(May 28, 2015 at 11:33 am)whateverist Wrote:(May 28, 2015 at 11:07 am)Anima Wrote: The perpetrator is reacting or acting according to a predetermined set of responses. There is no person (or no person who can resist the predetermined responses), so why not just kill every offender from the offset and be done with it? The program of this meat does not fit with the program of the rest of the meat.
Just because we require reasons to believe your god nonsense doesn't mean we reject everything that lacks evidence. No one can do that. You seem to think unless we accept the god proposition without evidence we are required to reject all propositions which lack evidence.
But why should I violate my repulsion toward harming others? It exists because I myself experience it. It is as real as "I" am. Your god may seem to you as real as you are, but that isn't giving me any reason to sign on. Your inability to imagine normal human consciousness sans god is your own failing. We can't explain it to you so long as you are motivated to persist in your stupidity bias.
Ad hominem for the win? From your other posts I took you to be better than that Whateverist.
1. I made no reference to god or gods. I am simply following the logic of the argument. I understand well the argument without god's presence (which is why I stated in my other post that one needs to appeal to an imaginary friend for moral conduct, where the imaginary friend for the Atheist is this "I" which cannot be proven.
); I get it; I grasp the concept and may assure you that nothing has been stated yet which is beyond my understanding.2. I am interested in hearing from you how willingness to accept some propositions without evidence (likely the ones that affirm what you already believe) and others only with evidence (likely the ones that do not affirm what you already believe) is not an example of bias?
3. I am to understand that I cannot accept your experienced based explanation anymore than you are to accept me stating, "God exists because I myself experience Him. He is as real as 'I' am". This standard was not established by me, but by those who hold proof is by explicit direct empirical evidence. I am willing to accept implicit circumstantial empirical evidence, knowing that acceptance of such evidence supports "I", "Him", and scientific knowledge in general.
