Heterosexual sins, adultery, fornication, etc.

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

This maybe true, but does hatred have a place in virtue or none per your view?

It’s an understandable reaction to a limited species. That doesn’t justify it.

 

[Link]

It’s an understandable reaction to a limited species. That doesn’t justify it.

I'm not saying hate and retribution and vengeance always has a place. I'm saying, does it have any place?

If not, why do we have it?

Do you believe evolution just gave us something purely evil with no benefit or virtuous use of it?

 

[BrightShadow]

I didn't ask for proof, but I did ask for evidence. I don't tend to believe in things for which I have no good evidence. In other words, if I'm not convinced of something, I can't believe it.
Pointing out that not having evidence isn't "proof" that the thing you claim exists doesn't exist is kind of a waste of time because it's not evidence that it does exist either. If you want to convince somebody that something exists, you'd need to demonstrate that with some evidence. You don't just get to say "well I don't have any evidence to show you but my claims are true anyway and you can't prove they aren't!" That's not how logic works.


That's not the same kind of faith, in my opinion. You seem to be conflating "faith" with "trust." There is evidence I can compile from my husband's behaviour about how he feels about me, where I can place some level of trust in him, based on a reasonable assessment of the available evidence. If my husband is loving and doting and tells me he loves me and does special things for me throughout the day and kisses and hugs me, and generally acts in a loving manner toward me, I can reasonably conclude that he probably does love me and is not cheating on me. On the other hand, if my husband doesn't kiss and hug me and tells me he loves me but instead acts cruelly toward me, or is always running off secretly with his phone, or stays out all night without telling me where he is, etc. I can reasonably conclude that something is wrong and that he may be cheating. There is evidence to be assessed there. I mean, I'm not just stuck blindly fumbling around believing that no matter how he behaves, he must be devoted to me.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence. Otherwise, they'd just provide the evidence, right? And therefore, it doesn't seem to me that faith is a reliable pathway to truth, since anything can be believed on faith. Indeed, many different people follow many different religions based on faith. They can't all be right. So I don't see how faith is a reliable pathway to truth.

I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence.

I don't think faith is ever enough. I need evidence.

If some creator thinks we "don't deserve any proof" then I say that creator is not worthy of worship, praise or respect.

Your non-belief is by default a belief. IMO
You believe evidence/proof of God is not there. So you don't believe there is a God. How do you know with certainty that evidence is not there? Your reason would be - no one has shown you yet!
You didn't exist to me until I saw your 1st post - does that mean you never existed? Until a few days ago?
So, by coming to your conclusion that God doesn't exist is also a belief on your part that I hope will be proven wrong to you one day.

So, how do you think you came into existence? By chance? Via evolution?
Check out my two post in two different threads if you like..

Here is a link...

John believes in a god, Joe doesn't. Who's right?

My post is #25 and also there is a follow-up response to someone.

I also wrote something in the following thread...

Objective Value and seeing argument!

My post #97. I thought I was on topic there. Anyhow I think - believers hold a stronger position than non-believers.

 

[BrightShadow]

This stuff is easy to look up. Men invented high heels in the 10th century CE to help with horse riding. Jesus wouldn’t even know what they were.

You didn't get my point!

 

[Link]

I didn't get the point!

It's true, historically, it started from men for a different purpose (not style).

 

[BrightShadow]

It's true, historically, it started from men for a different purpose (not style).

I meant to say - she didn't get my point! It wasn't about high heels!

 

[Link]

I meant to say - she didn't get my point!

I think she did, and is countering it. Clothes (male vs female styles) somewhat is dynamic and not static and not necessarily objective.

But to respond to it, there is URF and Islam says to dress like your people's time and for parents to let their children wear according to their times and not force their style on them.

That said, society chaotically does decide style and fashion, but not all of it is random, and there is fashion sense that is somewhat objective (not totally).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your non-belief is by default a belief. IMO

No, it isn't. Not any more than a lack of belief in Big Foot constitutes a belief.
I lack belief [in god(s)], which by definition, is not a belief [in god(s)]. It's a lack of belief

You believe evidence/proof of God is not there. So you don't believe there is a God.

I lack belief in god(s). That's not the same thing as claiming that "no god(s) exist." The former is not a belief, while the latter is a belief.

How do you know with certainty that evidence is not there? Your reason would be - no one has shown you yet!

Who said anything about certainty? I lack belief in god(s) because I have never seen evidence that convinces me that god(s) exist. Why should I assume something exists if I haven't seen any evidence demonstrating that it does actually exist? Is that how you form your beliefs?

You didn't exist to me until I saw your 1st post - does that mean you never existed? Until a few days ago?

That means you hadn't yet seen convincing evidence demonstrating that I exist. Now you've got some.

So, by coming to your conclusion that God doesn't exist is also a belief on your part that I hope will be proven wrong to you one day.

That is not my conclusion. My lack of belief is outlined above. Remember, lacking belief in something isn't the same thing as claiming that thing doesn't exist.

So, how do you think you came into existence? By chance? Via evolution?

I came into existence after my parents engaged in sexual intercourse, and my father's sperm fertilized my mother's egg, which then implanted into her uterine wall, which then developed into a blastocyst, which then developed... etc. So yes, by chance.

Check out my two post in two different threads if you like..

Here is a link...

John believes in a god, Joe doesn't. Who's right?

My post is #25 and also there is a follow-up response to someone.

I also wrote something in the following thread...

Objective Value and seeing argument!

My post #97. I thought I was on topic there. Anyhow I think - believers hold a stronger position than non-believers.

Sorry but I can't respond to this big long posts. Can you break it down here?

How is it that you think believers hold a stronger position than non-believers when non-believers don't hold actually hold a position (as explained above)? What evidence is the believers' position based on? The believer is the one with the belief, who is making a position assertion for the existence of something. The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the non-believer (unless the non-believer is asserting that "no gods exist").

 

[SkepticThinker]

You didn't get my point!

What was your point?

 

[BrightShadow]

I lack belief in god(s). That's not the same thing as claiming that "no god(s) exist." The former is not a belief, while the latter is a belief.

You went with the word by word implication of what I said.
I said - "Your non-belief is by default a belief. IMO"
What I meant with that statement was - your lack of belief is also a position that is unreliable in my opinion. There could be many reasons why God is not evident to you for the time being.
Taking a stand until observable or better yet incontestable evidence is available - is your prerogative. Hope it works for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You went with the word by word implication of what I said.
I said - "Your non-belief is by default a belief. IMO"
What I meant with that statement was - your lack of belief is also a position that is unreliable in my opinion. There could be many reasons why God is not evident to you for the time being.
Taking a stand until observable or better yet incontestable evidence is available - is your prerogative. Hope it works for you.

Yes, I know what you said. And I responded. And again, you have no response to it.

How is withholding a belief in something, pending further evidence an unreliable opinion? How could there be any other logical opinion on the matter? That's not "taking a stand." Taking a stand would be making a definitive statement, which I have not done.

You really need to understand that not believing in something because you've never seen convincing evidence for it, is NOT the same thing as declaring said thing doesn't exist.


God may not be evident to me for a number of reasons.
1. He doesn't exist.
2. He doesn't want me to know he exists.
3. He can't demonstrate to me that he exist.
4. He doesn't want to demonstrate to me that he exists.

I've never seen any evidence that God(s) exist and/or that God(s) want to talk to me. So what other logical position could I take other than, "I lack belief in that God" .... ?