Silly Atheists.

[Amarok]

You are trying to limit the range of questions to your tools of inquiry. To what kinds of evidence would you refer when the question at hand is the value of human life?

---

I don't think I've ever praised an ontological argument although I find them interesting. Mostly I respect the cosmological ones.

Perhaps I was mistaken about you in that respect. If I was Huggy-like, I would track down every kudos you ever gave a fellow theist who used the ontological argument (SteveII comes to mind) to play gotcha. But I don’t care enough to do it. If you say you are not impressed by that line of reasoning, I’ll take you at face value. And agree.

Too bad the cosmological argument is just as bad as is the moral argument

[Reltzik]

Perhaps I was mistaken about you in that respect. If I was Huggy-like, I would track down every kudos you ever gave a fellow theist who used the ontological argument (SteveII comes to mind) to play gotcha. But I don’t care enough to do it. If you say you are not impressed by that line of reasoning, I’ll take you at face value. And agree.

Too bad the cosmological argument is just as bad as is the moral argument

It's not AS bad. We do have ways of verifying (with some possibility of error) that the universe began to exist. That's one demonstrable premise, as opposed to zero demonstrable premises for the moral argument.

... okay, fine, it's still terrible.

[Minimalist]

The value of human life varies depending on perspective. On a personal level, it's invaluable. Cosmically speaking, it means nothing.

“Die for the Virgin, for your mother the Empress, for the royal family. The Church will pray to God for the dead. The survivor has honor and glory”

– Field Marshal Prince Aleksandr V. Suvorov

Go fuck yourself, Prince.

[Little lunch]

Silly atheists?
You don't need to be smart to decline to believe in something that doesn't exist and nobody has provided any physical evidence for.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Folks, they're not listening.

[LadyForCamus]

About this ‘supernatural’ business:


If something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence in the physical world via interaction with it, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural.  If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, effect it, and leave evidence behind, yet is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that position via describing the specific, positive attributes that disqualify it from the category of, ‘natural.’

Just once I would like a theist to take an honest crack at explaining to me what the supernatural actually is, and in what ways it is distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’.

[Simon Moon]

What other methods and tools do you recommend, that are as demonstrably as reliable as demonstrable evidence and valid and sound logic for evaluating existential claims?

You are trying to limit the range of questions to your tools of inquiry. To what kinds of evidence would you refer when the question at hand is the value of human life?

Please notice how I was talking about existential claims.

But, as far as the value of human life, a purely evidence based and logic based argument can be made to justify valuing human life. Please note, that the vast majority of psychopaths are not murderers, despite their lack of empathy, guilt or remorse toward fellow humans.

Not to mention, that the Yahweh character as depicted in the Bible, does not exhibit a lot of value toward human life.

[Dr H]

Y'know, I really expected the first post in this thread to be,

"Silly atheists!  Trix™ are for kids!"

[Reltzik]

Y'know, I really expected the first post in this thread to be,

"Silly atheists!  Trix™ are for kids!"

I was thinking of something along the lines of "tricks are for apologists" but I couldn't come up with a good delivery.