Burden of proof

[Sheldon]

Why are you afraid to apply the hypothesis method with God? He's not afraid.

Where did I say I was afraid of anything, do you have problems reading the English language? Only this is the second time now you have ignore the content of my post, and made up a false claim about me?

Here are your claims again, with my responses, see if you can honestly address what I actually wrote, and not a straw man.

Your first sentences: Gravity is the name we give to some phenomenon we observe in nature. It is observable, measurable and testable.

All of that is factually correct.

1) Replace the above with "God" since you are admitting you know gravity as cause and effect

Why would we replace an observable, testable and measurable phenomena, with an unevidenced deity?

2) Invite an atheist to interact with God, like one interacts with gravity

Gravity's effects are not unevidenced subjective or anecdotal. It affects everyone and everything, not just people who choose to accept it is real, unlike deities of course.

3) The atheist says "I don't wanna!"

Do you waste time trying to interact with all the deities you don't believe are real? You can't objectively demonstrate you have interacted with anything. Again gravity is explained and evidenced by two separate scientific theories in good standing. All you are offering here is subjective anecdotal claims.

 

[Sheldon]

If always wrong to you, you have a moral absolute,

No it doesn't mean that at all, I can be of the subjective opinion that something is always wrong, this does not make it always wrong. As was explained to you, I believe rape is always morally wrong, because it traumatises victims and causes suffering. Not everyone shares that opinion obviously, or there would not be rapes, and the deity depicted in the bible doesn't think it is always wrong, else it would not have encouraged it's followers to traffic virginal female prisoners of war as spoils in the bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

BTW: you understand that the idea that morals need to be created by a "Father of Morals" implies that moral absolutes aren't a thing, don't you?

Any moral tenet that depends on someone or something decreeing it isn't a moral absolute.

Is your declaration above absolute? Are you absolutely sure?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Love how you set up an argument and then promptly abandon it once you realise how flawed it is.

No you haven't.
You have had experiences that, for whatever reason, you attribute to a god. However, as you cannot demonstrate, measure or test any of your claims, they remain mere assertions. And as we know that people suffer hallucination and psychotic delusions, and we know that religionists with contradictory positions make the same unfounded experiential claims with the same level of certainty - the best explanation is that you were all just imagining it.

Which is a more tenable position?

1) Most people are deluded

2) Only a minority (skeptics) are uninformed/yet to have encountered God personally

?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is not what I meant. God allows things (thus making them morally acceptable to religionists) that today's laws consider rape.
So, is god wrong or the law wrong about rape? Pretty simple question, although I suspect you will have trouble presenting an answer.

Sex without consent of the other person is always wrong.

Why would my moral position on anything imply a god who proposed those morals? Especially in the context of rape, your "father of morals" displays a distinct immorality.

I think adult, informed, same-sex marriage is always morally acceptable. By your argument, I got that moral position from your god. Didn't think that through, did you?

God is correct regarding sex and consent--typically, the biblical God's stances on morality are common sense standards.

Same sex marriage is legally acceptable--we received government from God and many other wonderful benefits.

God presents some absolute morals for us, including ones related to homosexual relationships--so from a Christian position, you have a non-sequitur above.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can't think of a situation in which it would be moral.


How? And why do you think morals need to come from a deity, in order to hold true? I'm curious, where does it say in the Bible that rape is absolutely wrong?

And what about all the gray areas? Like lying. That can be a moral action or an immoral action, depending on the situation. In other words, it's not absolutely wrong in all cases. So does that point us in the opposite direction of a "Father of morals?" How does this work, exactly?

Rape is punishable by death in the OT. The Bible does not use words for absolute or subjective but both positions can be derived, for example, you are arguing subjective morals above but you do not honestly understand that the Bible presents both some absolute morals and some proscriptions for dealing with gray areas?

The Bible teaches wisdom--how to proscribe and administrate laws and live in the light of moral, righteous knowledge and behavior.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where did I say I was afraid of anything, do you have problems reading the English language? Only this is the second time now you have ignore the content of my post, and made up a false claim about me?

Here are your claims again, with my responses, see if you can honestly address what I actually wrote, and not a straw man.



All of that is factually correct.



Why would we replace an observable, testable and measurable phenomena, with an unevidenced deity?



Gravity's effects are not unevidenced subjective or anecdotal. It affects everyone and everything, not just people who choose to accept it is real, unlike deities of course.



Do you waste time trying to interact with all the deities you don't believe are real? You can't objectively demonstrate you have interacted with anything. Again gravity is explained and evidenced by two separate scientific theories in good standing. All you are offering here is subjective anecdotal claims.

Here's a claim I have tested many times:

The Bible claims that God reveals Himself to the willing and hides Himself from skeptics. Our own opposing views are yet again proof of this claim.

When atheists are challenged to pursue the Christian God in prayer, they make excuses, "Which of the many gods?" but pray to none because they prefer complaining about reality to the testing of hypotheses. When I read the Bible as an adult, I tested the Bible claims. I give money to Christian causes and God provides for me financially in non-explicable, supernatural ways. Giving 10% or more of income sounds nuts! Atheists need never worry about THAT, though, giving too much money away, do they?

You are (IMHO, tell me I'm wrong) AFRAID to pray to Jesus Christ. Again, if I'm wrong, I don't mean to use an ad hom or offend you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it doesn't mean that at all, I can be of the subjective opinion that something is always wrong, this does not make it always wrong. As was explained to you, I believe rape is always morally wrong, because it traumatises victims and causes suffering. Not everyone shares that opinion obviously, or there would not be rapes, and the deity depicted in the bible doesn't think it is always wrong, else it would not have encouraged it's followers to traffic virginal female prisoners of war as spoils in the bible.

I call baloney. Your preterist bias is showing. It was customary in the ANE to take prisoners of war as spoils, but you don't the know the Mosaic Law in this regard (surprise, surprise).

Rape IS ALWAYS wrong. You are often objectively wrong.

Imagine I'm counseling a rape victim. May I quote my friend Sheldon to you? "Subjectively, rape is always wrong, but this does not make it always wrong. You are subjectively a victim who has been traumatized, but perhaps not really and truly a victim."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is your declaration above absolute? Are you absolutely sure?

Do you understand what "absolute" means in the context of morality?

If morality is changeable - e.g. by a god - then it isn't absolute - i.e. intrinsically true.

 

[KWED]

Which is a more tenable position?

1) Most people are deluded

2) Only a minority (skeptics) are uninformed/yet to have encountered God personally

?

Your argument don't make sense because you necessarily believe that most people's beliefs are wrong, that they are mistaken or deluded, just as I do.

You actually agree with me. I just apply the argument to one more set of belief than you do. I avoid the trap of special pleading through confirmation bias that religionist usually fall into.

 

[KWED]

God is correct regarding sex and consent--typically, the biblical God's stances on morality are common sense standards.

So you don't believe that consent is always required. Therefore you condone rape under certain circumstances.
So you don't believe that rape is always wrong.
So much for your objective father of absolute morality.

Same sex marriage is legally acceptable--we received government from God and many other wonderful benefits.

So you consider same-sex marriage to be morally acceptable.

God presents some absolute morals for us, including ones related to homosexual relationships--so from a Christian position, you have a non-sequitur above.

Wait. So you believe same-sex marriage is immoral. I wish you'd make your mind up. I guess this is what happens when you rely on Bronze Age, Middle Eastern customs for your morality rather than reason and empathy.

 

[KWED]

Rape is punishable by death in the OT. The Bible does not use words for absolute or subjective but both positions can be derived, for example, you are arguing subjective morals above but you do not honestly understand that the Bible presents both some absolute morals and some proscriptions for dealing with gray areas?

The Bible teaches wisdom--how to proscribe and administrate laws and live in the light of moral, righteous knowledge and behavior.

Like most ancient scripture, the Bible does not really contain the concept of rape as we know it. Also, god explicitly promotes and condones rape, so claiming it is Biblically an absolute moral wrong is demonstrably false.

 

[KWED]

Here's a claim I have tested many times:

The Bible claims that God reveals Himself to the willing and hides Himself from skeptics. Our own opposing views are yet again proof of this claim.

When atheists are challenged to pursue the Christian God in prayer, they make excuses, "Which of the many gods?" but pray to none because they prefer complaining about reality to the testing of hypotheses. When I read the Bible as an adult, I tested the Bible claims. I give money to Christian causes and God provides for me financially in non-explicable, supernatural ways. Giving 10% or more of income sounds nuts! Atheists need never worry about THAT, though, giving too much money away, do they?

You are (IMHO, tell me I'm wrong) AFRAID to pray to Jesus Christ. Again, if I'm wrong, I don't mean to use an ad hom or offend you.

Ah, the old "If you believe in god, he will show himself to you" argument. Talk about question begging! It is such an incoherent argument that I am genuinely surprised every time someone uses it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rape is punishable by death in the OT. The Bible does not use words for absolute or subjective but both positions can be derived, for example, you are arguing subjective morals above but you do not honestly understand that the Bible presents both some absolute morals and some proscriptions for dealing with gray areas?

The Bible teaches wisdom--how to proscribe and administrate laws and live in the light of moral, righteous knowledge and behavior.

You are also arguing subjective morals, you just don't seem to realize it.

The Bible hasn't taught me any wisdom when it comes to its declarations about morality (according to God). I don't support slavery. I don't support killing gay people or unruly children, despite what some deity in an old book supposedly says about it. I derive my morality from an assessment of the consequences of my actions in a particular situation, on myself and on those around me. So while the idea that I care about morality at all is subjective, the assessment of the consequences of our actions can actually be objective, when we have a goal in mind. My goal is the well-being of sentient creatures, because that's what I think morality is about. So in any particular situation, there will be actions that enhance the well-being of sentient creatures and actions that don't enhance the well-being of sentient creatures. I have no evidence that the God you worship cares at all about the well-being of sentient creatures, and so I dismiss that subjective opinion in favour of my methodology.

One of the Ten Commandments (you know, like the big important ones) is not to bear false witness. This is supposedly absolute wisdom and morality, right? Why then, can I think of a situation in which the more moral action would be that I should lie to my neighbour instead of telling the truth? Like if I was hiding Anne Frank in my attic and the Nazis showed up at my door looking for Jews. The most moral action I could carry out in that situation would be to lie right to those Nazis faces. But the Ten Commandments tells me straight up that it's wrong to do that. In fact, just the other day I had an entire conversation on the very subject of lying and the Christian I was talking to informed me that it would still be immoral to lie in the situation I've just given.

 

[Hawkins]

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

Simply another lie.

History is written by a historian who is long dead. You either believe what is written or you do not!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's a claim I have tested many times:

The Bible claims that God reveals Himself to the willing and hides Himself from skeptics. Our own opposing views are yet again proof of this claim.

The Bible's claim on this are wrong then. That's a nice convenient thing to include though, when you're trying dismiss any questioning of it's authority.

If this God "hides from skeptics" then "he" is not a loving God who wants the best for all of his little creations. This God should and would know exactly what it would take to convince a skeptic of "his" existence. It should be trivially easy for that God, if "he" actually cared to.

When atheists are challenged to pursue the Christian God in prayer, they make excuses, "Which of the many gods?" but pray to none because they prefer complaining about reality to the testing of hypotheses. When I read the Bible as an adult, I tested the Bible claims. I give money to Christian causes and God provides for me financially in non-explicable, supernatural ways. Giving 10% or more of income sounds nuts! Atheists need never worry about THAT, though, giving too much money away, do they?

You are (IMHO, tell me I'm wrong) AFRAID to pray to Jesus Christ. Again, if I'm wrong, I don't mean to use an ad hom or offend you.

I guess I have to point out yet again that many of us atheists used to actually be Christians, and have done all of this already.

This is basically just one of those old Christian canards that somebody tells you guys in order to attempt to demonize atheists. Apparently it works, because I've heard this a bunch of times.

I'm not going to go over your claims that God provides for you when you donate money, because we've already been down that road before (a couple of times) and you've thoroughly demonstrated that you can't actually back up those claims and not only that, but your analysis of them demonstrated that your conclusions are clouded by confirmation bias and cherry picking.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I call baloney. Your preterist bias is showing. It was customary in the ANE to take prisoners of war as spoils, but you don't the know the Mosaic Law in this regard (surprise, surprise).

Rape IS ALWAYS wrong. You are often objectively wrong.

Oh okay, so it was customary in the ANE to "take prisoners of war as spoils" so that makes it moral?

Imagine I'm counseling a rape victim. May I quote my friend Sheldon to you? "Subjectively, rape is always wrong, but this does not make it always wrong. You are subjectively a victim who has been traumatized, but perhaps not really and truly a victim."

That is a complete misrepresentation of what that poster said.

 

[KWED]

I give money to Christian causes and God provides for me financially in non-explicable, supernatural ways.

Firstly, no he doesn't. It is coincidence at most.
Second, this is one of the more distasteful aspects of faith. The belief that god has singled you out for special treatment while ignoring the heartfelt prayers of the devout parents with the dying child, or the captive women being raped, or any number of examples of people in genuine, desperate need.
God turns his back on their agonised pleas for help in order to bung you a few quid that you don't really need (or pass an exam or get a loan or any number of examples of the everyday things people claim god has done for them).

Giving 10% or more of income sounds nuts! Atheists need never worry about THAT, though, giving too much money away, do they?

What are you on about? Atheists give to charity all the time.
What's more, we do it purely for the benefit of the recipient, to help the needy. Religionists do it in order to avoid punishment or gain reward (as you just admitted). Religionists giving to charity is basically an act of self-interest. The atheist gains nothing. So who is occupying the moral high-ground now?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Simply another lie.

History is written by a historian who is long dead. You either believe what is written or you do not!

My belief is in spirituality

 

[Hawkins]

My belief is in spirituality

On the contrary, humans exclusively rely on testimonies to get to truths. History is just an example. Our daily news is another. The death tolls of covid-19 have been listed on a daily basis for almost two years. Which day's figure was ever made evident to you? It means humans don't rely on evidence to get to such a kind of truth. They rely on faith in testimonies instead. The covid-19 figure are from those small group of professionals responsible for collecting and counting the figures, we trust with faith in the works, and trust with faith that the media listed those figures faithfully.

Similarly, we trust with faith in the testimonies of those having an encounter with God. That's what Christianity is. God is a result of testimonies from those who encountered Him at different points of history but all portray a God with the same set of characteristics.