Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Since god isn't real,

Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God? It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God. Of course, you first must define what you mean by God. Plausible definitions do exist, although the definitions don't, in and of themselves, give any evidence or explanation for the belief, one way or the other. Most definitions of God that I've heard are based on God as a being with attributes that are self contradictory and so, in these conceptions, the very definition of God constitutes its own logical falsification.

Since god isn't real,

Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God? It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God. Of course, you first must define what you mean by God. Plausible definitions do exist, although the definitions don't, in and of themselves, give any evidence or explanation for the belief, one way or the other. Most definitions of God that I've heard are based on God as a being with attributes that are self contradictory and so, in these conceptions, the very definition of God constitutes its own logical falsification.

Of course I cannot "prove" God exists (as I've stated many times).  I made that bold statement simply as an example of how unsubstiantial Brokor's statement was.  And if one makes a claim that something doesn't exist, that's a positive statement and subject to the same rules as someone who claims that something does exist.  One can claim that there's no proof that something exists, but they cannot claim that it doesn't exist unless they have proof that it indeed doesn't.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God?

I'm saying it's a "bold completely unprovable premise"... and therefore not valid in a structured debate.

It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. 

Than it is unreasonable to use a negative as a premise.

The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God… of course, you first must define what you mean by God.

If the subject of debate was the existence of God you may be right, but in any other context the burden of proof is upon the asserter of a claim. Therefore, as it is his premise, the burden is upon him. If I ever make a claim, and the existence of God is my premise, I’ll offer what proof I have.

At some point maybe I’ll head the topic, “Islamic Nonarchy is the other sensible answer” And I’ll get into my definition, and we can debate it.

I don’t tend to engage in this debate, because in my experience nonbelievers tend to be far more blinded by faith than believers. The evidence which has proven His existence to me is from personal experience, observation, and reflection. It’s not verifiable in a laboratory, or in a debate. It is personal anecdote. Further, Allah clearly says in the Quran that it is He who changes hearts, not you, which has been taken as proof (in a religious context) that evangelism has no affect on conversion… making the debate pointless from my understanding.

[dharveymi]

You've defined faith as belief in something unproven.  How is belief evidence for.....belief?  I'm trying to find a way of interpreting the statement "faith is evidence" in a way that isn't circular, and am not finding one.  Help me out here. 

I'm not sure I can, in a way it is.  Strictly speaking, in order to be circular, one would have to say something like, "I believe the sky is blue because I believe the sky is blue."  Faith starts with something (which or who may not be proven) which leads to other beliefs.  Faith is a kind of placeholder.  It stands in place of, or sometimes in spite of, other evidence, until the belief can be proven.  In a way it is stubborn determination to see a thing out, but it can also be a resignation after failed attempts to prove a thing or it's converse, or it can simply be a deep trust in an individual or his work.

Alladin: "Do you trust me?"

P.S.  I do not have faith that God exists.  I have faith in God.  I assume God exists.

[markuzick]

Since god isn't real,

Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God? It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God. Of course, you first must define what you mean by God. Plausible definitions do exist, although the definitions don't, in and of themselves, give any evidence or explanation for the belief, one way or the other. Most definitions of God that I've heard are based on God as a being with attributes that are self contradictory and so, in these conceptions, the very definition of God constitutes its own logical falsification.

Of course I cannot "prove" God exists (as I've stated many times).  I made that bold statement simply as an example of how unsubstiantial Brokor's statement was.  And if one makes a claim that something doesn't exist, that's a positive statement and subject to the same rules as someone who claims that something does exist.  One can claim that there's no proof that something exists, but they cannot claim that it doesn't exist unless they have proof that it indeed doesn't.

A statement which denies something is a negative statement.

To claim that something doesn't exist, when there's no evidence to show that it does exist, is a reasonable claim that is reasonable to believe, as long as this claim is subject to revision should such evidence become available. This kind of claim is not subject to the burden of evidence or proof, only the lack of it.

It's also reasonable to claim that something does exist, when there's evidence to show that it does exist, as long as this claim is subject to revision should counter-evidence become available.

Reasonable claims can only be proven within the limited context of what we understand and so they must be falsifiable. Only claims which are self contradictory can be thought of as absolutely disproved. And probably nothing, outside the realm of abstraction, can be considered absolutely proven.

[The Muslim Agorist]

The existence of god is not the claim, it is the premise which leads to the claim of the origin of morality.

"Since God is not real, therefore ...etc. etc." is a claim based upon the premise of God's nonexistence. As that is not a valid premise, claims cannot be extrapolated from it and be considered proof of anything. The only correct way to state that is "IF God is not real THAN... etc etc." Such claims are valid, but not proof. They fall into the category of speculation.

The claim of God's existence or non existence (both reasonable claims if dirived from valid premises) would read:
"Since... etc etc, therefore God is not real."

[markuzick]

Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God?

I'm saying it's a "bold completely unprovable premise"... and therefore not valid in a structured debate.

Nothing is ever absolutely provable, except within a limited context, where for the purpose of debate, you assume certain premises to be true. Barring evidence to show otherwise, his claim is a reasonable one. He does not need to prove anything.

It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. 

Than it is unreasonable to use a negative as a premise.

Why?

The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God… of course, you first must define what you mean by God.

If the subject of debate was the existence of God you may be right, but in any other context the burden of proof is upon the asserter of a claim. Therefore, as it is his premise, the burden is upon him. If I ever make a claim, and the existence of God is my premise, I’ll offer what proof I have.

No. If the subject of debate was the proof of the existence of God, then the burden of proof would be on the asserter. A reasonable claim for the existence of God requires no proof, only evidence. For you to require Brokor to prove his claim that God doesn't exist is absurd, as he would only have to offer proof if he claimed that he could prove this. In order to be reasonable, his claim only requires a lack of evidence that God exists, just as your claim that God exists, in order to be reasonable, would only require evidence to support your claim.

[ChristianAnarchist]

You just don't get it.  It's been explained in very simple terms.  There is no hope that you will get it with further explanation...

[dharveymi]

I've been there, I've done it.

I want my T-shirt!
I want my T-shirt!
I'm not kidding, I want my T-shirt!

[ChristianAnarchist]

www.shirtmagic.com

[dharveymi]

Do you have any experience with them?  How's the quality?

[markuzick]

You just don't get it.  It's been explained in very simple terms.  There is no hope that you will get it with further explanation...

Maybe the problem is that I get it too well.

[ladyattis]

It is the premise which leads to the claim of the origin of morality.

Yet even theologically inclined philosophers like Aquinas have proven that morality can be devised such that it requires no deity. That's what we call the big truck-o-fail dropping in on your party. :3

-- Brede

[The Muslim Agorist]

It is the premise which leads to the claim of the origin of morality.

Yet even theologically inclined philosophers like Aquinas have proven that morality can be devised such that it requires no deity. That's what we call the big truck-o-fail dropping in on your party. :3

-- Brede

Aquinas was heavily influenced by Ibn Rushd, an Islamic Philosopher, and as I said, in Islam we believe that morality is derived from the fitra, or "nature" of man. So it doesn't suprise me that Aquinas would say this. This makes this whole arguement especially pointless...

I am disputing the premise, not the conclusion.

Ok... just for laughs... lets begin with a different unverifiable faith based premise and see if it makes sense to use it to substantiate a claim.

Premise:
Since big foot is not real…

Claim:
…nothing can be evidence of him, especially foot prints. 

What those people who believe in big foot perceive as footprints are nothing more than tracks left by known animals. In their search for big foot, or belief therein, the person has constructed their perceptions based on the influence of other people. And yes, the video of big foot is the work of people. Footprints can not be evidence of some pretend unknown primate any more than one can provide the facts to support claims that a big foot exists.

So what’s the problem… I don’t believe that big foot exists, you don’t believe that big foot exists. So we have consensus right… no problem. We accept the premise, we accept the claim.

Problems arise when you introduce a believer in big foot into the debate, because the way this argument is constructed the claim relies upon the premise, but the premise also relies upon the claim.

To claim “evidence of Big foot doesn’t exist because Big Foot doesn’t exist” is patently absurd - especially if you follow that up with, “Big foot doesn’t exist because I don’t see any evidence of it.” You are  in affect assuming a negative, and then trying to prove it backwards.

You’re premise cannot be proven, and I don’t accept it. The burden of proof is not upon me. I'm not making any claim. I simply don't accept your premise. You're premise, your burden. The same rules apply if I were an agnostic.

Notice, though I believe that God exists, and someday, God Willing, I will expound evidence, I have not waged that claim to counter your premise. And if the existence of God was used as a premise to support a claim, it would be equally as unfounded of a claim, unless I could either prove the existence of God, or make the claim to a group which had consensus upon God’s existence.

[BKO]

The religious nutbags all come out clammering, looking for some reason to justify their delusions.

Markuzik beat me to it; the burden of proof is on the hands of the religious zealots to prove God. I cannot prove a negative; that being something which does not exist.

Who is this Muslim guy posting recently? I have just ignored him permanently, as he is far too radical and just....OUT THERE. So, Muslim- please take no offense, but you are annoying me with your blind devotion and ignorance. Please feel free to return the favor.

[Rillion]

I never implied that. It means that they have acquired values and beliefs, which at some level required choices to be made. Their "knee jerk" (unconscious) reactions are just that: unconscious.

I never denied that choices are made.  However, I think that for most of us, values are cultivated rather than acquired.  Everybody except psychopaths has the capacity to have aversion to suffering, for example, but people who are opposed to animal testing (for another example) have had that aversion cultivated and applied to a specific group. 

The question is not simple, but simplistic. You're showing the root of your confusion in that question, which is based on the implied assumption that a genetically hardwired reaction can be right, wrong, a concept or even based on a concept at all.

No no no no no no no!  I am saying that a genetically hardwired reaction can be about  what is right or wrong.  That's a very important difference. 

An inborn(genetically acquired) instinct manifests as a feeling or emotion, not a concept.

I'm not sure how you're defining "concept" here, but my position is:

a) that there are such things as moral emotions, that is emotions which cause us to make moral judgements (judgements about right and wrong)
b) those moral judgments which stem from the moral emotions are intuitive.
c) moral emotions are evolved.
d) moral reasoning is not divorced from moral emotions, but does not always (or even usually) occur when moral judgements are made.