How To Tell Right From Wrong

[Obvious Leo]

Kalaam Cosmological Argument

Come on IC, make my day. Why not tell everybody how this argument goes so that we can all learn the meaning of the phrase "shooting fish in a barrel"?

Those queasy about bloodsports might prefer to look away.

[attofishpi]

Yes they would, how else would they get to church?

Which is a damned irony as Christians are not supposed to pray in a church.

Who said anything about praying?

[Arising_uk]

Who said anything about praying?

Just wondering what else they do in church? As they're not allowed to pray.

[Arising_uk]

So please, show me your disproof of the existence of God, ...

The burden of proof is upon you as you make the claim, so show me one?

or of objective morality. ...

Which objective moral are you thinking about?

So just do the first one. I believe your claim here is something like, "no one has any actual knowledge or physical facts" pertaining to God? How do you come by that universal knowledge you profess?

Point me to someone who can show me a physical 'God' in the way you claim a 'flying pig' could be shown?

[attofishpi]

Who said anything about praying?

Just wondering what else they do in church?

Preach.

As they're not allowed to pray.

Still haven't got a bite? Fishing must be rather boring today.

[Arising_uk]

Preach.

Ah! Wondered what went on.

Still haven't got a bite? Fishing must be rather boring today.

Just spreading Christ's word.

[attofishpi]

Just spreading Christ's word.

Ok, hit me, im all eyes.

[Immanuel Can]

So please, show me your disproof of the existence of God, ...

The burden of proof is upon you as you make the claim, so show me one?

No, actually. The burden of proof is on me if I'm the one making the affirmation. However, in this case, it's the Atheist. Atheists affirm the non-existence of God. And I presume they do so on an evidentiary basis, since "lack of evidence" isn't itself proof of anything. So they have at least the burden to justify their own claim.

Or are they actually disbelieving without any reasons?

or of objective morality. ...

Which objective moral are you thinking about?

Are you suggesting that the presence of different descriptions of morality somehow implies that one of them can't be correct? That would be impossible to defend as an assumption: there are many answers to 2+2, but only one of them is right.

So just do the first one. I believe your claim here is something like, "no one has any actual knowledge or physical facts" pertaining to God? How do you come by that universal knowledge you profess?

Point me to someone who can show me a physical 'God' in the way you claim a 'flying pig' could be shown?

I already pointed out that "flying pigs" cannot be verified on the same test as Supreme Being. Why don't you design a reasonable test for the non-existence of God, since Atheism claims to be evidentiary. It would make just as much sense.

If evidence exists for a Supreme Being (and I think it does, of course) then it's bound not to be the kind of evidence that reduces the Supreme to a parlour trick. For if a parlour trick were an adequate way to show His existence, by what reasoning would we think him "supreme" at all?

[artisticsolution]

You are fighting very hard in this thread, IC...over whether or not there is a God. Why do you care what others believe?

[thedoc]

Yes they would, how else would they get to church?

Which is a damned irony as Christians are not supposed to pray in a church.

Where did you get the idea that Christians were not supposed to pray in church?

[thedoc]

You are fighting very hard in this thread, IC...over whether or not there is a God. Why do you care what others believe?

Perhaps because others have posted their beliefs on a forum, and false beliefs need to be countered by someone.

[artisticsolution]

You are fighting very hard in this thread, IC...over whether or not there is a God. Why do you care what others believe?

Perhaps because others have posted their beliefs on a forum, and false beliefs need to be countered by someone.

Oh dear. ...and that there is the basis for all religious wars.

Tell me, what would happen if you tried your best to love thy neighbor? I wonder.

Now do you get the reason for this thread?

[Arising_uk]

Ok, hit me, im all eyes.

Matthew 6:6 and 6:9-13.

[Obvious Leo]

You are fighting very hard in this thread, IC...over whether or not there is a God. Why do you care what others believe?

This is a question which has always puzzled me. Atheists by and large couldn't give a shit what consenting adults choose to believe but theists seem to be so insecure in their convictions that they simply can't stop themselves from continuously trying to convince everybody that they're right. I exempt the Jews from this generalisation because as far as I can see they've got it right. They are the Chosen Ones and that's all there is to it. Everybody else can get stuffed or make their own arrangements as best they can.

Atheists affirm the non-existence of God.

Endlessly repeating the same mantra does not enhance its truth value. Atheism is not an affirmation, it is the absence of an affirmation.

[Arising_uk]

No, actually. The burden of proof is on me if I'm the one making the affirmation. ...

Are you saying you don't affirm the existence of your 'God'?

However, in this case, it's the Atheist. Atheists affirm the non-existence of God. ...

Not so, this one says I don't believe your belief about your 'God' is true.

And I presume they do so on an evidentiary basis, since "lack of evidence" isn't itself proof of anything. ...

Well, the lack of evidence the theist produces for the 'God' they say they exists is enough for me to think 'its' in the 'flying pig' category.

So they have at least the burden to justify their own claim.

I make no claim other than I don't believe your 'God' exists.

Or are they actually disbelieving without any reasons?

Nope, I disbelive for the very good reason that no theist has been able to show me this 'God' existing as anything other than a belief.

Are you suggesting that the presence of different descriptions of morality somehow implies that one of them can't be correct?

No, I asked you to give me an example of an objective morality.

That would be impossible to defend as an assumption: there are many answers to 2+2, but only one of them is right.

And Maths relates to Ethics how?

I already pointed out that "flying pigs" cannot be verified on the same test as Supreme Being. ...

Why? If you are claiming existence for something then the criteria is pretty much the same, show it to me. Are you saying you believe in flying-pigs as well?

Why don't you design a reasonable test for the non-existence of God, since Atheism claims to be evidentiary. It would make just as much sense.

Why should I? I don't believe your 'God' exists and trying to prove a non-existent is a fools game.

If evidence exists for a Supreme Being (and I think it does, of course) then it's bound not to be the kind of evidence that reduces the Supreme to a parlour trick. For if a parlour trick were an adequate way to show His existence, by what reasoning would we think him "supreme" at all?

So you think evidence and reason 'parlour' tricks'? If you are saying Kant and maybe Spinoza are right then I think you cannot say anything about your 'God' at all and anything you do say is just your belief with no justification, i.e. Faith.