Burden of proof

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I did not make an absolute statement "all true Christians do not become atheists" I made an anecdotal statement, "I've spoken to many atheists who were religious Christians, even OCD in their practice, but not devout Christians."

You will then claim another NTS if I say "Devout Christians have a relationship with Jesus and trust Him for salvation as opposed to attending a church and being religious," but that's another story--the story of the Bible that the true Christian is born again (Jesus's statement, the founder of Christianity).

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

So an atheist who gives $50 here and there is more noble than someone who gives a compulsory 10% then a willing additional 20% of income? No.

The Bible defines giving as free will, cheerful.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.



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

Not immoral in the given context. Homosexuals who were practicing in public in the Exodus (God visible constantly as a pillar of fire and smoke) were to be killed--the obvious context being hurting children and culture.

Again regarding "raping female prisoners" you do not know the law for what female captives were to do and Israel was to do. Look it up.

 

[KWED]

I did not make an absolute statement "all true Christians do not become atheists"

Never claimed you did, it was the implication of your statement, which was clearly a NTS.

 

[KWED]

So an atheist who gives $50 here and there is more noble than someone who gives a compulsory 10%

Absolutely, yes.

then a willing additional 20% of income?

If you expect something in return for it, then yes again.

Also, amounts and percentages are irrelevant if we don't know what the starting point is.
Someone living on the poverty line cannot effort to give anything, while £10,000 or 10% makes no difference to a millionaire.

The Bible defines giving as free will, cheerful.

So why are you obliged to give? And if there are conditions attached (threats and reward) it is not really free, it is coerced.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Natural selection is a prime mover when it comes to evolution. It doesn't apply to my morality and wouldn't even make sense if it did. Evolution is just a description of a biological process.

Like I said about 17 times now, I don't take my morality from observing scientific theories about how life has diversified any more than I base my morality on the germ theory of disease or plate tectonics. Why would I? What I base my morality on, is a rational assessment of the consequences of my actions on myself and those around me with the goal of the optimizing the well-being of sentient creatures.

How many more times do I need to explain that to you?

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?"

What does infinite regression have to do with it?
And why do you keep referring to evolution?

Why is my goal the optimization of the well-being of sentient creatures? Well, because I am a sentient creature. And I'm surrounded by other sentient creatures that I have to share the planet with. It's beneficial to myself and to everyone else to care about well-being, and if morality is about anything, it's about well-being. Otherwise, why would we even care to make a distinction between a good action or a bad one?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not immoral in the given context. Homosexuals who were practicing in public in the Exodus (God visible constantly as a pillar of fire and smoke) were to be killed--the obvious context being hurting children and culture.

Again regarding "raping female prisoners" you do not know the law for what female captives were to do and Israel was to do. Look it up.

Given context? Looks like you don't believe in "absolute" morality after all. Welcome to the club!

So do you support killing gay people who "practice in public?" And can you explain how "homosexuals who were practicing in public" hurt "children and culture?" And then can you explain why they should have their lives taken from them?

(Boy am I glad I'm not stuck having to adhere to bronze age ideas of morality.)

 

[Sheldon]

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?"

Evolution isn't sentient, it doesn't have a purpose. You are seeing agency where there is none. Humans have evolved a brain than enables a level of autonomy governed by circumstance, thus we are able to contemplate the consequences of our actions, you may not care about causing unecessary suffering, but I do.

 

[Sheldon]

How many more times do I need to explain that to you?

I'm guessing @BilliardsBall misrepresentation is deliberate at this point.

 

[Sheldon]

Not immoral in the given context. Homosexuals who were practicing in public in the Exodus (God visible constantly as a pillar of fire and smoke) were to be killed--the obvious context being hurting children and culture.

There is no context in which is moral to murder someone because they happen to be gay. Again that is an appalling and repugnant idea.

Again regarding "raping female prisoners" you do not know the law for what female captives were to do and Israel was to do. Look it up.

Again there is no context in which rape is acceptable or moral, and having falsely accused me of believing it was contextual, you are now claiming to believe it is contextual yourself.

Non consensual sex is never acceptable, and anyone who thinks it is has no moral compassed, as far as I am concerned.

 

[KWED]

Why is my goal the optimization of the well-being of sentient creatures? Well, because I am a sentient creature. And I'm surrounded by other sentient creatures that I have to share the planet with. It's beneficial to myself and to everyone else to care about well-being, and if morality is about anything, it's about well-being. Otherwise, why would we even care to make a distinction between a good action or a bad one?

It appears that dogmatic religious belief and empathy are incompatible. Who knew?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It appears that dogmatic religious belief and empathy are incompatible. Who knew?

A horrifying thought.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Absolutely, yes.

If you expect something in return for it, then yes again.

Also, amounts and percentages are irrelevant if we don't know what the starting point is.
Someone living on the poverty line cannot effort to give anything, while £10,000 or 10% makes no difference to a millionaire.

So why are you obliged to give? And if there are conditions attached (threats and reward) it is not really free, it is coerced.

Okay, you give because you are "good, moral"? When did atheists accept that these things EXIST (new atheists/Dawkins/Hitchens).

Give it all away from the goodness (whatever that is) of your heart (whatever that is). We will rot and corrupt under the ground and 10 years from then, much less 1,000, we will be forgotten. Jesus rising from the dead is the counter to THIS reality for atheists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Natural selection is a prime mover when it comes to evolution. It doesn't apply to my morality and wouldn't even make sense if it did. Evolution is just a description of a biological process.

Like I said about 17 times now, I don't take my morality from observing scientific theories about how life has diversified any more than I base my morality on the germ theory of disease or plate tectonics. Why would I? What I base my morality on, is a rational assessment of the consequences of my actions on myself and those around me with the goal of the optimizing the well-being of sentient creatures.

How many more times do I need to explain that to you?


What does infinite regression have to do with it?
And why do you keep referring to evolution?

Why is my goal the optimization of the well-being of sentient creatures? Well, because I am a sentient creature. And I'm surrounded by other sentient creatures that I have to share the planet with. It's beneficial to myself and to everyone else to care about well-being, and if morality is about anything, it's about well-being. Otherwise, why would we even care to make a distinction between a good action or a bad one?

What will your morality mean when you are dead and buried? Resurrect!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Given context? Looks like you don't believe in "absolute" morality after all. Welcome to the club!

So do you support killing gay people who "practice in public?" And can you explain how "homosexuals who were practicing in public" hurt "children and culture?" And then can you explain why they should have their lives taken from them?

(Boy am I glad I'm not stuck having to adhere to bronze age ideas of morality.)

You want me to explain how two men or two women having sex in a public place affects children?!

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no context in which is moral to murder someone because they happen to be gay. Again that is an appalling and repugnant idea.



Again there is no context in which rape is acceptable or moral, and having falsely accused me of believing it was contextual, you are now claiming to believe it is contextual yourself.

Non consensual sex is never acceptable, and anyone who thinks it is has no moral compassed, as far as I am concerned.

It's hard to talk to you when you conflate "execution under the law" with murder--and support people having sex in public where children can see them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay, you give because you are "good, moral"? When did atheists accept that these things EXIST (new atheists/Dawkins/Hitchens).

What things exist, morals? And why the mention of Hitchens and Dawkins?

Give it all away from the goodness (whatever that is) of your heart (whatever that is). We will rot and corrupt under the ground and 10 years from then, much less 1,000, we will be forgotten. Jesus rising from the dead is the counter to THIS reality for atheists.

You don't know what the goodness of your heart refers to? It's about doing a good thing for the sake of doing a good thing, because, you know, it helps others. Is this really a foreign concept to you?
I don't know what the fact that we are all going to die and be forgotten has to do with it. Perhaps you could elucidate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What will your morality mean when you are dead and buried? Resurrect!

If there are still other people around it will mean the same to them as it did to me.

What does the fact that I'm going to die have to do with anything? Is the only reason you do any good things is because you think you're getting rewarded with some afterlife?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You want me to explain how two men or two women having sex in a public place affects children?!

That's what you meant by "practicing in public?" You think "practicing" being gay means having sex in public? And you support killing such people? Good grief. This is getting silly and a bit scary.
Weird how you mention that but not people who "practice" being straight in public. Whoever these people are. Does the Bible say we should kill them too? Do you live somewhere where there is a lot of public sex going on?

 

[Sheldon]

Okay, you give because you are "good, moral"? When did atheists accept that these things EXIST (new atheists/Dawkins/Hitchens).

Why wouldn't an atheist be able to understand these things exist? That's just a bizarre question. You seem to have a very distorted view of what an atheist is, and little understanding of the subjective nature of morality.

Give it all away from the goodness (whatever that is) of your heart (whatever that is).

Well those are your expressions, so one would think you'd know what they mean, and why you think they are apropos here? If you're asking why an atheist tries to help others, I can only speak for myself, and has always been out of empathy and altruism. Don't you want to help others, if you can and they need it?

We will rot and corrupt under the ground and 10 years from then, much less 1,000, we will be forgotten.

So what?

Jesus rising from the dead is the counter to THIS reality for atheists.

It's an appeal to mystery, a claim for supernatural magic that is unsupported by any objective evidence, so I don't believe it, so I fail to see what your point is here?