<Travis Bickle: <<Big Pawn: ..He hates anyone who isn't for the Mass Muzzie Migration that is being orchestrated around the world by who knows who.>> Lucifer...>

<CHEESEBURGER>

I'm in the cafe BIG GUY !

Get ya FAT ASS over there ..

Nice one <t-bone>>

https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRe...

https://www.facebook.com/1193209580...

https://www.facebook.com/PaulGoldin...

lol

Not unless it's the Muslimah's who do it.

Then it would be good for a laugh!

:D)

I suppose that's just one of the many attractions Trump will miss out on by being disinvited to the Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain.

Maybe the Muzzie mayor of London is worried that Melania and Ivanka won't wear hijabs when they visit his Islamic city?

Speaking of which, I'm still not too sure about Donald, but I think Melania and Ivanka are terrific!

<Melania Trump wears veil, but not a headscarf>

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/24/p...

The way that Melania and Ivanka thumbed their noses at the Saudis by not wearing head-coverings but showed appropriate respect when visiting the Vatican really upset the Islamophiles and radical Lefties, which was great to see.

Also the Pope blessed a rosary for Melania and I wasn't even aware she's Catholic.

Anyway, I think Melania and Ivanka are a good influence on Donald and he should just ignore his idiot sons.

I like her style.>

Sounds like that melody was borrowed
from: "On Top of Old Smokey>

Good call. I just listened to old smokey and you're right. I found a live version of Hank Williams Sr singing Old Smokey and before he starts, he said it was the first tune he ever remembers sing. He said his grandmother taught him the song and that in the "old days" they sang Old Smokey different than "they do now", which must have been in 40s or early 50s.

Anyone here , other than <big pawn> ,who thinks omv morality argument has not been thoroughly refuted by me and <johnlspouge> ?

No one ?

Thought so :)

Hahaha

<Hozza> I never noticed <The Crispy Prawn> deleting any posts from anyone in his forum?

<Regarding morality, some atheists have argued that natural selection has hard wired us to act in certain ways that are conducive to human flourishing. Okay, but even if we grant that claim, it would only explain what is, not what ought to be....Often, atheists misunderstand the challenge, so they respond by saying that they clearly can recognize what is moral without belief in God. This is irrelevant. Yes, atheists can correctly identify many things that are right and wrong. But our argument is not that you need belief in God to acknowledge morality, or even to act morally. It is that God must exist in order for morality to exist. This is a question of ontology (being), not epistemology (knowing)...Other atheists claim that objective morality is a brute fact, or something that exists necessarily but does not need to be grounded in God—a Platonic ideal. But this seems incoherent, since such things as love and mercy are properties of persons, not things that can exist independently as abstract objects.>

I think there are two types of responses and respondents.

1. Those that genuinely do not understand the nuances of the moral argument and what it implies, esp in regards to mixing up the ontological question and the epistemological ones.

2. Those that eventually realize the difference, but they've invested so much pride in their arguments that they refuse to say, "OHHHHHHHHHHH! I get it now!" and simply pretend to never get it. It's better to do that than to have to wipe egg off your face.

What are we to make of this?

First of all, we don't care about satisfaction. That is, we don't care that they don't say, "Gee Big Pawn, I guess you were right". We know that that's not going to happen from the git go.

All we really want is for the non-invested reader, the impartial observer, the man with questions who doesn't have his pride at stake but follows along, we want that guy to see that atheism is not tenable under scrutiny.

We also want to the person on the other end of our debates to be forced to dry heave information. Keep bashing them over the head with questions they can't answer so that it gets through their thick heads. Be merciless. True, they won't admit to learning anything, but maybe 1 out of 100 will think about their debates later on, in passing even, and slowly open themselves up to the fact that atheism may not be so true after all.

The terrorist sympathizer, Richard Taylor.
Mr. 9/11, party hats and horns.

Likes the “female” chess commentators.
Likes the way when they lose, they take their losses.

  <Richard Taylor:

She loses a game online and then praises here opponent and happily criticises herself! Things we men can learn from women. O.k. women are less aggressive than men but they probably in these things have a little less stress although I cant prove that.>

He understands how "crude" men are.
He knows what he can "learn" from women!

Meanwhile, he thinks Loek van Wely
has just a bit too much testosterone!

<Richard Taylor:

I see Loek van Wely's attitude is testeronically fueled as he comes to conclusions that he is winning when (I could see he wasn't and subsequently actually lost on time)...he made one of those John Watson routine evaluations (or the kind Watson warns against shall we say, and which we all fall into...): but in contrast to the women he was not very gracious to his opponents. Men I think see everything as a fight, a competition. It has its advantages (some women do also), but do we have to be conditioned by our chemical make up? I suppose it might be the case or there wouldn't "la difference"....and so on...>

Just look at his pathetic commentary!