Pakistan mob kills Christian couple over 'blasphemy'

[01RedDX]

.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs
I'm far from religious but how is this really any different than Duaner saying that you can't prove god doesn't exist so therefore god exists? Neither argument is particularly convincing.

BrknFngrs, do you also believe in Fairies and the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It's absurd to cite a LACK OF EVIDENCE as proof that something exists.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by HuMz


Biological links can give no basis by which to tell us whether or not the behaviour can be good or bad, your left with individuals or groups of people to decide that.

Correct. And that's a cultural trait, not a moral one. Say a healthy brain exists in a place typically devoid of Judeo-Christian culture. A Buddhist or Taoist still has a brain wired to feel empathy, altruism, love and the other core instincts (morals) to help our species thrive.

The Judeo-Christian god is absent but those traits are there all the same. Buddhists and Taoists consider it wrong to kill without good reason. So do atheists in fact. They did not need Judeo-Christian values for that.

Every culture will try and define their cultural traits as a morality tied to their religion. By labeling it a moral doctrine its easier to get people to behave as expected in said culture. That's why its hard to debate the origin of morality. I don't consider most Judeo-Christian morals to be morals. They are cultural norms. Many of which are shared with cultures that have little to no Judeo-Christian influence.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by codetrap


BrknFngrs, do you also believe in Fairies and the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It's absurd to cite a LACK OF EVIDENCE as proof that something exists.

At the same time, lack of evidence is not proof of something not existing.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by FraserB
At the same time, lack of evidence is not proof of something not existing.

Prove it!

A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

[frizzlefry]

With "faith" being such a major component of Christianity I don't know why some religious folk feel compelled to engage in the "prove god exists" argument. Religious doctrine does not ask for proof but rather faith. Proof is not required to be a christian so I don't see how its necessary to prove it to others.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
With "faith" being such a major component of Christianity I don't know why some religious folk feel compelled to engage in the "prove god exists" argument. Religious doctrine does not ask for proof but rather faith. Proof is not required to be a christian so I don't see how its necessary to prove it to others.

biggest cop-out ever.

Let me borrow $1000, I will pay you back, I promise. Have some faith in me.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by spikerS


biggest cop-out ever.

Let me borrow $1000, I will pay you back, I promise. Have some faith in me.

Hey if a religious person ever borrows a grand from me, rest assured, I'm getting my fucking money back. With interest.

[01RedDX]

.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by spikerS


biggest cop-out ever.

Let me borrow $1000, I will pay you back, I promise. Have some faith in me.

Typical god faith is way worse than that on many levels.

With that said, I sort of believe in a "god". But that god is in opposition to the bible, koran, or any other such human created books.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


Correct. And that's a cultural trait, not a moral one. Say a healthy brain exists in a place typically devoid of Judeo-Christian culture. A Buddhist or Taoist still has a brain wired to feel empathy, altruism, love and the other core instincts (morals) to help our species thrive.

The Judeo-Christian god is absent but those traits are there all the same. Buddhists and Taoists consider it wrong to kill without good reason. So do atheists in fact. They did not need Judeo-Christian values for that.

Every culture will try and define their cultural traits as a morality tied to their religion. By labeling it a moral doctrine its easier to get people to behave as expected in said culture. That's why its hard to debate the origin of morality. I don't consider most Judeo-Christian morals to be morals. They are cultural norms. Many of which are shared with cultures that have little to no Judeo-Christian influence.

Cultural norms aren't the same thing as objective morality because a cultural norm is completely subjective and is exactly what duane and I are arguing against. There can be cultural norms which are also objective moral guidelines but they are two different categories which are not mutually exclusive.

People and cultures are free to follow all kinds of cultural norms, but they can do so quite contrary to something that is morally objective truth.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
With "faith" being such a major component of Christianity I don't know why some religious folk feel compelled to engage in the "prove god exists" argument. Religious doctrine does not ask for proof but rather faith. Proof is not required to be a christian so I don't see how its necessary to prove it to others.

Peter 3:15, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.



It is a false premise that christians simple believe without evidence or have blind faith. Faith is a belief in Jesus and what he did based on the evidence that god does exist and that he did reveal himself on this earth.

There is alot more evidence in favour of god then there is against it.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by HuMz

People and cultures are free to follow all kinds of cultural norms, but they can do so quite contrary to something that is morally objective truth.

I'll agree somewhat with that statement but I'll change "morally objective truth" to "The shared biological instincts innate to homo sapiens that allow them to function in complex social groups".

[01RedDX]

.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by HuMz

People and cultures are free to follow all kinds of cultural norms, but they can do so quite contrary to something that is morally objective truth.

...I do think there is a shared "moral" sense among humans but the origins are instinctual rather than the result of religion. Here is a good piece on the subject, babies and their innate instinctual sense of "morality"

Link

Study after study after study, the results are always consistently babies feeling positively towards helpful individuals in the world. And disapproving, disliking, maybe condemning individuals who are antisocial towards others.

Then James is shown a second show -- this time the bunny who he just saw steal the ball, tries to open up the box to get the toy. Will James still prefer the puppet who helps out? Or will he now prefer the one who slams the box shut? He chose the one who slammed it shut, as did 81 percent of babies tested. The study's conclusion: babies seem to view the ball thief "as deserving punishment."

What we're finding in the baby lab, is that there's more to it than that -- that there's a universal moral core that all humans share. The seeds of our understanding of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part of our biological nature.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HuMz


Peter 3:15, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.



It is a false premise that christians simple believe without evidence or have blind faith. Faith is a belief in Jesus and what he did based on the evidence that god does exist and that he did reveal himself on this earth.

There is alot more evidence in favour of god then there is against it.

Wait. What?

Are you suggesting certain human actions are evidence for a god entity?

[joker]

I have started thinking religion the same way I think of guns, in the proper hands, harmless and can benefit people in a positive way. In the wrong hands, fucking horrific.
Its really nothing more than a tool, how it gets used is where it becomes good or bad.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by frizzlefry


...I do think there is a shared "moral" sense among humans but the origins are instinctual rather than the result of religion. Here is a good piece on the subject, babies and their innate instinctual sense of "morality"

Link

It's not religion, nor instinct.

It's just more productive to be in a collaborative group.

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by codetrap


BrknFngrs, do you also believe in Fairies and the Invisible Pink Unicorn? It's absurd to cite a LACK OF EVIDENCE as proof that something exists.

I'd say it's also absurd to cite a lack of evidence as conclusive proof that something doesn't exist. If you believe that science is constantly evolving and progressing, how can you say conclusively that God doesn't exist simply based on a lack of scientific proof currently? I would have to think the only statement you could make with 100% confidence is "Based on current scientific findings, there doesn't appear to be a God"

At the end of the day, all I'm really getting at is that fanatic atheists are as annoying, if not more so, than fanatic religious folk.

[codetrap]

BrknFngrs, at what point do you draw the line? Despite 2000 years of looking for evidence, there is not one shred in support of the existence of god. Just an old story book that says he exists any more than Leprechauns or unicorns or fairies, also documented in story books.

I'd personally say that's a pretty conclusive lack of evidence.