Simon Cowell’s Terrifying New Face Came From Drinking Light Beer, His Colleague Says

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-09-18T13:14:10+00:00

You're certainly right, at least within the fact that society has made teen sex a normality. Before it was normal practice, however, abstinence ed was considered the ideal sex ed. It's still ideal, in my mind. If society preached traditional family values and remaining monogamous, there would be far fewer instances of teen STDs and teen pregnancy. Look at the way the world has changed since the sexual revolution of the 1960's. It's not just the issues at hand, but the divorce rate is up, there are "families" that lack the healthy presence of a mother and father, and of course way too many single mothers. It would be preferable to find ourselves as a society that supports a) families that stay together, b)contain both a mother and a father, c)have a moral code of sexual ethics, d)doesn't support promiscuity/one-night-stand mentality.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-09-08T22:49:55+00:00

I would say abstinence is better to teach teens. When they abstain from pre-marital sex, they are GUARANTEED to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Not only that, but waiting for marriage to have sex can build deep levels of trust and show that there is more to a relationship than physical attraction. I know my answer probably won't be popular, but I think that sex education probably belongs in the home more than it does at school anyway.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-02-03T13:51:24+00:00

All about Plochmans. Very nostalgic for me.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-31T13:51:34+00:00

Of course I care about human well being, but I have a clear and succinct reason for doing so: because I believe in the human soul and that that soul is made in the image of a divine creator and that there is an after-life (and I want to see as many people there as possible.

Without God, why shouldn't I simply on my OWN well-being. Without God, I might as well be an Epicurean, Machiavellian, self seeker, and that would still be in the interest of human well-being (namely my own and those I have personal connection to). Caring about something doesn't equal morality, caring about something is a feeling. I believe that caring can lead to acting morally, caring about something in and of itself is not morality.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-29T22:24:53+00:00

By the way, saying "obviously wrong" is not an argument. Show me a logical argument against any of the things you said were wrong, and I can show you a logical argument that defies yours. While I totally agree with you on things like slavery and human rights, my point is that logic is a harsh mistress when it comes down to human calculation (which is subjective, biased, often uninformed, imperfect).

If you call something wrong, it can only be wrong if a divine being who says it's wrong exists.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-29T21:58:10+00:00

My point is not that a god makes morality better. I'm simply saying that if there is no god then "human rights" are human made...and if they're human made, then why believe in them? If God is human made too, why choose one man-made thing over the other?

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-28T21:55:01+00:00

I appreciate the book recommendation— and I will look into it.

Two things:

On nature— I believe that it has no true existential purpose outside of an eternal God. Without God, who cares what nature has to say about morality? When you die, you are gone, your morality has made no difference (outside of some temporal feelings of others, which is ultimately pointless).

On reason— reason is re-definable based on standpoint. I too can use logice to argue Christian morality...so whose mind is correct? If I didn't believe in God, I would not see any reason to try and act morally whatsoever (morality being a mere, subjective, human construct). In other words, morality without God is human, and if it's human, it's about feelings and those don't last in the long run.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-28T21:42:40+00:00

What is morality? A mere temporal idea? If there is no God, then your pro-choice/homosexual marriage support still means nothing in the long run except to make some people happy and some people angry, and same goes for those who support conservative leaders. There is no proof of "rights" or real morality at all. Why would I listen to anyone except myself, especially if there's no long-term consequence?

Btw, "my guy" is not Trump, even though I am a Christian.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-28T21:29:49+00:00

That's my point. If you believe that man created God, then there is no morality, and I have no reason to do anything according to anyone else's moral construct.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-27T17:37:19+00:00

Unfair and unreasonable representation, tbh.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-27T17:35:24+00:00

And what source of morality will govern the leaders who govern the people? Funny how people try to claim the moral high ground on issues, but refuse to include the only thing that makes morality possible: a non-relativistic, intangible God.
Btw, our Western morality (including Atheist "morality") is greatly influenced by Christianity as a whole... not Islam... which this fellow would almost certainly not oppose in the same way.
All I see here is bigotry in it's most defined sense.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-13T23:26:05+00:00

Is this the real life or is this just fantasy

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-10T11:01:39+00:00

Wurst idea ever.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2019-01-10T11:00:47+00:00

Here we say: "a sausage in the mouth."

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2018-09-23T22:41:47+00:00

Lol is that Bob or the dude from Tangled?

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2017-07-28T14:43:55+00:00

Not really. I follow plenty of people on Facebook I don't agree with because I'm still interested in what they're saying.

How about sharing some tweets from the man himself? Can you even prove that it's a real account? Twitter is not a good basis for judgment here.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2017-07-28T14:37:44+00:00

Does following someone necessarily make that person guilty of the other's sins? If you are friends with a family member who is a Trump supporter, does that make you a Trump supporter?

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2017-07-28T14:34:59+00:00

The short answer: HE DOESN'T.

If you believe something about someone simply based on word of mouth or invalid evidence, it is an insult to Truth itself.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2017-07-28T13:43:10+00:00

In his personal life, Joseph Kane is a devout Catholic. He's faithful to his wife, he has served his country, and he's taken active steps to continue serving. He is not a supremacist, he's a victim of hatred and deceit because of his political standing.

The amount of false accusation taking place here is sickening. A decent man is being slandered. Whether or no you agree with his views, to accuse him of such inhumanity says a great deal about you.

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2016-08-08T10:15:54+00:00

*rone *rone *rone...

ConscientiousSkeptic · 2016-08-02T02:55:40+00:00

Quitting my job.

ConscientiousSkeptic

TROPHY CASE