Oh, it was just a surmise?Robert wrote:
It was just a surmise about the source of the idea in the opening post, not an allegation that ant is paid to post here. But naturally ant has since blown it up into a fanciful exaggerated claim, completely ignored the content, and even feels free to invent purely spurious claims such as his/her entirely false statement about youkrst being paid by me, with cavalier disregard for facts.
I do find it hard to imagine that anyone could continue to troll the board with such random religious rubbish as ant spouts just out of personal interest. But it takes all kinds I suppose.
That's really odd..,
Do you have any evidence to confirm your guess, Robert??sur·mise
verb
sərˈmīz/
1.
suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it
Was that based on reason PLUS evidence?
I would have thought your ethical system would have reasoned that in order to avoid the torture of a truly innocent person (the girl in this thought experiment) you would have allowed the freedom fighter/terrorist to be tortured to any degree necessary.
Isn't there enough evidence in for that decision?
Would't that be a reasonable decision here?
Maybe you wouldn't have allowed any degree of torture to be done?
Or is your ethical position that because there are two evils here, you'd rather remain indifferent to the death of thousands of innocent people after the bomb goes off because you refrain from getting your hands dirty?
Or could it be that you want to continue to argue about what's in the Bible?
It's safer to condemn people that read the bible and are religious, huh?
By the way,
I dismiss anyone who claims I am vilifying you when a large part of your existence here on BT is to vilify religious people - especially if they're creationists.
You love to let loose on those "ignorant theists" but when someone fires back hard you play a sand song for us, and have background vocals to support you.