Burden of proof

[KWED]

Are you claiming that if God gives some moral absolutes (there are ceremonial, legal and moral Mosaic laws) and then suggests that we judge with wisdom in what we perceive to be a conundrum or a gray area that something is wrong? That doesn't mean God's moral standards are changeable. It implies we have difficulty seeing the standards because we are fallen people.

The issue of universal, absolute objective divine morality is essentially incoherent.
1. If god decides what is moral or not, then it is subjective and non-universal as it was decided upon by god at some point. It could have been something different.
2. If god merely informs us of what is moral or not because those things are universal and absolute, then they are outside of his capacity to determine which means god is not the ultimate authority.

So where do you stand? 1 or 2.

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't say same-sex marriage is morally acceptable. It damages partners and their children and others.

That is utter nonsense, and of course it is vile homophobic bigotry. Next time you or any other theist, is whining about atheists commenting on the religious beliefs of others, you might want to remember this shameful piece of religiously motivated hate speech.

 

[Sheldon]

The issue of universal, absolute objective divine morality is essentially incoherent.
1. If god decides what is moral or not, then it is subjective and non-universal as it was decided upon by god at some point. It could have been something different.

2. If god merely informs us of what is moral or not because those things are universal and absolute, then they are outside of his capacity to determine which means god is not the ultimate authority.

Good points, and another thought occurs to me, we are either able to determine what is moral, or are not, if we are then we have no need of divine diktat, and if we are not then we cannot assert that divine diktat is moral. Either way we end up with subjective morality, or no morality.

After decades of these discussions, it still strikes how the truth that all morality is subjective strikes absolute fear into most theists. As if acknowledging this truth, would turn us all instantly into depraved murdering rapists on the spot.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is an appalling and ignorant assertion, silence is never consent. Many victims of rape report being paralysed with fear, unable to move or make a sound, it is quite a well known phenomenon.



Numbers 31
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

It certainly is--but you admit you see the principle. Rape = death for the rapist, adultery equals death for the participants.

Yes, I understand Numbers 31--you do not know the laws regarding captives and marriage. I've read the whole Bible and not just Google bits from atheists sites.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is utter nonsense, and of course it is vile homophobic bigotry. Next time you or any other theist, is whining about atheists commenting on the religious beliefs of others, you might want to remember this shameful piece of religiously motivated hate speech.

Some discrimination is good. There are some things that we can do to protect children and adults.

Of course being an atheist, your notion of "hate speech" is not Darwinian, and is subjective. Homosexuality if it increases threatens the species from the Darwinist's perspective.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've heard this No True Scotsman from many apologists.

You mean like paying a tithe?

If that's true (your NTS misapplication, it's not born agains who are true Christians) then most atheists at RF ARE Christians. So since we're both Christians, let's not argue.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, but what I give, I give because it helps those less fortunate, not because I am required to give.
You are not "donating to charity". You are "paying a tax".

And yet, millions of devout people suffer and die horribly (including many babies and children). God does nothing to help them despite their heartfelt prayers, but he takes the time to bung you a few quid. Your argument displays with a lack of reason and a lack of empathy.

The proof that any benefit you may imagine is just coincidence is in the people who do tithe and yet still suffer poverty, loss, illness, etc.
(This is where you claim either No True Scotsman or that they are actually benefiting in some undetectable way).

So god decides who suffers and who gains, and we should just shut up and accept it.
Nice.
And so much for free will.

I give above 10%. You give far less. What is your point, really? That you're "good"? Good people cannot survive in a utopia and will not be permitted within.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's NOT what I said, I said God is correct regarding sex AND consent.

I didn't say same-sex marriage is morally acceptable. It damages partners and their children and others. I said it is the legal law of the land under consent.

Here's the real issue that you've outlined:

I use a book of hundreds of moral laws, principles, precepts, suggestions and commands to form moral concepts (that underlie rehabilitation and prison rather than capital and corporal punishment, due process, freedoms of speech and religion, foundations for society and more) and you use "reason and empathy".

Reason = logic = Jesus IS THE LOGOS OR LOGIC OF GOD (John 1).

Empathy = Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep (Romans 12) which is far beyond your standard of "empathy" = JESUS EMPHASIZED, SYMPATHIZED, FORGAVE on the cross per the Bible.

Scholars have long know reason and empathy point to a Creator.

"I didn't say same-sex marriage is morally acceptable. It damages partners and their children and others."

No it does not.

"Scholars have long know reason and empathy point to a Creator"

That makes zero sense and is a dubious claim, at best. Just equating reason with logic with Jesus isn't a demonstration of that. Not even close.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You give 10% and more of your income before taxes? Honestly?

Yes, He does. God DOES single out individuals and groups for issues and you can't even see the butterfly effect of God's many wise decisions. You are asking for proof of God--TITHE. I double-dog dare you.

"Does not the potter have the right over the clay? The thing molded tells the molder it's wrong to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, one for common use?" Romans

You'll need to demonstrate that for once, rather than just asserting it over and over.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"I used to be a Christian" is something I've heard from many atheists. Not really "I trusted Jesus" or "Jesus and I had a relationship" but "I did OCD things trying to obey the Bible" and etc.

This logical fallacy does nothing to address anything I said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why don't you support killing gay people? Doesn't evolution inform us that if gays do not procreate in the animal kingdom that they are not procreating due to the impetus of natural selection? BE CONSISTENT.

I don't support killing gay people because it extinguishes their life, and their only chance at well-being. I.e. It does harm to them. Whether or not they can procreate has nothing to do with anything and by the way, they can procreate, as they have genitals like everyone else.

I don't get my morality from evolutionary principles. Please pay attention. Again, I get it from a rational analysis of the consequences of my actions on myself and those around me with the goal of optimizing the well-being of sentient creatures. It's bizarre to me that this is so difficult for some people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What comes to mind are parallel verses--if a man takes a woman and she does not cry out--they are adulterers--if she cries out [obviously, "help, rape!"] he is to be put to death, she is exonerated.

There are also stories of people raping and abusing others. The men of Sodom sought to rape the angels, very obvious in the text.

God does not condone rape and the Israelites treated captives, slaves, women and children far differently than others in the ANE. You are combining a presentist bias with a lack of knowledge about the Bible and ANE, respectfully.

How disgusting and archaic. I'm so glad I don't look to ancient bronze age tribes for my morality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some discrimination is good. There are some things that we can do to protect children and adults.

Of course being an atheist, your notion of "hate speech" is not Darwinian, and is subjective. Homosexuality if it increases threatens the species from the Darwinist's perspective.

If it did, there wouldn't be any gay people around anymore. And yet, there are.

This is a silly argument anyway... if everyone were a woman, that would threaten the existence of the species as well. Same thing if everyone born from here-on-out were a man. So being a man or a woman can be immoral too, from this ludicrous perspective.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I give above 10%. You give far less. What is your point, really? That you're "good"? Good people cannot survive in a utopia and will not be permitted within.

What does the Bible say about constantly bragging about your good deeds?

 

[KWED]

If that's true (your NTS misapplication, it's not born agains who are true Christians) then most atheists at RF ARE Christians. So since we're both Christians, let's not argue.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but you have certainly misunderstood the NTS in question.
You claimed that atheist ex-Christians weren't really Christians in the first place as they didn't really know Jesus. That is a classic NTS - ie. no true Christian would become an atheist.

 

[KWED]

I give above 10%. You give far less. What is your point, really? That you're "good"?

So, no response to my point about you only doing "good" because you are told to (a tax), and because you expect something in return (self-interest), but atheists have no motivation other than the desire to help others.
The only rational conclusion is that atheists are more charitable than Christians.
QED.

Good people cannot survive in a utopia and will not be permitted within.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Yazata]

The burden of proof lies with the one who claim to know, or claim his or her belief is the one true belief.

I think that the phrase 'burden of proof' is a little misleading. It should probably be, 'burden of being persuasive'. That's because proofs aren't typically encountered outside mathematics and formal logic.

So upon whom does it lie?

I say that the 'burden of being persuasive' lies on whoever wants to convince somebody else of something that the other person doesn't already accept. If we hope to change that person's mind, we have to give them a reason why they might want to agree with us.

I don't think that my believing that I know X places any rhetorical burden on me. I only assume that burden when I want to convince somebody else that I really do know X or that X is really true,

 

[Sheldon]

It certainly is--but you admit you see the principle. Rape = death for the rapist, adultery equals death for the participants.

I admitted no such thing, it's appalling enough to draw any kind of moral equivalence between unmarried sex, and rape, but to suggest the former deserves to put to death is appallingly immoral.

Yes, I understand Numbers 31--you do not know the laws regarding captives and marriage.

So you condone the rape of female prisoners then, good grief. Again that is an appallingly immoral notion.

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't say same-sex marriage is morally acceptable. It damages partners and their children and others.

That is utter nonsense, and of course it is vile homophobic bigotry. Next time you or any other theist, is whining about atheists commenting on the religious beliefs of others, you might want to remember this shameful piece of religiously motivated hate speech.

Some discrimination is good. There are some things that we can do to protect children and adults.

Gobbledygook, what on earth that has to do with my response to appalling homophobic hate speech is anyone's guess.

Of course being an atheist, your notion of "hate speech" is not Darwinian, and is subjective.

What on earth are you talking about? I can only suggest you learn what hate speech means.

Homosexuality if it increases threatens the species from the Darwinist's perspective.

What a particularly acidotic claim. why would homosexuality increase, and why if it did would it threaten anything? It is clear that homosexuality is ubiquitous among many species, thus it has evolved and is natural.

The evidence suggests that gay couples make better than average parents, but your religious bigotry has blinded you sadly. Again this is one reason it is important to challenge religious ideas, as some of them are deeply pernicious, as we see here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't support killing gay people because it extinguishes their life, and their only chance at well-being. I.e. It does harm to them. Whether or not they can procreate has nothing to do with anything and by the way, they can procreate, as they have genitals like everyone else.

I don't get my morality from evolutionary principles. Please pay attention. Again, I get it from a rational analysis of the consequences of my actions on myself and those around me with the goal of optimizing the well-being of sentient creatures. It's bizarre to me that this is so difficult for some people.

You are inconsistent because you say natural selection is a prime mover and then create subjective morality that goes against it.

You don't see the problem of infinite regression, now it must become "Why is your goal optimizing the well-being of sentient creatures if natural selection demands survival which frequently runs counter to your goal?"