Search results

I don't. As a Christian, you should take it literally. Maybe not the apple part, but the getting to have moral knowledge part.

And then the Antichrist will reign the Earth for a thousand years.

THIS is GOLD, Aaron. I completely forgot about all this. We are banned from paradise because we wanted to know the difference between right and wrong. Yet my right can be JR's wrong. ...

That part doesn't really say anything.

It's about power. Believers want to have the power to say what's right and what's wrong. JR wants to be able to condemn our actions.

So he: a) does not prove there's an objective morality b) thinks there is no God. HOW DOES THIS HELP YOU?

Have you read that article? The objective moral standard this guy is proposing is something very different than the one JR is talking about. I bet he typed in "atheism objective morality" on Google and randomly selected a link. EDIT: it's the fifth link

Yes, but those are genuinely stupid. The only sort of "objective" morality that could scientifically exist is the one caused by genetics. But this would be "subjective" as well, because it would change over time. Furthermore it would still come from the subject anyway.

No you pointed out that maybe, just maybe, some other guy had a decent definition of objective.

This is madness. All he has to do is look up a word in a dictionary, but he refuses to.

No, you don't. Idiot.

He doesn't know the difference between subjective and objective. He has no idea what the two words really mean. Because of this he's confused and is asking irrelevant questions. JR: Subjective = from the subject ;)

Do you still don't know what objective means? Do they have dictionaries in Lebanon?