Search results

  1. N

    OXFORD STUDY SHOCKER: 1 in 100 Vaccinated Individuals Were Admitted to Hospital or Died with Arrhythmia During Study Period

    This is the same study I linked you to showing that all of these outcomes were worse for those who had Covid than for those who were vaccinated. It's also the same study that YOU completely dismissed here...
  2. N

    New Zealand links 26-year-old’s death to Pfizer’s COVID-19 jab

    One death from 9 million jabs, and that's supposed to mean the vaccine is incredibly dangerous. Yet 50 deaths from 14K cases is nothing to worry about - just a common cold. I guess some people just aren't good with numbers.
  3. N

    What exists in Reality?

    Nope, you're just strawmanning again. You seem incapable of understanding what anyone else thinks, even when they've explained it to you repeatedly. Completely false and unsupported. Nothing about a thing's existence entails that it be known to exist. That's not what I'm claiming, so your...
  4. N

    Lee Strobel's "Case for Christmas"

    Strobel's an ex-journalist and former atheist. He wrote an apologetics book that impressed many Christians but few others.
  5. N

    The Christian mindset.

    And yet everyone still knew that atoms were formed during the Big Bang and therefore could not have been responsible for causing it. This is hardly a recent development, Steve. Not so much as a hint of a suggestion in there that anyone thought colliding atoms could have caused the Big Bang. The...
  6. N

    The Christian mindset.

    They tend to think in terms of evidence and reason, which excludes the faith-based claims of religion. Why are you assuming the beginning of the universe was caused?
  7. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    My response has been that your 'reason' here assumes your conclusion, rendering your argument circular. Again, a reason has to have generality extending beyond the present case. I explained this in detail in post #756. We've already shown you that dysfunctional =/= immoral. I showed you this...
  8. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    I know what you're saying. Now all you need to do is to support it. Disagreeing with you isn't intolerance. And you still haven't answered my questions. Do you understand and accept that "X is wrong because X is wrong" doesn't count as giving a reason?
  9. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    No, this is a strawman. I am agreeing that there are two sexes... etc, but then saying that this says nothing about what is or is not moral. Your attempt at supporting this claim about morality degenerated into a circular argument, as you had to keep refining your reason until you ended up...
  10. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    Your logic is invalid.
  11. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    Again, I'm not denying the reality of what exists. I am denying only the unwarranted conclusion you fallaciously derive from it.
  12. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    Anything at all allows for such a judgement. But what justifies it? I asked you how many of 1-4 you were trying to express with your ambiguous phrasing. Perhaps you could answer now rather than after I've had to ask a further twenty times? Save us both some time and effort?
  13. N

    Should we work to get rid of Christianity?

    Actually, you did. Do you disagree with my actual point, as I just described it? It shouldn't be controversial.
  14. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    I asked you for a general principle (with generality extending beyond the specific case in question) by which same-sex intercourse can be deemed morally wrong. Because without that your argument is question-begging. And you haven't given one. If your argument boils down to "GoD sEz GaYz BaD!!!"...
  15. N

    Should we work to get rid of Christianity?

    I don't get your point. We weren't discussing the etiological functions of consciousness. My point was the entirely uncontroversial one that etiological functions exists, and that they don't need to be consciously given.
  16. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    Here are several distinct claims: 1. Descriptive: There are two sexes. 2. Teleological: There are two sexes for a biological purpose. 3. Moral: Hetero-sex intercourse is moral. 4. Moral: Same-sex intercourse is immoral. How many of these distinct claims are you cramming into your statement...
  17. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    You've not even tried to support this, and I've told you many times before that I am opposed to woke ideology. Yes, that's what you were doing. And now you're repeating yourself again. That people make moral judgments doesn't mean yours are correct. Again, what is your general principle by...
  18. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    And yet there is. You are conflating descriptive, teleological, and moral points, as I explained. I suggest you are projecting. And now you're making things up about my supposed motivations. This typically happens when one can no longer address the argument. You see what you want to argue...
  19. N

    Should we work to get rid of Christianity?

    How so? What do you mean?
  20. N

    Christian Evasion: SOP

    To summarize, BMS is strawmanning and projecting again. He/she has not provided any dictionary definition saying that biological purpose determines morality, and has still given no reason whatsoever for declaring same-sex intercourse to be wrong. This poster has revised his/her supposed 'reason'...
Top