You frist have to figure out why there skeptical. Secondly don't get in to argument with people with a confirmation bias (I learned the hard way). Lastly make them feel like there opinion matter, otherwise they will wright you off. Most people can't actually have an actual argument, just copy others argument without knowing how to counter. If they do have an argument and are skilled prepare for a good long debate, these people tend to believe you if you answer all there questions. I know all this because I have convinced people of the opposite stance. Also be familiar with the argument you will get.

thruth us that many people what to dictate there morals as everyone morals. That way they don't have to argue with someone wether there right or wrong. Because no one wants to think they did the wrong thing or they just want everyone to agree with them. Government specificly because then they could do what is needed to do for the benefit of the state, well that is the democratic ones at least.

firstly you are correct when you say "Respect for this, respect for that, respect for the other, drains respect of its power." I had know that. I should have made it more clear that the list is of things we could respect, and to different degrees. We tend to respect our frends more than strangers.

Secondly, no we don't all respect the law or criminals would not be a thing. The government dose want to dictate our morals but thay know there is a point where they can't cross without protests and/or a revolt. A revolt is a sign of disrespect for the government. So yes the law is one factor but not the only one.

but empathy doesn't count for all the exception we make. We say lying is bad because we would not some to lie to us. As empathy would reson, yet we still do lie. My reasoning would be they repect or disrespect the person to much to A. Let them know that we violated them or B. We don't feel obligation to tell the truth. What would be your resoning?

one word, sadist. Wich us some people's moral code and is defined as someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Things like that and the other exceptions keep is why I don't have the same view.

Genesis 1: 28-30. God gave us the right to do with the animals as we see fit. And after Noah he gave us the right to consume them. So the God dose not say how to treat the animals.

Now the two are hard to define but it think in general opinion is when you look at the data and draw a concussion (Even if the data is very little). Knowledge is something derived from facts using the method defined in the postulates.

generally agreed there are 8 to 10 types of intelligence. however there hard to make a test for because they look different in each person. IQ is about your problems solving ability. High IQ means the more complicated problems your capable of solving. A low IQ may put you terrible at school (wich it intends purpose was to see wich would struggle in school). In practice all it means is that you can put 2 and 2 together to get the corect answer.

You may want to look at the God is what we need argument. In short we go through all this trouble looking for something. Everone from anti-thest and thest all agree. The thest belive that heaven has all we need to be happy for an eternity.

A philosophy book is a book used to promote and idea or ideas wich encompasses loads of books. My favorite are man's surche for meaning, and every time I find the meaning of life they change it. I read these books and are my favorite. However I don't like books from the logic rules all or of the philosophy of religion. The logic rules all are terrible with pathos and ethos part of the argument. The books on the philosophy of religion are more like hate speech against one another instead what thay should be. One thing you should consider is the aduence. Are you trying to target the uneducated (for lack of a better turm) that will belive the loudest bark or someone like me who will keep your argument in mind or are you just trying to start a debate.

sorry, sometimes I don't see the errors in my sentence untill someone says something. It should read: yes, if the hyperthime theory is true then God is irelivent.

So if I'm understanding you right the 9/11 thing is irelivent and your asking how do you actually put down what you belive. Simple you hang around others that belive the same as you what to belive. Called social engineering we form believes base on exposure to things. So to disregard a beleve you need to be exposed to the opposite. May take years though.

I would reference my question on "How quantum macanics affects the libertarian vs. Determinism argument?" But basically possibility could be argued ether way. Also yes it the hypretime theory is true God is irelivent. And no the all possible would should not be possible because we're of and in the world therefore restricted by those limitation.

According to the theory it is stated that if we make a strong enough computer and we want to run simulation then we're most likely a simulation. If this never happens were not.

no, athisim is a beleve there is no God or gods. Your talking about the different variations of atheism. The Potagorians and the alchemist were both famous atheist groups. One was math focused while the other was (for lack of a better turm) chemistry focused. It like the 3 or 20 (depending who you talk to) schism's of Christianity. Try to think of it like this, X has a set of people in a group and each is individualistic. Each with with there personal ideas, but they all share idea Y. As long as thay have idea Y they belong to the group.

Because even though atheism is old there were religious established. Atheism would have been blasphemy and given the death penalty. Aristotle is one example of this. But untill a culture were atheism was not persecuted it could never get a footing

If I'm understanding you correctly you asking is God a thing, If not a person. If I'm understanding correctly then you frist need to answer the question what constitutes a thing.

Good question. What philosophers are saying is that everything we do is going to fade because we're living in a small finite segment of the infinite large eternity. Should you abandon earthy acevments. Most do say that, and are arguments for why we should live the way we want. However my philosophy on the subject is life is meaningless so instead we should find what gives live meaning. So if you find meaning in abandoning your earthy achievements so be it.

The answer is came up with is yes he can create a rock he can't lift. Why, well to refrase the question. Is God so powerful that he can create something strong than himself. There is one example of this I have found, hell. God created everything and by definition hell is a place we're God has no power.

I have one question. Are you asking if we can stop a nuclear war ones it started or stop one from happening?

The bible dose not contradic itself. Any thing can contradic it's self of you site individual sentences or paragraph. This is why we have corts and lawyers. The lawyers figure out what the laws mean to them. The courts ether say it right or wrong. In the same ways we have the Christians and the Christian Theologen. People see the contodiction because they don't know they need to look at the entire chapters or (in extreme cases) the entire book

Frist and formost context is important. A doctor can walk in one room and say to a patient you need exercise. Then in the next room rest tell the patient you need rest. Two important question is who is taking and to whom. Sometimes you may need to refer to the original scripture because the words don't have the same definition in English. When the bible says word there are I think 5 difrent meaning. It also helps to know the history

true no man would name the leaves but one they could. Two Clark Kent is not superman for their quatativly (sorry if spell wrong) different. Pyisicaly the same (numericy the same)
; quatativly different. (Book : every time I find the meaning of life they change it)

the base (if you haven't gotten it my now) is that in modern determism is that we're made of atoms so so we're just taking in information and reactions are a result of that. All actions can be traced back. However was for this untill I learned about quantum macanics so I'm now looking to see wich is true with these discoverys in the field so it may be a wile before I have my answer and argument.

no there is one god. It think St . Patrick (Yes like the day) put it best. God is like a shamrock there are three leaves and each is part of the one

I am Christian and have looked at theology for 3 months (so not the best). If my pastor has taught me anything about intuprting scripture it is this. When siting a verse you at least need to understand the entire chapter. In some cases you may also need the chapters before and after it

here's an idea. What if procreation is nether moral or Immoral. Only how you go about it. Plus I am a big believer in the prinstable of universalization, simply procreation is only immoral if you think the results of everone doing the same thing no exception

well i thing that all we really need is a reason to live to see tomarow .
(Yes I know there may be no tomorrow)

Here is my opinion we seek meaning if we must suffer we don't want it to be meaningless.
If we do seek pleasure we can never find it because human are bad at judging what make us happy
So we fall in and endless cycle of getting or doing things that don't make us happy in the long run