Silly Atheists.

[Simon Moon]

I take every one of your posts seriously. I evaluate each one with regards to logic and evidence.

Maybe that explains why many times theists find themselves at odds with atheists. Not every question can be evaluated with only the brain's left hemisphere.

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?

[Astreja]

Your. Book. Is. Not. Proof.

Dear LadyForCamus, does it make sense human books can contain proofs, but that a book from God cannot contain proofs?

I don't believe for one instant that the Quran, the Bible, the Vedas, or in fact any scripture is the work of a god.  I believe that all of them, without a single exception, were composed solely by humans who were only imagining the existence of gods.

And if *you* want to be taken seriously here ever again, stop impugning the characters of people you haven't even met.  I consider accusations of dishonesty to be fighting words.  Don't you fucking dare go down that path, MK.

[Mister Agenda]

But that's his favorite path!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe that explains why many times theists find themselves at odds with atheists. Not every question can be evaluated with only the brain's left hemisphere.

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?

---

I have given up on the burden of proof debate. The debate assumes that that people gain knowledge from the ground up…starting with self-evident truths and reaching conclusions after building a tight chain of logical arguments. But people do not start with self-evident proofs. They are dropped into the middle of life and must work both backwards and forwards at the same time. The wise write life’s philosophy with a pencil. One end has a lead. The other end has an eraser.

Am I to assume you've now given up on the Ontological Argument, then? Or am I to simply chortle every time I see you praise its use in the future?

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

[Crossless2.0]

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?

---

Am I to assume you've now given up on the Ontological Argument, then? Or am I to simply chortle every time I see you praise its use in the future?

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.

[Minimalist]

Yeah - let's talk about the value of human life.

[no one]

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

[Alan V]

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

Lucky for us, the cosmos has no perspective.

[KevinM1]

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

There's one person in my personal life who holds no value, so, even then, it's not a given in the narrowest scope.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

I dont always give kudos to show agreement. Sometimes a clever retort in itself deserves acknowgement. Or just a particularly concise summary. Or perhaps in hopes theyll buy the next round...