A rational response to the bare bones claim that: "there is a god", is not to refute it in kind with a bare bones denial, or refutation. An appropriate and rational response would be "Why do you believe there is a god?". To respond according to "Hitchen's Razor", with something like: "No there isn't" is just childish IMO.

not merely. its understandably so.

The point is that being unconvinced of the truth of a statement in no way prepares one to reasonably refute it.

Without being given a usable reason to believe the assertion, one ought to remain unconvinced.

Granted. Unsupported assertions can be reasonably dismissed, but not reasonably refuted.

One ought to remain unconvinced despite pseudo-reasoning as well, yet we have theists…

Even the most careful reasoning rests on unsupported assumptions, yet we have atheists who naively think that simply by denying the existence of god, they somehow rise above what the rest of us are still held back by.

If there truly was no proof (convincing evidence) that a certain assertion is true, this lack of evidence wouldn't be grounds to refute the assertion, merely to take the position of being unconvinced.

Yes.

It's a good pointed question, and it's interesting to watch as people avoid directly answering it. Someone who murders a pregnant woman can, at least in many states here in the US, be charged with double homicide regardless of what stage of development the fetus is at. So the state has already established interest in protecting the unborn child's right to life.

Since this debates scope is so narrow Try this one

Testing "Clarify" Feature .

I seriously think that we're arguing from different point of view.

I think you might be on to something...WE ARE different people!

Suffering is beneficial in that it helps us to avoid allowing harmful behavior to continue. I don't think of it as a complicated philosophical realization.

Here..I stole this quote and I'm giving it to you for free!

“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.” ~ Buddha

~laughs~ I wrote that.....silly person !

"The violent eye

can never see a defeat

without injury" ~atypican

I already explain the differences above.

I remain unsatisfied.

You might want to read more before making comment sir. Please read through my comment above before another question.

Your presumption that I haven't considered your comments is unwarranted.

If its unclear, you can ask me to expand on any fuzzy issue.

No thanks. I am not into one sided conversations where I am expected to be open to having my thinking challenged and you won't be open in the same way. I am not your pupil.

You are confusing yourself not knowing the differences between Lacking of desire and contentment. Many people made this mistake.

Ok. Help me out then. Explain the difference.

This is the way I see it. Religion (like it or not) affects our personality. It plays a key role in the development of a person's (or group's) value system. It has a profound effect on what we are curious about. Also what we are passionate about.

I am not inclined to study the context of the quote, but I believe it is unrealistic to discuss science and religion as being mutually excludable.

Religion influences what we study, Science consists of the most useful theories we have developed by applying the scientific method to those studies.

Only if you also reject the authority of whoever typed those definitions. LOL

Of course they're feasible. The problem is they are not preferable (to enough people).

I suspect the vast majority of people prefer to be subordinate. Sure it stinks when you have to ask for the permission of a government agency to do so many ordinary things, but were all kept so safe remember. lol.

"competition by definition must cause some degree of harm to the losers."

That is not true. I compete as often as I can. I gain more from losses than I do wins.