(January 9, 2014 at 5:08 pm)Avodaiah Wrote: MR and SBIH are both making claims that require evidence. Just as we can't assume divine law is true without evidence for it, you can't say for sure that it's false without evidence against it.

No sir, it is the claim of the religionists that a god exists, has properties and emits 'divine laws', its their job to provide evidence to it.

Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence. If you substitute 'divine law' for 'harry potter' you will understand this, you will not accept it however: You are too blinded by confirmation bias.

ETA: Shit, ninja'd by MR.

(January 9, 2014 at 5:19 pm)LastPoet Wrote: No sir, it is the claim of the religionists that a god exists, has properties and emits 'divine laws', its their job to provide evidence to it.

Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence. If you substitute 'divine law' for 'harry potter' you will understand this, you will not accept it however: You are too blinded by confirmation bias.

If there is no evidence either way, the only conclusion we can come to is "we don't know", or possibly "there is probably no moral law". But MR made a claim of certainty:

(January 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: there's no divine law to break.

If he said there might be no moral law or there's probably no moral law, then he would have just been dismissing SBIH. But he made a claim of his own: That there is NO moral law.
I won't make a double standard though: I'm not completely certain that Harry Potter never existed. But people who believe he did had better have a pretty good reason.

(January 9, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Avodaiah Wrote: I'm not completely certain that Harry Potter never existed

(January 9, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Avodaiah Wrote: But MR made a claim of certainty:

Actually it was BadWriterSparty (and I'm intending to fix the quote attribution accordingly). Even so, Sinnersburninhell made claims of equal certainty:

(January 8, 2014 at 9:48 pm)Sinnersburninhell100 Wrote: We are all sinners and it is promised in the bible by God that we will enjoy everlasting peace praising and being in fellowship with our Lord and Savior.

I'm sure BWS will address any burden that may be incumbent upon him.

(January 9, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Avodaiah Wrote:

(January 9, 2014 at 5:19 pm)LastPoet Wrote: No sir, it is the claim of the religionists that a god exists, has properties and emits 'divine laws', its their job to provide evidence to it.

Claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence. If you substitute 'divine law' for 'harry potter' you will understand this, you will not accept it however: You are too blinded by confirmation bias.

If there is no evidence either way, the only conclusion we can come to is "we don't know", or possibly "there is probably no moral law". But MR made a claim of certainty:

(January 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: there's no divine law to break.

If he said there might be no moral law or there's probably no moral law, then he would have just been dismissing SBIH. But he made a claim of his own: That there is NO moral law.
I won't make a double standard though: I'm not completely certain that Harry Potter never existed. But people who believe he did had better have a pretty good reason.

So does that mean that anything anyone imagines at any given point in time has to be taken at face value with an equal degree of certainty and uncertainty?

I think hitchens was spot on with his rebuttal to this, as posted by MR just a page pack.

(January 8, 2014 at 7:32 pm)Sinnersburninhell100 Wrote: Would the atheist worship Yahweh if his existence was proven with science. Theist can input too, but I want to see what the atheist has to say.

Would I worship Kim Jong-il if he resurrected from the dead tomorrow and declared himself Lord over all? If only to spare my own ass, perhaps..

(January 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Sinnersburninhell100 Wrote:

(January 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: We're not sinners since there's no divine law to break.

Prove it.

You tell us we are sinners, and you speculate that there is such a thing as sin. As you have not presented ample evidence for anyone here to take your word for it, we must maintain a neutral position: there is no such thing as sin.

(January 9, 2014 at 6:31 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(January 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Sinnersburninhell100 Wrote: Prove it.

You tell us we are sinners, and you speculate that there is such a thing as sin. As you have not presented ample evidence for anyone here to take your word for it, we must maintain a neutral position: there is no such thing as sin.

You are saying there is no such thing as sin. So you also must prove your postitive.

(January 9, 2014 at 7:15 pm)Sinnersburninhell100 Wrote:

(January 9, 2014 at 6:31 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: You tell us we are sinners, and you speculate that there is such a thing as sin. As you have not presented ample evidence for anyone here to take your word for it, we must maintain a neutral position: there is no such thing as sin.

You are saying there is no such thing as sin. So you also must prove your postitive.

You don't understand the difference between negative & positive claims do you?

(January 9, 2014 at 7:21 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote: You don't understand the difference between negative & positive claims do you?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Oh, I realized that I haven't addressed the OP: