You can be a moral person without God...

[schmuck]

---

kaklaro sa akong giingon...gisugo ka sa Ginoo atong imong giingon nga genocide or wala? mao ranang sud ana schmuck...

nalibat ko og basa pein.

unya, unsa diay kung dili ako ang gisugo? does that absolve the fact nga immoral ang genocide?

[Pein]

nalibat ko og basa pein.

unya, unsa diay kung dili ako ang gisugo? does that absolve the fact nga immoral ang genocide?

immoral kung ang atong basihan ang standard of society karon...balik kuno sa panahon sa una kung immoral ba na...normal ra ang patay sa una doy oi ikumpara man nimo ang norms karon ug sa una...

[schmuck]

immoral kung ang atong basihan ang standard of society karon...balik kuno sa panahon sa una kung immoral ba na...normal ra ang patay sa una doy oi ikumpara man nimo ang norms karon ug sa una...

karon kai nakarealize man jd ka ana, do you think nga ang imong ginoo ang epitome of moral standards given iyang track record of commanding genocides?

[jamesmusslewhite]

^ chad's point james is this,
Scientists dismiss hypothesis that require negative proof. Something that you, as a "scientist", should know.
Spoken like a true Atheist with no real understanding of the sciences. So let me explain a complex subject so even you can understand. I will try to keep it simple there Einstein. Maybe you might actually learn something. I have my doubts.

Skeptics in the scientific community resist the evidence for Intelligent design (I.D.) or proof of God because of the implications it raises and because of the questions it begs. But should the integrity of the determination rely on the implications of a positive classification? Or should the classification of true or false be assessed in isolation of the implications? Which is worse -- a false positive, meaning ruling in favor of I.D. or God as a unique phenomenon when in fact it does not exist, or a false negative, meaning ruling against it and missing out on its true existence?

The answer, of course, lies in the incentive structure of the analyst. An equally intelligent non-scientist has no incentive nor predisposition to favor one type of error over the other, but scientists do. For scientists, it would open a whole new confounding problem domain, and it would make them look incompetent in the public's eyes for missing out on this fact. That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept I.D. or God unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof. Their incentive structure prohibits them from making any such inference unless it is unavoidable, and they will strain the boundaries of logic and reason to no end to dismiss all evidence other than physical proof, no matter how powerful it may be. This scientific predisposition toward disbelief, rooted not in science and logic but rather in dogma and paradigm, brings us to the logical trickery of the scientific I.D. or God debunker.

What Exactly is "Extraordinary"?
First, the scientific debunker will say that because I.D. or God is an extraordinary claim, it thus demands extraordinary proof. Therefore, no evidence is suggestive of I.D. or God unless it is accompanied by irrefutable physical proof -- even if the observations directly indicate, within normal scientific evidential standards, the presence of God to be physically examined by scientist. But could present intelligent controls and technology accurately examine something beyond human understanding. No matter how directly the observations indicate the possibility of I.D. or God being of nonhuman origin, skeptics maintain that a prosaic explanation must be adopted unless physical proof is obtained. But such a stance, rigid beyond the normal standards of scientific methodology, is a direct product of the incentive structure, not of logic, as indicated above. Normal standards of science would require meeting the evidential threshold for each of the above conditions necessary to establish I.D. or God's extraterrestrial origin; yet the same degree of evidence for physical substance is rejected for I.D or God when it would otherwise be accepted for observations against lesser man.

Thus, the debunkers have failed to define the boundary of extraordinariness, which renders the declaration logically specious due to its wholly arbitrary implementation that is easily contaminated by individual and collective incentives. They exploit the arbitrary classification of "extraordinary" by applying absurdly rigid evidential boundaries to cases that clearly feature anomalous, I.D. that humans could not have built. Instead of assessing the case for physical substance on its own merits with the total understanding of God physiology, they could only merely apply a priori probabilities of nearly zero to the detection of I.D., with no logical defensibility in the face of insufficient information to estimate the a priori probability, and therefore give themselves license to reject all evidence of any quality unless a physical specimen is obtained.

Understand the problem that science has? I am also a man and have the ability to look at all evidence and factors and determine my own choice of belief. A belief derived by years of study and research, probably starting long before you were born. I chose my own path, for my own reasons, after looking at all the facts. That is the true definition of being an enlightened free thinker.

The difference between knowledge and beliefs is as follows:. A belief is an internal thought or memory which exists in one's mind. Most people accept that for a belief to be knowledge it must be, at least, true and justified. The "Gettier problem" in philosophy is the question of whether there are any other requirements before a belief can be accepted as knowledge, and this is what confronts the scientific, atheistic, and religious communities.
The rules actually applies equally in all camps; even though they may want to call their beliefs to be Knowledge, they will still only be beliefs. That applies to Atheist too, your belief in no God is still only your belief. There is no proof that verifies it to be raised to the status of Knowledge. Sucks huh? You can not prove yours, we can not prove ours. You can not disprove ours, and we can not disprove yours. It all come down to faith in ones beliefs, or belief in ones beliefs. I choose faith in my God, and you choose belief in your non God.

The cosmic stalemate, you can try to manipulate the pieces but you still can not win.

[Pein]

karon kai nakarealize man jd ka ana, do you think nga ang imong ginoo ang epitome of moral standards given iyang track record of commanding genocides?

kahibaw ka sa reason nganong iyang gi command tong genocide? beh explain kuno ang reason nganong iya tong gisugo...

mao nay imong rason maong walay Ginoo kay nag command siya ug genocide? toinks!

[schmuck]

kahibaw ka sa reason nganong iyang gi command tong genocide? beh explain kuno ang reason nganong iya tong gisugo...

mao nay imong rason maong walay Ginoo kay nag command siya ug genocide? toinks!

bisan unsaon pa na pag tulimbang pein, bisan unsaon pa na pag-justify, genocide will never make sense. Kung maka rationalize ka nga ok ra tong nahitabo sa biblia, then I can question your moral standing.

akong akong punto pein, ang imong ginoo, killer


@james: tl;dr

[Pein]

bisan unsaon pa na pag tulimbang pein, bisan unsaon pa na pag-justify, genocide will never make sense. Kung maka rationalize ka nga ok ra tong nahitabo sa biblia, then I can question your moral standing.

akong akong punto pein, ang imong ginoo, killer


@james: tl;dr

mupatay bitaw ug tawo ang Ginoo...ang ang dili niya patyon ang tawo wala paman siguroy tawo nga nabuhi ug 1 million years old kay wala patya sa Ginoo. patyon jud sa Ginoo oi aron makapahuway pud...

mao nay imong rason maong walay Ginoo kay killer siya? toinks!

[jamesmusslewhite]

How convenient to discard the parts that are blatantly wrong, and then move on to another part, a part that can not be proven/dis-proven and then proceeding to put stilts of 'argument from ignorance' to hold it up.

but what has this got to do with the topic?

you can be a moral person without god.
heck, morals can be thrown out the window because of god gani.

No religious morals are always the same, just religious men and atheist can both choose to break the rules and do immoral acts. They are still both wrong.

[chad_tukes]

haha... copy and pasting galore.

lurveeee eeetttt!

[chad_tukes]

There are a lot of diverse sciences. Your logic I do not believe therefor it does not exist, is the same mindset that ignorance that held down the early scientist during the Dark Ages. Now reversed and existing in the so called age of Enlightenment. Childish thinking at best. It is just thing critically, and is not the definition of Critical Thinking. Atheism, keep that belief if you choose, but do not try to make me less than I am, so you can try to be more than you really are. You are on a prideful trip into the abyss, sorry I do not have to pretend you are clever. I know better.

This is the primary difference. Christians do not need to try to force science to support our beliefs for us to believe. We already believe, and we know science can not and will not disprove God, the creator. Science can only someday explain how he did it. We tell only what was written in scripture, and have confidence in our belief......Atheist have to try to use science to support their disbelief, and since science can not actually do that, it really pisses you off, so they then have to try to attack the scriptures. Proof, proof, proof, give me proof, or you are stupid is your battle cry against God. Yet all the intellectual Atheist can not show proof of no God. All that money, time, and effort producing for them what result? Maybe yes or maybe no. hahahaha. Then they have to make wild claims, resort to insults, rude behavior, rude statements, and one sided conversations. So you can feel like you are right. You demand what science can not give you, from those who believe what science can not disprove. And call yourself enlightened? No Atheistism is delusion. Show me proof it is not.

i'll start believing that tooth fairies exist so you'd start calling me a confused, delusional idiot the same way i call you delusional for believing in God. get my point? after all, it's FAITH. i have faith tooth fairies exist. you are getting funnier everytime James.