Burden of proof

[Spirit of Light]

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.

I dont

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Um, those figures aren't based on "faith in testimonies."

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.

I don't.

And all DO NOT "portray a God with the same set of characteristics." Everyone seems to have their own idea of what God is, complete with their own set of characteristics. That's why we have so many different denominations of just Christianity alone, never mind the rest.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

1) It was a general argument--God does reveal Himself proactively (C.S. Lewis comes to mind here).

2) It is Jesus's stated argument, repeated in different ways, and the apostles made similar arguments.

3) It is a true argument. We who drank the Kool Aid can only explain the illogic of others by their stubborn willfulness.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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).

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?

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

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.


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.

"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.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'm saying that "absolute" morality would meet two criteria:

- it's inherent: if it had to be created by God, then it isn't inherent.

- it's universal: if God weren't subject to it (and if God were to exist), it's not universal.

And you say that "God's moral standards aren't changeable," but if morality was created by God, then they changed at least once (when he imposed them).

Basically, your statement "God gives moral absolutes" is a contradiction in terms: if a moral standard came from God, it's not absolute.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

And do you think that what the Bible says about sex and consent is from God?

 

[Sheldon]

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.

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.

God does not condone rape

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

And in response, Lot - described in the Bible as "righteous" - offered his daughters up to be raped instead.

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.

Are you judging the ancient Israelites by the standards of their time and place or by "God's standard" that you claim exists (and that you claim is unchanging)?

 

[Sheldon]

Why don't you support killing gay people?

What a particular nasty and iodic thing to ask, why on earth would killing someone who happened to be gay, be less immoral than killing someone who happened to be straight?

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?

No, you are breathtakingly ignorant if you think evolution "informs us" how to behave. Also homosexuality has been evidenced in many other species, not just humans.

BE CONSISTENT.

You're embarrassing yourself, not for the first time either.

 

[KWED]

1) It was a general argument--God does reveal Himself proactively (C.S. Lewis comes to mind here).

No it is question begging.

2) It is Jesus's stated argument, repeated in different ways, and the apostles made similar arguments.

It is irrelevant who made an argument if it is incoherent.

3) It is a true argument. We who drank the Kool Aid can only explain the illogic of others by their stubborn willfulness.

What is the "Kool Aid" that rational sceptics have drank?
The irony here is that your argument applies perfectly to religionists. You have (mostly) drank the Kool Aid of childhood indoctrination and have to justify to yourself why so many people dismantle and reject your beliefs. It is a classic religious cop-out, how god "misguides" people.

 

[KWED]

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.

But the offence being punished is "adultery", not "rape". Also note that the man is only killed if the victim is betrothed to be married. If not, he is find and has to marry her - which is completely rational.
It also assumes that a rape victim who does not cry out is consenting, which is also obvious nonsense ("scream and I'll kill you").

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

People in the ANE were not all monsters. Innate human empathy means that people knew being forced against your will was something wrong - but only in certain circumstances. God allows his followers to rape women on some occasions, so it is clearly not an absolute issue.

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.

In Numbers 31, god tells the Israelites to leave the virgins alive as sex slaves. What word would you use for having sex with such captives, other than "rape"?

Regarding Deuteronomy 20, the International Journal of Human Rights said... 'The advocacy of rape in war was prevalent throughout ancient Near East history and is evident in the Hebrew Bible: women are frequently depicted as mere objects of male possession and control. Biblical references clearly illustrate this point in relation to the treatment of women in wartime, where they were regarded as 'spoils of war'.

The concept of "consent" was not really a thing in its own right. Marriage or ownership brought the right of sexual access. A man could not be punished for raping his wife or slave girl because the concept was incoherent.

 

[KWED]

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

But as god never mentions consent, you presumably agree that it is not required and no offence has been committed as long as the woman is legally available to you through marriage or ownership.

I didn't say same-sex marriage is morally acceptable. I said it is the legal law of the land under consent.

You said "Same sex marriage is legally acceptable--we received government from God and many other wonderful benefits."
This implies that what the government determines is approved by god, and you consider same sex marriage to be a "wonderful benefit".

It damages partners and their children and others.

No it doesn't. The opposite, in fact. Allowing people to marry who they love (adult, informed, consensual) can only be a benefit to all those involved.

I use a book of hundreds of moral laws, principles, precepts, suggestions and commands to form moral concepts

So you admit that you simply accept what was considered "moral" in the ancient Near East, as universally moral, and will not consider anything that contradicts that.

(that underlie rehabilitation and prison rather than capital and corporal punishment, due process, freedoms of speech and religion, foundations for society and more)

Whuh? You certainly don'y get all that from the Bible.

and you use "reason and empathy".

Amongst other things. Scientific evidence also plays a part. And cultural history, to an extent. Morality is a subjective, changing concept derived form a variety of elements.

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

Nonsense. Religious dogma is both unreasonable and requires empathy to be suppressed.
You are obliged to believe extraordinary claims on faith alone (unreasonable) and need to accept that a completely unjust and unreasonable punishment is justified simply because some people are not like you (unempathetic).

 

[KWED]

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

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".

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.

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.

You are asking for proof of God--TITHE. I double-dog dare you.

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).

"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

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

 

[KWED]

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

"I did OCD things trying to obey the Bible" and etc.

You mean like paying a tithe?

 

[KWED]

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.

Yet again, a creationist shows us that they have no idea about what evolution is or how it works.