Tyler H

Wow - have you guys seen the videos from last night in Milwaukee?

The OP requested our favorite arguments for why the God of the Bible would be immoral if he existed, here's mine: God says it is immoral to murder, yet he repeatedly does so in a fashion that would moisten the panties of history's most evil dictators. By His own standards He is immoral. Abiding by moral rules set by someone who excludes themselves from those rules make you a slave. Aside from that - either the Bible is the word of God, and you should accept all of it as such and stop cherry picking what you like so you don't have to stone your daughter when she gets raped, or it is poisoned by the hands of men who want to enslave you and therefore you cannot rely on any of it as truth. If the latter is the case and God has not corrected this error and revealed to the world in what ways he wants us to live to avoid hell - then he's kind of an asshole.

Congratulations on becoming a peaceful parent and all your other changes!

same here... disclaimer to all...

I don't know if you guys have seen the show 60 Days In, but it's a show where these people volunteer to go to prison. One was a cop and after being in jail quit her job because she just couldn't put people in a place like that.

I think compromise can be used to describe the outcomes of many different types of negotiations, but it does have a sacrificial connotation to me; it does mention concessions in the definition. So I can see how it's not the outcome both parties would ideally prefer but it is a positive since they engage in the interaction (unless there is an infliction of a negative to get someone to comply).

Lol

Thank you very much Troubador. When I read that my first thought was: yup no surprise coming from people who condone hitting tiny helpless innocent human beings. That could be my bias talking though...

What is the argument that value is objective? I apologize if it was posted earlier and I missed it or failed to comprehend it. I thought value was subjective because it only exists in the mind and does not describe something in reality but describes other subjective opinions of value in other minds.

Yeah since the mid 90s, probably earlier but that's when I would have started picking up on it. I definitely feel that was a constant message growing up.

That speech blew me away when I first read it. She really had a talent.

If you edit your OP then there should be an option there. I put one in after the fact on the voting thread that way.

Hmm, I read that as more of a metaphor - akin to d'Anconia's speech on money in Atlas Shrugged. I'll look it up and see if the context helps me understand a bit more.

Subscribed! I applaud your courage, keep it up!!

In my case I think it was a mix of intelligence and suffering under unjust authority for the majority of my childhood.

Well then I think it's fair to say you are agnostic about the source of the experience, however the God defined by most religions cannot exist due to the inherent contradictions in their definition. I can be agnostic about unicorns or an alien super-dude, but not about square circles or an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent being.

Feelings as in the physiological response to perceptions? I believe those are real. If by "see" you mean perceive, then yes - we can see the results of those physiological responses in ourselves and others. How do you know what you experienced was a god?

But even still, a fungible currency will fluctuate value in relation to all other goods and services and the supply and demand of those goods and services, won't it?

I agree, outside of reality is synonymous with non-existence. I would even argue the phrase outside of reality is a contradiction in itself since there can be no outside of reality.

Welcome!

But it is happening.... The alternative security forces can/will/are fill(ing) a demand left wanting by the state.

Yeah I think most agnostics conflate God with a super-dude alien. Get them to define God first, then proceed with the arguments. Is that helpful?

I think I understand this, but why is = included in the first formula? If the perceived value exchange was 0 why would the transaction happen? ....Ah, is it then the perfect transaction because both parties value each other's item to exactly the same degree more than their own?

. I see, good point about the unseen effect of a police presence preventing crime. So you mean police as in people we pay to protect us not as in the current form then?

But doesn't the subjectivity lie in the fact that this price will be different dependent on the potato?