of a God create an infinite life-time?
Why, oh, why is so much ink spilt on God?
That is weird.
No. Actually I meant to say that there is atleast 1% chance of foreknowledge or involvement.
It cannot be stated with >99% certainty that members of the Bush Administration did not have definite prior information of the events of 9/11 or played a role in it.
I wonder whether anyone’s confidence in our system has been slightly shaken by these events?