The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

Other people's claims don't matter. Even if their claim wasn't proven, we're left with "I dunno". It doesn't default to you being right. This is your claim:

You made the claim, now prove it, or we can both dismiss and ignore it.

yes please by all means dismiss it, now prove that other statement that was made. I know you didn't make it, but that is the only reply to the OP. IF it is unsubstantiated by those who made, it we must dismiss both my statement and that one.

so we are back to just the OP being fully logical

(just so you know I erased that comment, in holding up with my end of the agreement, it was unproven so I removed it. Now we must remove the other comments)

 

[Moral Orel]

yes please by all means dismiss it, now prove that other statement that was made. I know you didn't make it, but that is the only reply to the OP. IF it is unsubstantiated by those who made, it we must dismiss both my statement and that one.

so we are back to just the OP being fully logical

(just so you know I erased that comment, in holding up with my end of the agreement, it was unproven so I removed it. Now we must remove the other comments)

I didn't make it, so I can't remove it, but it is big of you to remove your own. If I remember correctly, folks did try to show evidence for it, but I'm not knowledgable enough about that topic personally to make a claim about it myself.

Now if someone makes that claim again, just say, "Why should we think that's possible?". You don't have to make a counter-claim unless you think you've got the evidence to prove them wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

I didn't make it, so I can't remove it, but it is big of you to remove your own. If I remember correctly, folks did try to show evidence for it, but I'm not knowledgable enough about that topic personally to make a claim about it myself.

Now if someone makes that claim again, just say, "Why should we think that's possible?". You don't have to make a counter-claim unless you think you've got the evidence to prove them wrong.

But my point is that the OP stands. Because the comment you asked for proof in, was not actually in the OP but added later. So until someone can question it with facts, I will presume it still a valid argument. Basically it is as such. There is no natural origin of sacrificial love, therefore the premise of supernatural origin is possible. And due to the fact that christianity promotes love in ways that many do not, "love of enemies." one can deduce that the christian source of love is divine.

 

[Moral Orel]

But my point is that the OP stands. Because the comment you asked for proof in, was not actually in the OP but added later. So until someone can question it with facts, I will presume it still a valid argument. Basically it is as such. There is no natural origin of sacrificial love, therefore the premise of supernatural origin is possible. And due to the fact that christianity promotes love in ways that many do not, "love of enemies." one can deduce that the christian source of love is divine.

There's another big claim. Prove it. Prove there is no natural origin of sacrificial love. I'll agree that a supernatural origin is possible but you really need to elevate it to at least probable.

 

[createdtoworship]

There's another big claim. Prove it. Prove there is no natural origin of sacrificial love. I'll agree that a supernatural origin is possible but you really need to elevate it to at least probable.

that is a negative claim, which I already told you are improvable. It is critical of the positive claim that there is a natural cause for love. In that case you don't have to prove it. Say for example you say that there love among animals, and I say, no there isn't. I dont' have to prove the fact that I questioned your positive statement. It's the positive statement not the negative that needs evidence. But I will grant you this, I should have included the phrase "there appears to be no natural origin of sacrificial love." I can change that if you want. But in reality it is a negative critical comment of the positive statement "that there is sacrificial love among animals, and thus evolution is the origin of sacrificial love."

 

[Moral Orel]

that is a negative claim, which I already told you are improvable.

And you are wrong which I demonstrated twice now in your other thread. All claims must be backed up by evidence. If you can't prove your claim, don't make it.

Say for example you say that there love among animals, and I say, no there isn't. I dont' have to prove the fact that I questioned your positive statement.

But that isn't "questioning" my claim, that's asserting your own counter-claim. If I say there is love among animals, you can say, "Prove it" (that would be questioning it) or you can make a counter-claim and prove that. Once you make a counter claim, you have a burden just as much as the person who made the original claim.

In this instance, I still haven't made a claim about the origins of morality at all. Only you have. So you are the only person with a burden of proof in our discussion.

But I will grant you this, I should have included the phrase "there appears to be no natural origin of sacrificial love." I can change that if you want.

All you can accurately say is, "I have personally not seen proof of a natural origin of sacrificial love".


And seriously, look up negative claims. You are wrong. A claim is negative if it negates something. "There is not" and "There is no" etc. There is nothing special about them. I already linked a scholarly article for you to demonstrate this in the other thread. I'm sure you didn't bother even glancing in its direction though.

 

[createdtoworship]

And you are wrong which I demonstrated twice now in your other thread. All claims must be backed up by evidence. If you can't prove your claim, don't make it.

But that isn't "questioning" my claim, that's asserting your own counter-claim. If I say there is love among animals, you can say, "Prove it" (that would be questioning it) or you can make a counter-claim and prove that. Once you make a counter claim, you have a burden just as much as the person who made the original claim.

In this instance, I still haven't made a claim about the origins of morality at all. Only you have. So you are the only person with a burden of proof in our discussion.


All you can accurately say is, "I have personally not seen proof of a natural origin of sacrificial love".


And seriously, look up negative claims. You are wrong. A claim is negative if it negates something. "There is not" and "There is no" etc. There is nothing special about them. I already linked a scholarly article for you to demonstrate this in the other thread. I'm sure you didn't bother even glancing in its direction though.

you said "I am wrong."

please prove I am wrong, or don't make the claim.

please find a citation for that.

I adjusted my comment toward the end of the previous post, you didn't need to get so emotional over it.
I said "there appears to be no evidence of sacrificial love among animals."

and I stand by that.

now you can sit here and fight all day about positive and negative claims or you can answer the OP and stay on topic.

which you won't, because you have already said "I don't know enough about it."

if you don't know then why are you commenting on this thread?

I am losing my patience with you, you can't answer the positive claims others have made but you cite that evolution answers the OP by citing their posts. You can cite the reply, but you don't need to prove it yourself.

I am starting to grow weary of debating your style tactics

 

[Moral Orel]

you said "I am wrong."

please prove I am wrong, or don't make the claim.

please find a citation for that.

I already did in the other thread when you first brought this up and told me that "There is no God" is a positive claim. You shouldn't have ignored it the first time.

now you can sit here and fight all day about positive and negative claims or you can answer the OP and stay on topic.

which you won't, because you have already said "I don't know enough about it."

if you don't know then why are you commenting on this thread?

I said I don't know enough about evolution to make a claim about that. I have my own angle on why your OP is wrong that has nothing to do with evolution, but if you can't support your own claims that you've already made, I don't really see a need to do so.

And I know, you're going to say, "Let's see it" and try to dodge the fact that you have presented zero evidence to support your assertions. You're going to try to hold me to a different standard than you hold yourself, as per the usual. Like I said before, don't be a hypocrite too.

I am losing my patience with you, you can't answer the positive claims others have made but you said that a few posts later that someone said evolution answers the OP, but then you feel you don't have to prove it. You can cite the reply, but you don't need to prove it yourself.

I am starting to grow weary of debating your style tactics

No, I don't need to prove other people's claims. Are you serious? Why would I need to do that? You can't support your own claims, why in the world should I support other people's claims? This is ridiculous. You're losing patience because I won't fall for your rhetorical flourishes. I've seen a lot of people let you shift the burden of proof throughout both of your threads. I'm not playing your silly games.

You made the claim. If you support it, then it will be my turn to refute that evidence or present my own counter claim. You seem to think that you're entitled to baseless assertions and we all have to prove them wrong. That isn't how it works.

So "there appears to be no natural origin", huh? "Appears" to who? Just you? That's why I said you can claim you personally haven't seen it, and that's it. Show me more evidence than your personal ignorance on the topic.

 

[createdtoworship]

I already did in the other thread when you first brought this up and told me that "There is no God" is a positive claim. You shouldn't have ignored it the first time.

no you made the positive claim that I was wrong about negative claims, now please provide sources for that. You know what I was talking about, see how fun this is?

I said I don't know enough about evolution to make a claim about that. I have my own angle on why your OP is wrong that has nothing to do with evolution, but if you can't support your own claims that you've already made, I don't really see a need to do so.

I think staying on topic should be it's own motivation for you.

And I know, you're going to say, "Let's see it" and try to dodge the fact that you have presented zero evidence to support your assertions. You're going to try to hold me to a different standard than you hold yourself, as per the usual. Like I said before, don't be a hypocrite too.

so then please prove I am wrong about negative claims. Don't be a hypocrite too.

No, I don't need to prove other people's claims. Are you serious? Why would I need to do that? You can't support your own claims, why in the world should I support other people's claims? This is ridiculous. You're losing patience because I won't fall for your rhetorical flourishes. I've seen a lot of people let you shift the burden of proof throughout both of your threads. I'm not playing your silly games.

as soon as you cited them as a response to the OP you validated their claim, so no the burden is yours to prove. Have fun with that. I will not futher debate you until you do prove those claims on evolution. Or use your own argument for why the OP is wrong. This will bring the us back on topic. So until then, thanks for the debate.

 

[Moral Orel]

no you made the positive claim that I was wrong about negative claims, now please provide sources for that. You know what I was talking about, see how fun this is?

so then please prove I am wrong about negative claims.

I already did.

as soon as you cited them as a response to the OP you validated their claim, so no the burden is yours to prove. Have fun with that. I will not futher debate you until you do prove those claims on evolution. Or use your own argument for why the OP is wrong. This will bring the us back on topic. So until then, thanks for the debate.

I knew you couldn't prove your claims, so you're dodging them. I don't care if you put me back on ignore, I'll trash your arguments in silence. It doesn't matter to me either way. Your claims, you know, the guy who made the thread, are on topic. You just don't want to have to support anything you say, so you're taking your ball and going home. Bye!

 

[gaara4158]

that is a negative claim, which I already told you are improvable.

Oh, good. There is no God, then. It’s not provable, so if you want to argue against my point you have to prove me wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

I would be remiss if I didn't point out the dishonesty that happened here, but I am winding down on pointing out all the bad logic. Here was the claim that started the discussion (which you have since deleted):

Animals don't forgive their enemies, nor do animals love sacrificially, unless it's for their family unit.

So I replied:

You made the claim, now prove it, or we can both dismiss and ignore it.

And I asked hypothetically:

Then it can be dismissed as an un-evidenced assertion. If you think that's sufficient, then can I just claim that "Animals do forgive their enemies, also animals love sacrificially, even when it's not for their family unit" while offering zero evidence like you have done? What do you think we should do with these claims that have zero evidence offered for them?

And you agreed that unproven statements can be dismissed here:

and if you cannot prove that statement, then we will nullify it and scratch it from the record, and my original OP argument stands.

That's when we made our agreement to throw out both claims. Neither has evidence, so we dismissed both of them:

Deal! Any statement that isn't proven can be nullified and scratched from the record. So your claim about animals is nullified and your original OP argument fails.

Here's you formally acknowledging the agreement:

(just so you know I erased that comment, in holding up with my end of the agreement, it was unproven so I removed it. Now we must remove the other comments)

Now I thought there was a brief moment of maturity shown on your part, so I mentioned it and withdrew the unsubstantiated claim I referenced too:

I didn't make it, so I can't remove it, but it is big of you to remove your own. If I remember correctly, folks did try to show evidence for it, but I'm not knowledgable enough about that topic personally to make a claim about it myself.

So we agreed to throw out both of those claims, and we agreed to throw out any unevidenced assertions. And then this is how you describe your OP:

But my point is that the OP stands. Because the comment you asked for proof in, was not actually in the OP but added later. So until someone can question it with facts, I will presume it still a valid argument. Basically it is as such. There is no natural origin of sacrificial love, therefore the premise of supernatural origin is possible.

You tell me that part of your OP is that there is no natural origin of sacrificial love, and yet previously you said that the original claim we were discussing, that "animals don't forgive their enemies, nor do animals love sacrificially, unless it's for their family unit" had nothing to do with the OP. What gives? Is denying the natural origins of morality part of the OP or not? Are you going to claim that you made an honest mistake in describing your own OP?

But what's worse is that we had a deal. We agreed to throw out claims that don't have evidence, but you went right ahead and made another. Then you tell me here to prove the claim that we both already agreed to throw out:

as soon as you cited them as a response to the OP you validated their claim, so no the burden is yours to prove. Have fun with that. I will not futher debate you until you do prove those claims on evolution.

So you broke our agreement, all in one evening I might add. Are you going to claim that you forgot what you agreed to that fast? No one is buying your schtick.

When you said that your OP had nothing to do with natural origins, that was a lie. And when you agreed to dismiss claims that have no evidence to support them, that was a lie too. The truth clearly isn't important to you. Your word means nothing. Not only are your arguments rife with logical inconsistencies, your credibility is shot.

You'll probably accuse me of being emotional again. Don't worry, this is fun for me. Proving people wrong is my hobby. Proving that they knew they were wrong when they said it is a blast! Now, like some other folks have said, this is all low hanging fruit, and it certainly isn't as satisfying as besting a skilled debater, but it's still fun. Sort of like watching a Leslie Nielson movie.

 

[createdtoworship]

I would be remiss if I didn't point out the dishonesty that happened here, but I am winding down on pointing out all the bad logic. Here was the claim that started the discussion (which you have since deleted):

So I replied:

And I asked hypothetically:

And you agreed that unproven statements can be dismissed here:

That's when we made our agreement to throw out both claims. Neither has evidence, so we dismissed both of them:

Here's you formally acknowledging the agreement:

Now I thought there was a brief moment of maturity shown on your part, so I mentioned it and withdrew the unsubstantiated claim I referenced too:

So we agreed to throw out both of those claims, and we agreed to throw out any unevidenced assertions. And then this is how you describe your OP:

You tell me that part of your OP is that there is no natural origin of sacrificial love, and yet previously you said that the original claim we were discussing, that "animals don't forgive their enemies, nor do animals love sacrificially, unless it's for their family unit" had nothing to do with the OP. What gives? Is denying the natural origins of morality part of the OP or not? Are you going to claim that you made an honest mistake in describing your own OP?

But what's worse is that we had a deal. We agreed to throw out claims that don't have evidence, but you went right ahead and made another. Then you tell me here to prove the claim that we both already agreed to throw out:

So you broke our agreement, all in one evening I might add. Are you going to claim that you forgot what you agreed to that fast? No one is buying your schtick.

When you said that your OP had nothing to do with natural origins, that was a lie. And when you agreed to dismiss claims that have no evidence to support them, that was a lie too. The truth clearly isn't important to you. Your word means nothing. Not only are your arguments rife with logical inconsistencies, your credibility is shot.

You'll probably accuse me of being emotional again. Don't worry, this is fun for me. Proving people wrong is my hobby. Proving that they knew they were wrong when they said it is a blast! Now, like some other folks have said, this is all low hanging fruit, and it certainly isn't as satisfying as besting a skilled debater, but it's still fun. Sort of like watching a Leslie Nielson movie.

sorry sir, you can post all you want but until you actually adress the OP, you will be ignored from now on. I have kept this post for reference:

here in this post you say you have views about the OP but you don't know enough about it to comment on it. Which disqualifies you to post in this thread. If all you can do is post off topic, then I don't want to encourage that behavior.

my source for your post is here:
The Moral Argument (revamped)

 

[Moral Orel]

sorry sir, you can post all you want but until you actually adress the OP, you will be ignored from now on. I have kept this post for reference:

I did. I asked you to support the claim that you made when you summarized your OP. You refused to support the claim that you said summarizes your OP. How is your claim that you say summarizes the OP off topic? Are you saying that your claim is off topic? If so, then dismiss your own claim.

here in this post you say you have views about the OP but you don't know enough about it to comment on it. Which disqualifies you to post in this thread.

LOL You respond to my post about you being dishonest with more dishonesty. Did I say I don't know enough about the OP to not comment on it? Let's see! We'll look at the post you used as a source:

I said I don't know enough about evolution to make a claim about that.

You are absolutely precious!

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

I did. I asked you to support the claim that you made when you summarized your OP. You refused to support the claim that you said summarizes your OP. How is your claim that you say summarizes the OP off topic? Are you saying that your claim is off topic? If so, then dismiss your own claim.


LOL You respond to my post about you being dishonest with more dishonesty. Did I say I don't know enough about the OP to not comment on it? Let's see! We'll look at the post you used as a source:


You are absolutely precious!

@Nicholas Deka

Here is what has happened if you forgot. I said that humans have the ability to love their enemies, yet there appears to be no evidence that animals can do the same. This supports the conclusion that humans have a higher form of love than animals do. This supports the conclusion that nature cannot account for morality (namely sacrificial love, and that there appears to be no natural cause for sacrificial love). God creating love answers all the above gloriously. But there is no evidence provided here that evolution created love, no one has even tried for very long to even provide basic attempts at giving evidence for sacrificial love among animals (that are not family). After making these statments, you said that a few posts later evolution answered this allegation (but you said you didn't know enough to fully provide evidence), but you knew enough about it that you said, evolution answered it. Just when I asked you to prove that evolution answered it, you refused. Then I made a mistake and said, animals don't have sacrificial love, a few pages back (but it was based on the conclusion of no evidence, but that doesn't matter I should not have said that). And you have been posting repeatedly on that very post, saying you have refuted everything I ever said. I even deleted the post and apologized for it, yet you bring it up in every post that you have defeated the logic here of my posts and that I am providing no evidence (now remember it was a mistake, my original OP did not make the same mistake). So I apologize, but I am going to further block you, as I don't feel you wish to debate the topics of the actual threads, but you are rather using red herrings on small errors my posts make as gotcha points that all my posts are illogical (which is a red herring). Yes I make mistakes I admit that. But I don't need to be reminded of it, after I apologized and corrected it. But I believe I have given you numerous chances to get off this attack spree and get back to the topic, but you won't. So I am blocking you until further notice. That does not mean I won't address your posts, it just means that your posts wont' be given priority.

 

[Moral Orel]

quote the OP post with the claims that were made

Why do I need to go back to the OP? You're making claims right here. If my questioning of those claims is off topic, then you're off topic. Are you off topic?

I said that humans have the ability to love their enemies, yet there appears to be no evidence that animals can do the same. This supports the conclusion that animals have a higher form of love than animals do. This supports the conclusion that nature cannot account for morality (namely sacrificial love, and that there appears to be no natural cause for sacrificial love).

See that bolded part? That's your claim that you haven't shown evidence for. Either show evidence, or discard it. Appears to who? Just you personally? If so, then modify your claim, and I won't even complain about moving the goalposts. Just admit that what you mean is, "I personally haven't seen evidence that animals can do the same". It doesn't carry the same weight as implying that you somehow know that no one has found such evidence, though, does it?

After making these statments, you said that a few posts later evolution answered this allegation (but you said you didn't know enough to fully provide evidence), but you knew enough about it that you said, evolution answer it.

I never claimed evolution answered the problem, and I have repeatedly, and explicitly told you that I do not make that claim. I just showed you for the third time now, in the post you're currently quoting, that I did not make the claim that evolution answers your OP. Who could possibly believe this is an "honest mistake" at this point?

Just when I asked you to prove that evolution answered it, you refused.

Because it isn't my claim. I don't believe that I, personally, am capable of proving that claim, so I refuse to make it. I refuse to argue for claims that I do not make. We're addressing your claims right now. I haven't made claims about your argument, other than the fact that you have repeatedly refused to support your assertions with evidence.

Then I made a mistake and said, animals don't have sacrificial love, a few pages back. And you have been posting repeatedly on that very post, saying you have refuted everything I ever said. I even deleted the post and apologized for it, yet you bring it up in every post that you have defeated the logic here of my posts.

No, I'm not talking about the post you deleted. I admired you for deleting it when you did, but then you just came right back with a new one that you said summarizes your OP. I'm talking about this post that you have not deleted and that you are still maintaining the claim:

There is no natural origin of sacrificial love

Show me evidence for this assertion, or admit that you have no evidence to support it.

You're going to ignore me because you refuse to acknowledge that you have no evidence to support your claims. Dismissing claims that are not backed by evidence is something that you agreed to do, and now you're going back on that. And that's because that is what all of your arguments rest on. You making wild assertions with zero evidence, and then demanding that other people prove your wrong. Your whole debate style is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of proof and you can't stand that I won't kowtow to your demands. It bugs you a lot that I spotted your gimmick and called you on it doesn't it? It's frustrating when the only trick you know just won't work, huh?

 

[createdtoworship]

Why do I need to go back to the OP? You're making claims right here. If my questioning of those claims is off topic, then you're off topic. Are you off topic?

See that bolded part? That's your claim that you haven't shown evidence for. Either show evidence, or discard it. Appears to who? Just you personally? If so, then modify your claim, and I won't even complain about moving the goalposts. Just admit that what you mean is, "I personally haven't seen evidence that animals can do the same". It doesn't carry the same weight as implying that you somehow know that no one has found such evidence, though, does it?

I never claimed evolution answered the problem, and I have repeatedly, and explicitly told you that I do not make that claim. I just showed you for the third time now, in the post you're currently quoting, that I did not make the claim that evolution answers your OP. Who could possibly believe this is an "honest mistake" at this point?

Because it isn't my claim. I don't believe that I, personally, am capable of proving that claim, so I refuse to make it. I refuse to argue for claims that I do not make. We're addressing your claims right now. I haven't made claims about your argument, other than the fact that you have repeatedly refused to support your assertions with evidence.

No, I'm not talking about the post you deleted. I admired you for deleting it when you did, but then you just came right back with a new one that you said summarizes your OP. I'm talking about this post that you have not deleted and that you are still maintaining the claim:

Show me evidence for this assertion, or admit that you have no evidence to support it.

You're going to ignore me because you refuse to acknowledge that you have no evidence to support your claims. Dismissing claims that are not backed by evidence is something that you agreed to do, and now you're going back on that. And that's because that is what all of your arguments rest on. You making wild assertions with zero evidence, and then demanding that other people prove your wrong. Your whole debate style is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of proof and you can't stand that I won't kowtow to your demands. It bugs you a lot that I spotted your gimmick and called you on it doesn't it? It's frustrating when the only trick you know just won't work, huh?

saying there appears to be no evidence is not making a claim. No more than you saying there apears to be no evidence of God, is making a claim.

if I have to provide evidence for that claim, then please provide evidence that many atheists claim:"there appears to be no evidence of God." Please prove that claim. I know you will say "I never made that claim." Yes I know. But many do. And I have not seen you make any claims. You said you are open to new perspectives and like to share your views as that is why you are here. But I haven't seen you share any views, not a single one. When you hinted you had a perspective on the OP you instantly said "I don't know enough about that." So that proves you are not qualified to speak in this thread.

anyway, this just proves that you need blocking for now.

thanks for making it easy on me, I no longer feel bad as you are doing exactly what I feared you were doing.

take care. If you are truly a happy go lucky person, I believe the word you used to describe yourself was "giddy." IF that is the case you should not find it hard to find numerous apologists willing to debate you. Please don't be offended that I am not willing to debate you anymore. I can just feel when I am not liked, and not wanted. And I haven't seen the "giddy" side of you at all, but I have seen a person who is vengeful and mean towards theists like myslef. Anyway, I don't think you will be offended at this, as I have done this to you before, but this time I am not giving you a two week grace period. This is permanent. But Like I said I will address your posts occasionally. But they will not be given priority. Take care, and good luck on CF. I hope that these talks have encouraged you to see the value in theism.

 

[Moral Orel]

saying there appears to be no evidence is not making a claim. No more than you saying there apears to be no evidence of God, is making a claim.

if I have to provide evidence for that claim, then please provide evidence that many atheists claim:"there appears to be no evidence of God." Please prove that claim that many atheists make.

anyway, this just proves that you need blocking for now.

thanks for making it easy on me, I no longer feel bad as you are doing exactly what I feared you were doing.

Sorry you don't know what a claim is. I don't claim, "There appears to be no evidence for God". I make honest claims, like, "I haven't seen any evidence for God".

 

[Moral Orel]

There is no natural origin of sacrificial love

This is a claim. Where's the evidence?