Nothing I said was dogmatism; it was rationality. So, stop erroneously attacking my argument when you didn't even address it in that post.

And Christ, who is all things you mentioned, is an omniscient God.

But I showed those problems weren't severe and a lesser God isn't God anymore

Firstly, the omniscient being/God isn't a common religious concept outside of the Abrahamic religions. Secondly, it's a very useful religious concept since it gives us a true arbiter of Truth, Reality, and morality. Without that omniscience, we cannot and will not have that.

As to changing the future, it would be truly terrible to give humans free will and then take that away from them by nullifying their choices, particularly when that will just lead to different miseries. So S/he does not become the source of evil, humans making evil choices do.

And it's not better to regard God as not all powerful, as he no longer is god and all his views are flawed and could be as bad as or worse than ours.

OK.

Either neither exists; or O exists and the possibility of U disproves it; or U exists and the possibility of O contradicts itself.

No, if O exists there is no actual possibility for U to exist; it would only exist for our incomplete knowledge.

I don't make a computer of myself because that would not only be silly, I would have wasted my life

What do you mean by this?

No ,that's You since you just came in to troll me. You're ignored for the thread.

How old are you?

Only if I can ask the same of you first.

There is evidence in every day life

There is no evidence of soul in everyday life; some people make the same claim of God or angels.

No one is possessed by some mysterious outside forces (so called natural laws or natural selection) that are determining their lives (an ancient superstition).

You don't know this, and the soul is as supernatural a concept as God or angels.

The quantum stuff (I hesitate to call if anything, though Bohm named it the Quantum Potential) leaves open the possibility that at the deepest level of the universe, there is mind/consciousness that transitions out morph's into stuff that feels substantial.

There's no evidence backing that, but if it were true, It could also be the location of Angels, God, or demons.

And how is that any different to what you were saying about the women on TV?
— Michael
Because I was discussing a hypothetical scenario where what I said about them held true (and therefore there would be no assault involved).

↪Agustino
The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally.

This isn't a "hypothetical" at all. Agustino is now resorting to lying about his sexist post

This is a standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use to justify rape or assault of those who haven given verbal consent. Unbelievable.
— John Harris
Yes, it is the standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use. But why is it wrong when they use it?

This guy really can't stop digging his sexist hole. Unbelievable.

John Harris some of agustino's comments can appear as sexist, especially for someone who is easily offended, yes. But how can you sit behind a screen in a place far away from his and make the judgement that he IS a sexist?

Says someone who is sitting behind a screen and hypocritically judging me. How lame.

Goodbye, Beebee

↪John Harris Whatever. I understand why agustino(whom I more often than not disagree with) wants to ignore you. Answer the questions. What is your goal, what do you want to achieve with all this?

Whatever. I completely understand why I want to ignore you. And I'm starting now.

As I said, in practice you're best off - generally - to listen to the words, especially if they're a no. But this doesn't mean that the words are where consent is coming from.

This is a standard defense rapists and sexual assailants use to justify rape or assault of those who havent given verbal consent. Unbelievable.

↪John Harris Or so you just desire to experience the feeling of being right?

Why are you asking these confrontational questions? Do you have sexist views you feel are being threatened?

↪John Harris What is it that you want? Seriously. Bitter?

When you start an engagement with that hostile tone, it's clear the only bitter one is you.

And the women in your scenario never said yes, so you're moving the goalposts again. You keep showing how wrong you were.
— John Harris
But theoretically, it is by her desire, not by her words.
— Agustino

And here again, Agustino blames the woman's desire and says it is enough to merit unsolicited groping.

If a woman wants a man to touch her, is that assault if the man touches her?

But you didn't agree in this previous statement, since you said a woman who wants groping, but doesn't give consent, is not assaulted if groped.

You're not very good at this, sexist. I suggest you go back under that bed you're probably already occupying...:)

That wasn't the scenario. So, you're moving the goalposts just further shows how wrong you were. — John HarrisRetard. Go under your bed and be quiet. I'm talking to more intelligent people than you now, who can understand the point I'm making. — Agustino

And you keep proving I'm right since you fail to even address my correct argument and fall back on sad childish personal attacks. Now you're sexist and a troll. And I'm talking to a sexist much less intelligent than me.

Is consent (or lack thereof) defined according to desire or by words?
— Michael
In practice, by words, since we cannot with great certainty predict her real desires. But theoretically, it is by her desire, not by her words. If she says yes, but physically resists it for example, then it would be wrong to grope her.

And the women in your scenario never said yes, so you're moving the goalposts again. You keep showing how wrong you were.

Let's consider another hypothetical scenario where a woman doesn't want to be groped but tells you that you can grope her because of social or peer pressure say

That wasn't the scenario. So, you're moving the goalposts just further shows how wrong you were.

Says the sexist loser...:)

Sorry to tell you, but there's no other possible conclusion.

And you just proved you should have addressed this to you...:)

Even if they were attracted to Trump, they could still object to his harassment and assault without any issue.
— TheWillowOfDarkness
If a woman wants a man to touch her, is that assault if the man touches her? I am condemning their lust in that part - namely that they secretly desire such things - NOT excusing Trump. Trump's behaviour is still immoral - EVEN IF - they actually do want to be touched by him.

No, the "retarded" one is clearly you. In this vile post of yours, you claim that it is not assault to grope a woman if she actually wanted it, which is defending sexual assault. And instead of condemning the assaulting male, you condemn the assaulted woman--pure sexism. And then you continue your vile sexism by asserting the women want to be groped when you have no reason to believe or know that at all.

That is pathetic, and sickening, and you and I are done. I have no more time for your sexist filth.

Your post explains it all. I warned you about digging your hole deeper. You should have listened.

Even if they were attracted to Trump, they could still object to his harassment and assault without any issue.
— TheWillowOfDarkness
If a woman wants a man to touch her, is that assault if the man touches her? I am condemning their lust in that part - namely that they secretly desire such things - NOT excusing Trump. Trump's behaviour is still immoral - EVEN IF - they actually do want to be touched by him.

This one may be even worse than the original post.

I already have. Go back and read.

No, that's not sexist. Context matters. It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. If that's sexist, oh dear, I don't want to show you what kind of comments Nietzsche and other great philosophers put out there.

Yes, it's sexist and arguably misogynist. You context didn't help things at all. It was sexist polemic writing, and its hyperbole to emphasize things doesn't change that. And many great philosophers have been very sexist; that doesn't help you.

But keep defending that sexist passage, Augustino. You'll just keep digging a hole you should probably start filling.

I know exactly what Augustino was doing Crank, and it was sexist--if not downright misogynist--and vile. To say all the women on TV who protested--and that's a lot--actually want to be groped is disgusting and wrong. The specious and irrelevant claim "there could be some truth to that" doesn't change that. And, honestly, since you seem to be a fairly thoughtful person, your defense of that sexist vileness is more repellent than his statement. I can't believe you defended that. And I won't read your response. I don't engage people who defend such filth.

It's on page 42 of the Post-Truth thread. Go check it out for yourself. I direct quoted it at the end of that thread.

Here, Baden. Augustino wrote this on page 42 of the Post-Truth thread. It's both sexist and repellent:

↪Agustino
The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally.

The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally.

This truly is vile.

No, your line of questioning assumes she doesn't know and needs to prove she does to you. She doesnt

[ Apparently not.

And you show you still don't get it. You must really charm those HR people. Oh, that's right; you don't.

I pity your female co-workers if you need that defined for you.

Addressing me with "you also" is a great way of getting me not to do something. Start with "please" next time.